You are NEVER hooked in.

[Tad Eareckson]

Not really, but it needs more 'right' notes

1. I thought I was supposed to winnow it down.
2. So what did I omit?

Checkmate!

Bullshit. Red herring.

I know I've said this here a couple hundred times before but...

The big killer is the unhooked launch. That's what we're trying to prevent, the hook-in check is the cure, and that's ALL it's intended and good for. (Caveat: If you don't have your leg loops your harness is hooked in but you're not.)

People are commonly mangled and killed launching because they're distracted by and focused on minor, trivial, useless, and counterproductive bullshit...

- bar clearance
- soaring conditions
- chest buckles
- twisted suspension
- parachute bridles
- helmet buckles
- cameras
- radios
- locking carabiners
- backup loops

...and totally sucking on threat prioritization. And the threat of a dangling carabiner - given that the pilot and crew are halfway competent and conditions are sane - overwhelms every other consideration.

A partially hooked launch is NOT an unhooked launch.

- They are very rare events. From the entire history of hang gliding I can find only two incidents of people being injured (killed) due to partial hook-ins. The number of sidewire failure injuries and fatalities is way higher. And compare/contrast the two incidents with the numbers of people crashed, injured, crippled, killed solely due to standup landings.

- All one of my partially hooked flights were completed without incident - wire assisted high wind launch, soaring passes, landing.

- The mistake of being totally unhooked on launch is WAY easier to make than being partially hooked.

-- Proper Day One training could virtually totally eliminate the problem.

-- I one hundred percent guarantee you that if you make that mistake once you won't ever make it again.

-- The same can no way in hell be said of fully unhooked launches. Of the dozen flyers who've ever posted here on Kite Strings, one (eight and a third percent) has survived (reasonably unscathed) two fully unhooked launches. (And Christopher was prevented by a second party at launch from going off fully unhooked.)

- There is no record of anyone doing a non hang check preflight suspension check going off partially unhooked.

- The odds are high that a partially hooked in flight can be safely completed.

- If the nose of the carabiner DOES slip off the webbing there's a fifty/fifty chance that you'll complete the flight fully hooked in.

Be aware of the issue, be aware that it CAN kill you, make sure that EVERY TIME you hook in you see the gate fully close and/or you hear it click, and then just worry about it enough to think about it as you're gearing to commit.

- DO NOT check for it on the ramp unless you're also gonna check your sidewires - the bigger threat.
- And ferchrisake DO NOT *REPEATEDLY* check it - the way some Tom Galvin caliber moron does.

Amending a hook-in check with preflight inspections is a lot like carrying a hook knife as part of your towing equipment ('cept worse 'cause it increases risk exposure and distracts from focus on the primary threats). If you're a halfway competent pilot on a ramp or behind a tug they're never gonna be of any value.

[Steve Davy]

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=26996
Critique my radial ramp launch

Tom Galvin - 2012/08/29 16:43:06 UTC

We are human, and can not do "always". I use the Aussie method, a self hang check, then a second party hang check, a hook-in check, and Dave Hopkin's rule of three. 3 mistakes between when the glider comes off the rack to launch, then it's time to put the glider away, since I am not focused on what I am doing.

Even with all that, I know that one day, I could still launch unhooked. I am human. I can only mitigate the risks, not eliminate them.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours. - Richard Bach

[miguel]

Not really, but it needs more 'right' notes.

1. I thought I was supposed to winnow it down.
2. So what did I omit?

The pdf rambles and looses focus. There are a few of these guys swimming around:



You know what magazine writing calls for. Write the article like it is going to be sent to a magazine. Target it to the H0s to H3s. H4s know everything about everything so no point in writing to them.

Checkmate!

Bullshit. Red herring.

I know I've said this here a couple hundred times before but...

The big killer is the unhooked launch. That's what we're trying to prevent, the hook-in check is the cure, and that's ALL it's intended and good for. (Caveat: If you don't have your leg loops your harness is hooked in but you're not.)

Refer back to the picture. I believe that one of the Wright brothers posted the original pic. Would you not agree that he was very lucky in that the loop stayed put and did not "unhook".

Red herring indeed!

People are commonly mangled and killed launching because they're distracted by and focused on minor, trivial, useless, and counterproductive bullshit...

- bar clearance
- soaring conditions
- chest buckles
- twisted suspension
- parachute bridles
- helmet buckles
- cameras
- radios
- locking carabiners
- backup loops

...and totally sucking on threat prioritization. And the threat of a dangling carabiner - given that the pilot and crew are halfway competent and conditions are sane - overwhelms every other consideration.

String a few facts together to burnish semi fiction into truth.

A partially hooked launch is NOT an unhooked launch.

Semantically true, BUT, a partially hooked launch CAN result in an unhooked launch.

- They are very rare events. From the entire history of hang gliding I can find only two incidents of people being injured (killed) due to partial hook-ins. The number of sidewire failure injuries and fatalities is way higher.

Red Herring Alert

And compare/contrast the two incidents with the numbers of people crashed, injured, crippled, killed solely due to standup landings.

Red Herring Alert

- All one of my partially hooked flights were completed without incident - wire assisted high wind launch, soaring passes, landing.

- The mistake of being totally unhooked on launch is WAY easier to make than being partially hooked.

However, the result of a partially hooked CAN be the same as an unhooked launch.

-- Proper Day One training could virtually totally eliminate the problem.

-- I one hundred percent guarantee you that if you make that mistake once you won't ever make it again.

-- The same can no way in hell be said of fully unhooked launches. Of the dozen flyers who've ever posted here on Kite Strings, one (eight and a third percent) has survived (reasonably unscathed) two fully unhooked launches. (And Christopher was prevented by a second party at launch from going off fully unhooked.)

- There is no record of anyone doing a non hang check preflight suspension check going off partially unhooked.

- The odds are high that a partially hooked in flight can be safely completed.

So are the odds of winning at Russian Roulette.

- If the nose of the carabiner DOES slip off the webbing there's a fifty/fifty chance that you'll complete the flight fully hooked in.

You get better odds at Russian Roulette. 83+% chance of winning.

Be aware of the issue, be aware that it CAN kill you, make sure that EVERY TIME you hook in you see the gate fully close and/or you hear it click, and then just worry about it enough to think about it as you're gearing to commit.

True.



Red Herring Alert

- DO NOT check for it on the ramp unless you're also gonna check your sidewires - the bigger threat.
- And ferchrisake DO NOT *REPEATEDLY* check it - the way some Tom Galvin caliber moron does.

Red Herring Alert

Amending a hook-in check with preflight inspections is a lot like carrying a hook knife as part of your towing equipment ('cept worse 'cause it increases risk exposure and distracts from focus on the primary threats). If you're a halfway competent pilot on a ramp or behind a tug they're never gonna be of any value.

The rule says:

With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

You can do a simple tug and lift.



Or you can turn around, stretch the rigging and assure yourself that you are completely hooked in.



One more scenario:

You are trying out a new harness or glider. Of course, you are hanging too high or too low. What to do?

On the Heavenly Heights Launch, it is a simple matter of going over to the tree of hang loops and picking the correct length loop from the tree. They grow them to the nearest millimeter! The rest of us will probably improvise with a combination of loops and knots.

Are you going to trust the lift and tug on this one?

[Steve Davy]

I'm starting to think you got a few loose screws, Miguel.

[Tad Eareckson]

The pdf rambles and looses focus.

That's...

http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=3638
FTHI

Mike Blankenhorn - 2012/10/26 02:39:07 UTC

Wow, I never saw it put quite like that before. Great write up!

...your take.

You know what magazine writing calls for.

A REAL magazine designed to enlighten, inform, educate? Or the crap USHGA puts out designed to do the precise opposite?

Write the article like it is going to be sent to a magazine.

Yeah, maybe I should get some tips from Dr. Trisa Tilletti.

The LAST thing USHGA wants...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting

Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC

We can establish rules which we think will improve pilot safety, but our attorney is right. USHPA is not in the business of keeping pilots "safe" and it can't be. Stepping into that morass is a recipe for extinction of our association. I wish it were not so, but it is. We don't sell equipment, we don't offer instruction, and we don't assure pilots that they'll be safe. Even so, we get sued periodically by people who say we "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done something that would have averted their accident.

...is a definitive rational article geared for keeping pilots safe. The safety morass is recipe for the extinction of their association.

They want:

- to keep throwing enough shit in people's faces to keep them perpetually clueless and confused and so that the critical mass of competence which would result in them being called to account never materializes;

- people to believe that hang gliding has virtually nothing in common with conventional aviation and can't be understood and regulated on that foundation, will only become fathomable after another ten or twenty years of experience and experimentation, and in the meantime needs to be conducted based upon the opinions of people with long track records.

Besides, how could any individual POSSIBLY have an idea for fixing a problem when the organization has already, over the course of the past several decades, ALREADY done such a stellar job of making the sport as safe as possible for everyone age five and up - and earned a waiver from the FAA?

Ever notice that, while there are almost always RAGING flame wars about shit aerotow releases, standard aerotow weak links, and unhooked launches on the forums, the magazine has never heard of these issues? It will tolerate NO discussion critical of Industry Standard aerotow equipment, standard aerotow weak links, or the hang check or any mention of any strategy other than the hang check - including the idiot Aussie method - for preventing unhooked launches.

Target it to the H0s to H3s.

Here's a reaction from a Hang Three:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hhpa/
Houston Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association

Zack C - 2010/10/15 13:25:50 UTC

Speaking of which, while I can fault Tad's approach, I can't fault his logic, nor have I seen anyone here try to refute it.

But I can only get through to people with functional brains. And that wipes out all but a fraction of a percent of the people who need to get the message.

And Mike Blankenhorn's a Hang Two with only a Foot Launch signoff.

H4s know everything about everything so no point in writing to them.

Hang Fours are the assholes instructing and controlling the training programs, mountain launches, airports, clubs, forums, "accident" reports, magazine, committees, boards of directors, and policy.

Refer back to the picture. I believe that one of the Wright brothers posted the original pic. Would you not agree that he was very lucky in that the loop stayed put and did not "unhook".

If it had unhooked he'd have just reconnected it and held it back up for his brother to take another picture. It's a very obviously staged shot.

It's also been taken down. Here's the original link:



(Never hurts to archive these things to one's hard drive.)

String a few facts together to burnish semi fiction into truth.

I don't do that - and there's a pretty good record here of me not doing that.

Semantically true, BUT, a partially hooked launch CAN result in an unhooked launch.

No, it can't. It CAN, however, result in a separation after launch and a fatal plummet. But that plummet isn't any more fatal than a bunch of other assembly and preflight failures that have bitten people over the decades.

And someone who puts a glider on a launch dolly with a factory fresh Quallaby, Bailey, Lookout "release" which meets no standards and would fail any sane preflight inspection is a lot more likely to die than someone who hooks in and NEVER looks back to make sure he got it right.

Red Herring Alert

Bullshit. I'm not saying it's not an issue. I'm saying that it's an overrated issue which distracts from the biggie.

However, the result of a partially hooked CAN be the same as an unhooked launch.

Yeah, that's why we hafta preflight our equipment before we get into launch position, do our hook-in checks, and commit aviation.

So are the odds of winning at Russian Roulette.

IF you start the clock when the partial hook-in is made the risk is something in the ballpark of Russian roulette.

If you start the clock before a connection is made - include the odds of committing the error in the equation - we're talking microscopic.

Or you can turn around, stretch the rigging and assure yourself that you are completely hooked in.

If that floats your boat, fine.

I've got a single strap harness suspension and no idiot backup loop. I'm run my hand up from the base of the harness suspension to the carabiner when I clip in (from outside of the harness when convenient) very carefully and make DAMN SURE the carabiner's fully engaged when I make the connection. Making the connection and preflighting the connection are virtually the same action.

That's a critical and simple enough procedure that even a chronic and major fuckup such as myself can handle it. *IF* the harness is connected it's properly and securely connected. It's near the bottom of my list of concerns and if I'm incapable of getting that much right I don't want or deserve to live anyway. I don't need to recheck it any more than I need to check that I installed all of my battens curved end fore and right side up.

One more scenario...

1. Quote me ever saying you shouldn't do a hang check for a new/different glider/harness combo.
2. Cite an incident of someone being fucked up 'cause:
- his clearance was off
- of wraps or knots used to shorten suspension

I'm saying:

- Follow the fucking regulation which mandates a hook-in check JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH - rather than just prior to picking up the glider.

- I don't give rat's ass what you do before you pick up the glider - preferably prior to getting on the ramp - as long as you don't use it to reassure yourself that you're hooked in.

You seem to be laboring under the delusions that:

- Turning and learning nothing you didn't know before prior to picking up the glider satisfies the requirement of and/or precludes you from doing a hook-in JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

- I'm advocating that people use lift and tug as an excuse to skip appropriate preflight checks.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13132
Unhooked Death Again - Change our Methods Now?

Jesse Benson - 2009/01/25 16:27:19 UTC

I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:
HANG CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.
HOOK-IN CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.
They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.

And that's absolute rubbish.

[miguel]

I'm starting to think you got a few loose screws, Miguel.

yep,

[Tad Eareckson]

Those screws aren't loose - those screws were never installed in the first place.

And they weren't installed in the first place 'cause the asshole whose job it was to get the product airborne was too goddam lazy, irresponsible, stupid to read the fuckin' manual.

Consequently we have virtually all of the product flying around with missing screws and the factory responsible running a major disinformation campaign to convince the public that those screws were never on the components list for the kit.

And good freakin' luck getting a recall implemented.

[miguel]

Yeah, maybe I should get some tips from Dr. Trisa Tilletti.

That was a well written puff piece. And it pays to have friends in high places.

The LAST thing USHGA wants...

Nope, they do not want to re-write/edit pieces to put them in the mag.

Look back and see the hurtfest over Noman's submission. Good story, but not well written.

Zack C - 2010/10/15 13:25:50 UTC

Speaking of which, while I can fault Tad's approach, I can't fault his logic, nor have I seen anyone here try to refute it.

That's it in a nutshell. The approach has problems.

Give the pdf a rewrite and submit it. I will assist if needed.

As for the rest of the hook in stuff:

[Tad Eareckson]

That was a well written...

Wow. That's the very first time I've heard anything other than...

Zack C - 2012/06/01 03:28:29 UTC

I'd love to comment on it, but I don't want to spoil it for you (it's that good).

Mike Lake - 2012/06/09 00:25:14 UTC

What a load of shit.
Who are these people?

NMERider - 2012/06/06 03:25:09 UTC

I got so nauseated reading it I had to take a breather.

...the extreme opposite view. Are you positive that we're talking about the same:
- article?
- authors?

NMERider - 2012/06/06 03:25:09 UTC

Pardon me while I puke.

I've never been able able get through more than two or three sentences of Tracy's without feeling like puking and/or beating him to death with a tire iron.

...puff piece.

There's no such thing as a puff piece on weak links.

And it pays to have friends in high places.

Tracy and Lisa don't need any friends in high places. They're the Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu of US aerotowing (and need to be dealt with in a similar fashion).

Nope, they do not want to re-write/edit pieces to put them in the mag.

Great! I wouldn't want any of those motherfuckers to touch so much as a punctuation mark of anything I'd submit.

Good story, but not well written.

Not well written?

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=13855
Just got my October mag

Brian Horgan - 2009/10/03 16:17:12 UTC

hurting for material,not!.i think they like you jeff ,thats why your on allot of the pictures.I sent a story into those fags and its been a year with no good contact.I think they are incredibly bias to para crap.By the way i do like the picture that you get past the grey council,beautiful stuff man!.

Do ya think? Whoever it was who promoted that brain dead asshole out of the third grade should be stood up in front of a wall.

The approach has problems.

1. Zack's reference to my approach referred to the discussion in the Houston club.

Zack C - 2010/11/23 05:23:34 UTC

My attempts to carry out a rational discussion with him were continually sabotaged and eventually aborted by other group members, many with little interest in or comprehension of the discussion.

I don't waste time or courtesy on saboteurs, cult members, or enemies of constitutional free speech principles.

2. REAL pilots...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=756
Discussion with Tad about Towing / Foot Launch

Zack C - 2011/08/12 14:09:22 UTC

I'd rather have the best hang gliding instructor in the world than the nicest, even if the best was a total dick.

...don't give rats' asses about approaches. If someone gives a rat's ass about my approach I don't have any interest in helping him remain in the gene pool.

3. Furthermore... I'm more than happy to treat with respect anyone who deserves it. But when some douchebag like Tom Galvin...

http://www.rmhpa.org/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4258
HG accident in Vancouver

Tom Galvin - 2012/10/31 22:17:21 UTC

Since you seem to be incapable of rational, civil discourse, this will be my last reply to you.

...starts pulling that kind of bullshit on me diplomatic relations are history.

Give the pdf a rewrite and submit it.

Subj: FTHI
Date: 2009/10/13 16:03:35
From: nick.greece@ushpa.aero
To--: TadErcksn at aol dot com

Hi there,

Sorry it has taken me a bit to reply. Your ideas are being considered at the committee chair level. I sent your article to Joe Gregor, the safety chair, for comment and he will get back to you shortly.

Thanks and let me know if you have any questions!

Nick

I'm still waiting to hear back from the committee chairman on the original submission. Nick said he'd get back to me shortly so I'm thinking any day now.

You really need to go back and review some of this forum if you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that I'd ever have anything positive in the way of an interaction with that organization.

I will assist if needed.

I got a better idea. YOU take an issue that the USHGA establishment has got wrong and get something published.

Example/Suggestion...

From that vomit inducing puff piece of Trisa's in the 2012/06 issue:

LISA: Many pilots don't really understand weak links. Simply, the ideal weak link used for aerotowing consists of a continuous loop of string or length of material, without a knot in it--especially not a frayed knot--because a knot weakens the string and weakens it inconsistently, resulting in inconsistent breaking strengths.

...

The WT style of weak link performs very consistently, likely due to the extra weak link loops snugging down onto the bridle and not shifting around, and because the knot used to make it is separated far from the pulling pressures. Basically, it removes the knot from the actual weak link loop that is used, so it behaves much like a continuous loop of line without a knot in it.

LISA: What about a three-line weak link?

TRACY: It is an acceptable method, but not necessarily a de facto standard. It can be used to make, for example, a 390 lb. weak link from 130 lb. line for use on a tug. It requires the use of two knots, one at each end of the weak link to attach it to the bridle or ring, and it doesn't really work on a pilot V-bridle.

Ask those motherfuckers how come:

- you hafta remove the knot from the actual weak link loop that is used on a solo glider two strand weak link so it behaves much like a continuous loop of line without a knot in it and yields the full 260 pounds; but

- on a tug's three strander with two fully "exposed" knots you get the full 390.

That collapses any hope of maintaining any trace of validity to those fourteen pages of bullshit and lies and reveals Tracy, Lisa, and the rest of their aerotowing industry colleagues to be the incompetent frauds they are.

Write a letter to the editor, get it published, get a straight answer, and get back to me.

And again, good freakin' luck.

As for the rest of the hook in stuff:

Sorry, I didn't quite follow that. (You might wanna check for missing screws.)

[miguel]

Here is a definition you might want to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery