2005/09/03 AT crash

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

Davis Straub - 2005/10/25 22:16:20 UTC

From: Jules Gilpatrick
To: Davis Straub
Sent: 2005/10/23 16:25

Hi Davis,

As usual, great coverage on the accident at Hang Glide Chicago.

Yep, Davis Dead-On Straub... A name synonymous with greatness. Some people dedicate all their efforts to preventing shit like this, Davis dedicates all his to obstructing and derailing those efforts so's he can do his usual great job of covering them. And great to see you're totally with him on his total contempt for the manslaughter victim's family.

I am curious about your choice of words.

Carabineer? Three point? Pro tow?

How does one "increase" a stall?

Throw in a towline, pull the glider into a really high pitch attitude and angle of attack, increase the pressure until the two thirds G weak link vaporizes.

But why do you ask? You wanna try this on yourself or somebody you don't like much?

In my experience you are either stalled or you are not.

How 'bout lockouts? The regular kind you can't recover from or the Wills Wing kind you can - with varying degrees of difficulty depending upon your bridle configuration?

A so-called "partial stall" in my experience has always been a quick realization by the pilot that he has entered a stalled attitude but had reactions quick enough to initiate recovery before the nose fell fully through to its lowest position for the aerodynamic qualities of the glider and its wing and CG loading at the time of the occurrence. We may also be struggling with a semantic problem in this regard as some people consider a "partial" stall to be the same as what others refer to as an "approach" to a stall.

At Vacaville (in the good old days) we used a Blanik L-13 for transition training from a simple 2-33 or 1-26 to a more complicated (read: retractable gear, flaps, brakes and spoilers) type of glider, usually a fiberglass ship. After all the drills (blindfold cockpit, reach for each lever at my call-out)...

How much control loss is there during those reaches? 100 hundred percent or just 99? Oh, right. You guys can fly those things just fine with ONE hand on the controls.

...and some general flying to get used to the handling of the machine, I would have my student drop the gear, pull full flaps and spoilers and do a full stall, (always at 2000' or higher).

How come you don't do them at two HUNDRED feet so the student can fully understand how little there is to fear from stalls?

The L-13, in that configuration, would REALLY get the student's attention as, at the point of the stall, it would pitch very suddenly full nose down and go vertical. Nothing you could do about it except break the stall with airspeed and then initiate recovery, which included getting rid of the spoilers and raising the flaps. Best altitude loss I was ever able to achieve was about 800 feet by the time I got everything cleaned up.

Which, if you'd started at 200, would be -600 AGL.

Students often lost considerably more than that. After we'd recovered and got back to a normal gliding attitude I would remind the student that he had just flown through a full stall in basic landing configuration for the L-13 and a condition most likely encountered on final when mis-estimation put him low in the glidepath which could cause him to subconsciously be pulling back on the stick to keep the glider flying just a little bit longer in order to make the field. There was no way ANYBODY could recover from that condition on final because there simply was not enough room between them and the ground to do so, i.e. there was no such thing as a "partial" stall for the L-13 in that configuration.

My point is that I think a harder look has to be taken at the actual stall characteristics of all gliders used for tandem flying.

The Towing Committee was quite aware of thousand foot stalls but was quite content to sit on that information and allow Wallaby to publish in the magazine without challenge that it was impossible to stall an aerotowed glider.

It could well be that there is indeed an insurmountable "Interval of Death" for all tandem flights taken on tow during which time there is no way ANYBODY can recover from a stall in time to just fly away, even from 1000' AGL due to the basic aerodynamics of the glider design, carrying the load it was designed for.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=14230
pro tow set-up

Ryan Voight - 2009/11/03 05:24:31 UTC

It works best in a lockout situation... if you're banked away from the tug and have the bar back by your belly button... let it out. Glider will pitch up, break weaklink, and you fly away.

I may get ration of poop...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=14230
pro tow set-up

Jim Rooney - 2009/11/03 06:16:56 UTC

As for being in a situation where you can't or don't want to let go, Ryan's got the right idea. They're called "weak" links for a reason. Overload that puppy and you bet your ass it's going to break.

You can tell me till you're blue in the face about situations where it theoretically won't let go or you can drone on and on about how "weaklinks only protect the glider" (which is BS btw)... and I can tell ya... I could give a crap, cuz just pitch out abruptly and that little piece of string doesn't have a chance in hell. Take your theory and shove it... I'm saving my a$$.

...from more knowledgeable persons...

And those with really keen intellects.

...for this idea but I am just trying to learn like everybody else.

Bullshit. If you were just trying to learn like everybody else you wouldn't be talking about stalls as if they were lethally dangerous. Everybody else understands that they're mere inconveniences.

Sergey Kataev - 2005/10/26 00:12:57 UTC

To Jules Gilpatrick

I can't claim to be a "more knowledgeable person"...

Good start. This stuff is so simple that damn near anybody safely above Rooney/Voight/Fink level can easily understand it and anybody who DOES claim to be and/or identifies another as a "more knowledgeable person"...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=17404
Aerotow barrel release - straight or curved pin?

Jim Rooney - 2010/05/31 01:53:13 UTC

BTW, Steve Wendt is exceptionally knowledgeable. Hell, he's the one that signed off my instructor rating.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 04:55:25 UTC

Ditto dude.

It always amazes to hear know it all pilots arguing with the professional pilots.
I mean seriously, this is our job.
We do more tows in a day than they do in a month (year for most).

We *might* have an idea of how this stuff works.
They *might* do well to listen.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=811
FTHI

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/10/25 07:28:43 UTC

Joe Greblo knows far more about hang gliding than I probably ever will. If you can convince him that he should be teaching "lift and tug" instead of "turn and check", then you'll get my vote of support.

...is totally full of shit.

...but it seems to me that a hangglider has a little more washout than a sailplane. It must cause the root of wing to stall first while wing tips are still flying. Then you can "increase" the stall by pushing the bar out even further and holding it there. This makes hanggliders more forgiving in their stall than sailplanes.

Told ya you get much better information from people who don't claim to be more knowledgeable persons.

Regarding the accident, a link breaking when a pilot is desperately trying to catch the tug in climb...

Didn't you read the accounts? They weren't desperately trying to catch the tug in climb. They were just low on the tug. To say what you are would imply that the tug was doing a shit job of the tow. And if that were the case...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3600
Weak link question

Jim Rooney - 2008/11/24 05:18:15 UTC

Well, I'm assuming there was some guff about the tug pilot's right of refusal?
Gee, didn't think we'd have to delve into "pilot in command"... I figured that one's pretty well understood in a flying community.

It's quite simple.
The tug is a certified aircraft... the glider is an unpowered ultralight vehicle. The tug pilot is the pilot in command. You are a passenger. You have the same rights and responsibilities as a skydiver.
It's a bitter pill I'm sure, but there you have it.

BTW, if you think I'm just spouting theory here, I've personally refused to tow a flight park owner over this very issue. I didn't want to clash, but I wasn't towing him. Yup, he wanted to tow with a doubled up weaklink. He eventually towed (behind me) with a single and sorry to disappoint any drama mongers, we're still friends. And lone gun crazy Rooney? Ten other tow pilots turned him down that day for the same reason.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Jim Rooney - 2013/02/16 05:05:41 UTC

Here's a little bit of bitter reality that ya'll get to understand straight off. I won't be sugar coating it, sorry.
You see, I'm on the other end of that rope.
I want neither a dead pilot on my hands or one trying to kill me.
And yes. It is my call. PERIOD.
On tow, I am the PIC.

Now, that cuts hard against every fiber of every HG pilot on the planet and I get that.
Absolutely no HG pilot likes hearing it. Not me, not no one. BUT... sorry, that's the way it is.
Accept it and move on.
Not only can you not change it, it's the law... in the very literal sense.

...the Pilot In Command of that flight would be deader than a doornail and his passengers would be smelling like roses - not the other way around.

...seems like a reasonable scenario for a mentioned "superstall"...

Bullshit. An enhanced inconvenience - at worst.

...when the nose is much higher than in a normal stall, and the gravity slows the glider down even more, wing tips produce no lift (read: pitch down force is weak), and the whole thing falls a lot longer before it rotates the nose down.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31052
Poll on weaklinks

Jim Rooney - 2013/03/05 21:40:02 UTC

I'm not saying that you've claimed that a stronger weaklink allows for a greater AOA... I'm telling you that it does.
You know this.
I'll spell it out anyway...
Increases in AOA increase the load factor... push it beyond what the weaklink can stand and *POP*, you're off tow.
Increase the load factor that the weaklink can withstand and you increase the achievable AOA.

This ain't truck towing. There is no pressure limiting mechanism. Push out and you load the line. Push out hard and you'll break the weaklink... that's the whole idea.

You want to break off the towline? Push out... push out hard... it will break.
As others have pointed out, they've used this fact intentionally to get off tow. It works.

You want MORE.
I want you to have less.
This is the fundamental disagreement.
You're afraid of breaking off with a high AOA? Good... tow with a WEAKER weaklink... you won't be able to achieve a high AOA. Problem solved.

I'm sorry that you don't like that the tug pilot has the last word... but tough titties.
Don't like it?
Don't ask me to tow you.

Go troll somewhere else buddy.
I'm over this.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

Jeff Nielsen - 2005/10/26 16:23:32 UTC

My point is that I think a harder look has to be taken at the actual stall characteristics of all gliders used for tandem flying.

Point taken but I doubt it. I am rated in many things that fly and I can tell you that the tandem gliders we use (and most beginning hang gliders) have some of the most forgiving stall characteristics that you will ever find. They are amazingly stable. Most of these gliders go into more of a mush mode than a full stall. They are very, very forgiving and seldom lose more than 50-75 feet in most stalls.

To get a deep stall, you have to "whip" stall the things ... which means that you must go into a dive to build airspeed then pull up (for us, it's push out) suddenly to bring up the nose to a pretty acute angle.

What if, instead of that, you put a rope on the glider and just gradually started increasing both the tension and upwards angle of pull? When you get to about 350 pounds you abruptly guillotine the rope. Couldn't you achieve pretty much the same effect?

Even at that, if you do nothing at that point, the aircraft will recover without much input.

Assuming you've got enough altitude and a reflex bridle adjusted to somewhere within the functional range... Yes.

While a stall may be a stall, the position from which you end a stall makes all the difference in the world. To make the point, imagine a "stalled" glider on it's back versus a stalled glider in a nose up attitude. While both are stalled, there is clearly something different about the two stalled situations. Obviously, the craft on it's back it not likely to fly again.

A hang glider or a conventional glider? If a hang glider's on its back the outlook is pretty crappy 'cause the pilot's probably gonna be lying on a broken keel at that point. I don't think there's any way a conventional glider WON'T be flying again - given enough altitude anyway.

Another example, imagine hanging your sailplane from it's wing tip, then letting go. Assuming that it ends right side up, the recovery may still be in question because you need forward speed to have any control.

The vertical STABILIZER *WILL* yaw the glider to STABILIZE it nose down and you *WILL* have forward (downward) speed and, eventually, control.

I think this is what we are calling the "super" stalls if you will. A stall from which normal flying characteristics may not come back into play.

See above.

Maybe it should be called a stall ... after which you have unusual attitude situations: a stall UA (stall unusual attitude).

This is great thinking, however. Like you say, we are all still learning.

I'm not and you're not.
- I'm not still learning 'cause:
-- This stuff ain't all that complicated.
-- I learned everything of any value in this game many years ago.
- You're not 'cause you don't have the common sense required to break out beyond the religious doctrine you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

If we are all still learning things should always being improving; advancing; getting safer, cleaner, stronger, more effective, efficient, standardized... Right? Show me a scrap of evidence of any of that happening anywhere in mainstream towing...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24534
It's a wrap

Paul Tjaden - 2011/07/30 15:33:54 UTC

Quest Air has been involved in perfecting aerotowing for nearly twenty years.

...over the course of the past couple decades.

The gliders themselves slowly got better as the idiots we had designing them slowly cleaned them up but they've all looked the same for the past decade and a half 'cause there's nothing left to learn about them and there hasn't really been all that much since 1979.

If you're still learning then stay on the fuckin' ground until you've finished. Didn't you just see the death and destruction Arlan caused because he was totally incapable of grasping the basic two plus two stuff and decided, "What the fuck, I'm good to go."?

By the time you're a goddam 2.5 or 3.0 you should've finished learning all the stuff that matters 'cause you've then started operating in an environment that can easily majorly and permanently fuck you up or kill you. After 2.5 or 3.0 you should just be tweaking minor stuff and honing skills.

Any goddam halfway intelligent ten year old could understand everything important about this tandem fatality in fifteen to thirty seconds and here all you "all still learning" assholes are on Page 15, seven and a half weeks and one lawsuit later, babbling on, going NOWHERE, learning NOTHING.

Robert V. Wills - 1978/02

1977/09/25 - M. Horvath - 38 - Lake Eppilock, Victoria

Boat tow. Line broke or was released prematurely. Dived in from 200'.

2005/09/03 - Arlan Birkett / Jeremiah Thompson - Cushing Field, Sheridan, Illinois

Aerotow. Tug high. Line broke. Dived in from 250'.

That's it. What part of that are you having so fucking much difficulty understanding? File it under stupidity and move on to soaring conditions prediction.

Davis Straub - 2005/10/27 03:30:41 UTC

Apparently there is a DVD of interviews of the eye witnesses.

Who's dick do you hafta suck to get a copy? What are they saying on this DVD that's not important enough to go out in print?

The USHGA accident report process removes the names and identifications of those involved, but, of course, it will be obvious when the report comes out.

Yeah, if USHGA weren't as diligent as it is about protecting the identities of victims, crew, drivers, participants, witnesses, reporters we'd no longer be able to get the really excellent reports we have over the past decades.

Guy can do whatever he likes with his report (he doesn't have to redact it).

Do let us know when it becomes available.

Davis Straub - 2005/12/10 18:03:38 UTC

I have received an email that claims that Jeremiah, the student...

I thought he was a passenger.

...was drinking before the flight.

WHOA! That sounds pretty serious! I'm sure if Arlan and/or Gary had been aware of this then that flight would've never left the ground.

Any email message yet on the front end weak link and what fraction of legal minimum it was?

I have no idea if this is true, but I wondered if this is common knowledge among those associated with Hangglide Chicago.

Everybody 'cept Arlan and Gary. The other USHGA rated self regulating AT pilots didn't wanna rat him out.

So I'm guessing he was the only HGC flyer who ever had a beer before going up?

Christian Williams - 2005/12/10 18:32:15 UTC

Davis, you really should not publish rumors like this.

Yeah he should. We're all a helluva a lot more entitled to information about this one than he is and we're perfectly capable of evaluating it, taking it for what it's worth, pursuing further questions.

To float such a serious accusation...

Why is that such a serious accusation? We're all legally allowed to walk out of a bar after downing two or three brews, hop in several thousand pounds of steel powered by several hundred horses worth of engine, navigate home at speeds up to and above a mile a minute around other stuff with dads, moms, kids inside.

If I were gonna be seriously tipsy I'd much rather be in hang glider where only a few seconds of each drive are critical and I'm very unlikely to hurt anybody but myself.

...against the pilot and the instructor, is indefensible.

OH! I see you've picked up on the fact that this issue ALSO reflects on THE INSTRUCTOR - more so, in all likelihood. Well done, Christian!

And you dont even think its true.

He didn't say that. I think it probably IS true - but of zilch significance in the crash. If the beer is a one the weak link is a thirty thousand - and our physical condition when we come in to land after three hours is a forty.

And I also think there's a strong possibility this is being used a diversionary tactic.

Bart Weghorst - 2005/12/13 03:33:09 UTC

What did the coroner report about alcohol?

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=21033
barrels release without any tension except weight of rope..

Bart Weghorst - 2011/02/25 19:06:26 UTC

I've had it once where the pin had bent inside the barrel from excessive tow force. My weaklink was still intact. The tug pilot's weaklink broke so I had the rope. I had to use two hands to get the pin out of the barrel.

No stress because I was high.

No stress because he was high.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?

Bart Weghorst - 2011/08/28 20:29:27 UTC

Now I don't give a shit about breaking strength anymore. I really don't care what the numbers are. I just want my weaklink to break every once in a while.

Asshole.

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/12/17 18:44:11 UTC

The coroner reported that Jeremiah did have alcohol in his system. It was fairly low

What did the NTSB report about the front end weak link strength? Also sixty percent south of the legal limit?

Davis Straub - 2005/12/18 00:56:04 UTC

There you go. A little bird...

Fuck you, Davis.

Tommy Thompson Sr. - 2006/03/13 07:32:27 UTC

At our Instructor meeting we set up a simulator with the Upper/Lower tandem harness, after 3 failed tries we looked a lot closer at the problem. When the instructor is in the upper harness he lacks the arm length to remove the parachute by the standard means(down and away), he needs to be able to pull it out sideways or out through the top. The best fix seems to be a diaper type parachute container, but by just putting the parachute deployment bag in the harness backwards all the instructors could get it out within 3 sec. . because the deployment bag is being pull from the back side it doesn't get trapped in the corners of the parachute container.
I'm changing the design of the harness's parachute container by removing any closed corners that can catch the parachute when pulled sideways or out the top.

If you use the upper/Lower tandem harness look at your Parachute container, if theres sewn corners that form a pocket, you may want to take a look.

And this will be of use in a tow operation in a window how wide? Below 250 feet it won't have time to open no matter what and above two hundred feet the glider's gonna pull out anyway.

Do whatever the fuck you want with your parachute. If you can make it work easier, faster, better... Great.

But talking about the goddam parachute is a DEADLY DISTRACTION on this discussion. They're fuckin' useless or...

07-0520

21-0724

26-0902

34-1209


...worse in towing operations. Even when the could/would make a difference nobody's gonna let go of the basetube / stop flying the glider and attempt to get one out. There's a one in a thousand chance that that would be the right call and nobody's gonna have a good idea of whether or not it actually was until it's way too late.

Any comments on the fuckin' weak link, Tommy? Just kidding.

[Tad Eareckson]

Joe Gregor - 2006/01

2005/09/03 18:30 - Cushing Field, Illinois - 47-year-old male, H-4, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator - Northwing T2 - over/under

A highly experienced tandem pilot and student crashed while launching via aerotow. Initial witness reports indicate that the glider entered a lockout and was disconnected from the tug in a non-flying attitude at approximately 250' AGL due to a failure of the towline. The accident glider dove steeply to the ground, impacting before showing any sign of recovery to controlled flight. The instructor and student died on impact.

Joe Gregor - 2006/01

Four months. Good job sorting those volumes of data from this one and distilling what we need to really understand what happened and why and make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

47-year-old male, H-4, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator

Wasn't this a tandem? Wasn't there a soon to solo student who also died on this one? Didn't he have an age, sex, experience level?

How 'bout the tug pilot?

- Aren't these guys fairly important parts of the equation? I mean, they're always telling us they are and what wonderful people they are and how much the safety of the flight depends on them.

- They're the ones who ensure that we use the safest possible weak links and refuse to tow us with anything but the gear that's had the longest track records.

- If anyone's known to be a danger to himself and/or others - 'specially people of varying ages - they're the ones who make sure that that individual...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 04:55:25 UTC

Don't even get me started on Tad. That obnoxious blow hard has gotten himself banned from every flying site that he used to visit... he doesn't fly anymore... because he has no where to fly. His theories were annoying at best and downright dangerous most of the time. Good riddance.

...doesn't ever fly anywhere anymore - or even be allowed to participate in online discussions about flying. Certainly can't afford to have USHGA and/or the legal system and any danger of due process or public hearing in situations such as these.

- It's my understanding that...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3600
Weak link question

Jim Rooney - 2008/11/24 05:18:15 UTC

Well, I'm assuming there was some guff about the tug pilot's right of refusal?
Gee, didn't think we'd have to delve into "pilot in command"... I figured that one's pretty well understood in a flying community.

It's quite simple.
The tug is a certified aircraft... the glider is an unpowered ultralight vehicle. The tug pilot is the pilot in command. You are a passenger. You have the same rights and responsibilities as a skydiver.
It's a bitter pill I'm sure, but there you have it.

BTW, if you think I'm just spouting theory here, I've personally refused to tow a flight park owner over this very issue. I didn't want to clash, but I wasn't towing him. Yup, he wanted to tow with a doubled up weaklink. He eventually towed (behind me) with a single and sorry to disappoint any drama mongers, we're still friends. And lone gun crazy Rooney? Ten other tow pilots turned him down that day for the same reason.

...he's actually the Pilot In Command of the flight. The guys on the gliders are just passengers - or, in this case, low altitude skydivers.

What was HIS age, sex, experience level? What tug and maybe glider certifications did he have? Was his tug rating up to date? How was he on currency on that particular ship?

Northwing T2

- What's the legal weak link range for that glider?

- How did the reflex bridle adjustment check out?

- Aren't you forgetting the tug? What was it? Was it legal for hauling a heavy load like that? Did it have adequate power? Was its tow structure up to handling the minimum legal loads for a North Wing T2? What was its normal tandem tow speed and climb rate?

over/under

Oh. So it WAS a tandem. So who was over and who was under? Might the weights of the instructor be worth a quick mention? I seem to recall that hang height and pilot weight have some bearing on control authority. HANG glider. WEIGHT SHIFT control. Heavy student under versus heavy instructor under? Not of any possible bearing? Not worth talking about?

A highly experienced...

Define "highly experienced". Highly experienced at WHAT of any use or relevance pertaining to this one? You've already given us his credentials: Hang Four, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator... Is he particularly more "highly" experienced than anyone else with those signoffs?

...tandem pilot...

Wait a minute. Aren't you forgetting the tug? What was it? Was it legal for hauling a heavy load like that? Did it have adequate power? Was its tow structure up to handling the minimum legal loads for a North Wing T2? What was its normal tandem tow speed?

...and student...

With no age, sex, experience level.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/10/13 19:47:26 UTC

The student was in control of the glider from the start, but I couldn't see who was in control after the weak link broke.

Jeremiah's in the under / max control harness position, the three eyewitnesses all agree that the student was in control of the glider from the start and aren't contradicted by the tug driver - but "the student" is all we get to know about him or her?

...crashed while launching via aerotow.

Does 250 feet count as "while launching"? If somebody dove in from 250 feet on a scooter tow would that count as "while launching"? How 'bout 250 feet over a ridge a minute - or an hour - after leaving the ramp?

Do we get to hear anything about the conditions? Wind, direction, temperature, humidity, density altitude, sky cover, turbulence. Stuff like that seems to be mentioned in most other fatality reports I've read. Or should we just assume these were standard aerotowing conditions?

Initial witness reports indicate...

Fuck you, Joe - you lying sonuvabitch. You've had FOUR MONTHS on this. We don't wanna know what goddam "initial witness reports INDICATE". We wanna know WHAT THE FUCK *HAPPENED*. Initial reports for the fucking Titanic indicated "PASSENGERS SAFE", "Steamer Badly Damaged Crawls Towards Halifax, 600 Miles Off".

Who were the witnesses? Were they hang glider, tug, or any other flavors of pilots? Students? Bucket listers waiting for their rides? How many? What perspectives? Takeoff area? Air? Both?

How well do the statements from the witnesses line up with each other? How do they line up with the tug pilot's?

If they're not all over the place how come you're saying:

Initial witness reports indicate...

and not telling us what the fuck happened?

If they ARE all over the place how come you're not telling us they're all over the place and what our choices are for whom and what we wanna believe?

...that the glider entered a lockout...

Fuck you. The goddam glider entered a goddam...

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/10/12 16:47:25 UTC

As far as I know there were 3 witnesses, myself and 2 others, which all say the same thing. Jeremiah behind the controls from the start. They take off, get low on the tug weeklink breaks from the tow plane, one wing stalls out, glider rotates to an almost straight down attitude, picks up speed and impacts.

Based on that information it's my personal opinion that the weaklink broke because of the increased pressure on the line from being low, and taking the power away from a glider that is pretty much stalled caused the lack of control, and the wing to drop. It seems to me that it was simply pilot error which lead to the weaklink breaking. Afterall, if the weaklink didn't break they still would have been flying.

...STALL - when and because the goddam fucking weak link increased the safety of the goddam towing operation.

Where was the tug relative to the glider when the glider entered a lockout? How far outside of the Cone of Safety was the glider? Why was the glider outside of the Cone of Safety when it entered the lockout? Was it using a fin? Why not?

Must've been going pretty fast to enter a lockout, right? What was the problem? Overcontrol? PIO?

Why was the lockout allowed to progress so far and long that it took a towline break to end it?

We all know that...

Jerry Forburger - 1990/10

High line tensions reduce the pilot's ability to control the glider and we all know that the killer "lockout" is caused by high towline tension.

...the killer "lockout" is caused by high towline tension. Weren't they using an appropriate weak link with a finished length of 1.5 inches or less?

In the excellent book, Towing Aloft, by Dennis Pagen and Bill Bryden, Dennis Pagen and Bill Bryden say:

Towing Aloft - 1998/01

Three recent aerotowing accidents have occurred--one fatal. The common thread in all three was a lockout and the use of a much too heavy weak link. Tandem gliders are much less responsive than smaller gliders and the pilot in command often has a less than ideal position on the control bar. The situation shouldn't be compromised by an over-strength weak link.

Shouldn't that line of inquiry have been pursued? Sounds to me like this one's just screaming situation compromised by an over-strength weak link. Yet not a word here. Isn't this a bit like finding a surfboard with a big U shaped chunk taken out of it washed up on the beach and not thinking Great White Shark?

The MINIMUM FAA legal towline strength for that glider was 819 pounds. And we know it was legal / at least that because:
- you'd have told us if it weren't
- the FAA investigated and cleared the tug and its pilot

So how come the tug survived? We know from Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey that anything over a single loop of 130 pound Greenspot on the end of a two point bridle - 226 pounds towline - critically endangers the tug. A tug can STALL pulling a few more pounds tension than that. And we're talking AT LEAST three and two thirds TIMES that! And just a 1.4 G Tad-O-Link on Paul Tjaden's solo damn near killed Russell Brown (not to mention Paul) when it didn't break when it was supposed to. So how come this wasn't a triple?

So why did nobody release before, in glassy smooth evening air with six hands available to fly the tug and glider - a third of them belonging to a:

- student three more tandem flights shy of solo

- highly experienced, Hang Four, Advanced Tandem Instructor, AT Administrator who'd only fourteen months earlier towed another Hang Four to his death

- tug pilot with experience and credentials so off the scale stellar that we need not even mention them

until the towline tension exceeded AT LEAST 3.67 times standard aerotow weak link / two fifths of a ton?

When you reported on Mike Haas's 2004/06/26 "lockout" fatality you said:

Joe Gregor - 2004/09

There is no evidence that the pilot made an attempt to release from tow prior to the weak link break, the gate was found closed on the Wallaby-style tow release.

while making him out to be a rusty bozo on a gilder and in conditions way over his head. Well pretty fucking OBVIOUSLY the gate was also found closed on the:
- Kolb's release when Arlan was pulling Mike
- Wallaby-style tow release on the tandem when Jeremiah and Arlan were being towed in glassy smooth evening air on their last training flight
- Kolb's release when Gary was pulling Jeremiah and Arlan

Your buddy Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney says:

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2467
weak links

Jim Rooney - 2007/08/01 13:47:23 UTC

Whatever's going on back there, I can fix it by giving you the rope.

AND, rather incongruously:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31052
Poll on weaklinks

Jim Rooney - 2013/03/05 01:32:20 UTC

Btw, it's nothing to do with you "counting" on the weaklink breaking... Its about me not trusting you to hit the release.
If it were only about what you want, then you could use what you like.
You want the strongest weaklink you can have.
I want you to have the weakest one practical.. I don't care how much it inconveniences you.
I don't trust you as a rule. You Trust you , but I don't and shouldn't.

Sounds like:

- NOBODY can be trusted to hit the release REGARDLESS of qualifications at EITHER end of the rope

- these minimum legal and Industry Standard weak links - dedicated and towline serving as - are doing absolute SHIT to increase the safety of the towing operation

So what do you think, Joe? Maybe these guys just think they can fix bad things and don't wanna start over?

...and was disconnected...

WAS DISCONNECTED? By WHOM? Who made that decision at that time?

...from the tug...

Bullshit. The glider isn't connected to the tug. It's connected to a 250 foot towline. The only thing that's connected to the tug is the other end of that towline.

...in a non-flying attitude...

Bullshit Joe. It was in a FLYING "attitude" and it was FLYING when it "was disconnected". By the way, pigfucker... What's a "non-flying attitude"? Fuckin' glider can fly in any attitude you can name as long it's got airspeed. And it'll also NOT fly in any attitude you can name if it doesn't. What a load of pretentious crap.

...at approximately 250' AGL..

Sure it wasn't MSL? Cushing Field has an elevation of 640 so if this shit happened at 250 MSL we'd have a good idea why we've got we've got lotsa of serious gaps in the reporting.

What do you think the average reader would've assumed if you'd left the "AGL" crap out of the "report"?

...due to a failure of the towline.

So they weren't using weak links on either the tug or the glider? 'Cause the USHGA regulations MANDATE weak links at both ends and MANDATE:

The tow line must be at least twice as strong as the weak link in use.

a towline AT LEAST twice as strong as the weak link - the GLIDER'S - in use.

So where did this towline break? At the front where it gets zero abuse, the back where it gets max abuse, or somewhere in between? Is it worth mentioning the CAUSE of this break? Knot, wear, cut, bad splice?

When you tested the remaining front and back sections of the towline what were the failure tensions? How well did they hold up with respect to the specs in the FAA aerotowing regulations? Why did the towline break before any of the weak links?

You said the glider was "disconnected from the tug", not disconnected from the towline. That implies that the "failure of the towline" was at or near its front end. So the area of the towline that was subject to the least amount of abuse was the first to go? How much sense does that make, Joe? When we look at other aero towline failures where do they we typically see them occurring?

The accident glider dove steeply to the ground...

What was the NON accident glider doing at this time?

What was the direction of he dive relative to the direction of the tow?

Define "steeply". Have you got any videos of shallow dives into the ground?

Was there any attempt to deploy the chute? I thought I heard there was and seem to recall there was a lot of discussion on Pilot In Command accessibility and the ballistic option.

...impacting before showing any sign of recovery to controlled flight.

What type of flight was it showing signs of as things were during the fatal plummet?

Did it show any signs of recovery to UNCONTROLLED flight?

How 'bout signs of recovery AFTER impact? Any of those?

Do you get paid by the word or do you just get your kicks padding your bullshit reports with loads of pretentious meaningless diversionary crap?

The instructor and student died on impact.

Here's how these things used to be written:

Robert V. Wills - 1978/02

1977/09/25 - M. Horvath - 38 - Lake Eppilock, Victoria

Boat tow. Line broke or was released prematurely. Dived in from 200'.

...before the sport was taken over by bullshit spin doctors focused entirely on obscuring the causes of fatalities and boring readers to death with the kind pseudointellectual crap that peaked out in Dr. Trisa Tilletti fourteen page article on magic fishing line.

Lemme rewrite that "report" for ya, Joe. Don't worry, I won't change any of the lies - too much effort there - I'll just remove the crap.

2005/09/03 18:30 - Cushing Field, Illinois - 47-year-old male, H4, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator - aerotow - North Wing T2 - over/under

At about 250 feet the glider locked out, blew the towline, and dove in. Instructor and student killed on impact.

44 words versus 92. Reduction of 52 percent.

Now tell me what information from your version that I failed to convey.

The student was reported by witnesses to have been drinking prior to the flight and this was confirmed by the Coroner's report. Is the reason you're not mentioning this because it pretty obviously means that Arlan was condoning this? (Not that I personally really give a rat's ass on this issue as it had no bearing on anything other than appearances/PR - but that's ALL YOU're concerned with.)

So let's take another look at your unedited dinky pathetic little nonstop lie of a report:

2005/09/03 18:30 - Cushing Field, Illinois - 47-year-old male, H-4, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator - Northwing T2 - over/under

A highly experienced tandem pilot and student crashed while launching via aerotow. Initial witness reports indicate that the glider entered a lockout and was disconnected from the tug in a non-flying attitude at approximately 250' AGL due to a failure of the towline. The accident glider dove steeply to the ground, impacting before showing any sign of recovery to controlled flight. The instructor and student died on impact.

I would classify this one as the single most important crash in the entire history of hang gliding anywhere on the planet.
- tandem
- tandem instructor with experience and qualifications coming out of his ass
- routine advanced tandem student training flight
- totally unrated tandem student - read: innocent victim
- glassy smooth evening air
- no aerobatics
- no industry standard equipment issues relevant to anything prior to the whipsta- Sorry, "lockout".
- tug experiences no noticeable effect whatsoever from the lethal action going on behind him
- both people on the glider killed instantly

According to your "report", Joe... There wasn't ONE SINGLE PROBLEM to ANY DEGREE WHATSOEVER with this flight - equipment, preflight, procedures, experience, qualifications, competence, communication, distraction, interference, response - and two people just locked out for no reason a bit over a minute from takeoff and were killed instantly several seconds after that. I can't think of any report from the entire history of hang gliding on an incident from a fatality down to a light bonk with no harm to pilot or glider in which that's happened.

Show a light bonk with no harm to pilot or glider on The Jack Show and within three hours there will be five pages worth of detailed analysis of every mistake the pilot was making every quarter second interval for the final twenty seconds of the approach. "See here with 03.75 to go? Your left hand is an inch and a half too low and your right shoelace isn't tied very well."

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

Fifteen pages, 149 posts, span of three months and thirteen and a half days throwing out the last one, on unanswered parachute post an additional three months after the main stuff died. 28 direct participants, 5 forwarded contributors, 3 links to Oz Report entries on the topic by Brad Kushner, Matt Taber, and Gerard Farell Baril.

44 words of substance to describe a deliberate core lie about what happened on this one - number of words less than thirty percent of the number of posts in that thread. An illegally light and dangerous front end weak link blew at the worst possible time, when the glider was climbing hard in a near stall situation. But that hasn't been an acceptable argument under USHGA policy since the early Eighties.

- Standard aerotow weak link break when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation at Hang Glide Chicago dumps a tandem aerotow instructor and his student into a fatal whipstall, invent a lockout so the weak link break was actually a good thing that just didn't happen soon enough.

- Standard aerotow weak link break when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation at Quest Air dumps a tandem aerotow instructor flying his own glider solo into a fatal whipstall, invent an invisible dust devil so the weak link break was inevitable and the poor motherfucker never had a chance. Freak accident, sometimes shit just happens, it's a risky sport and we accept that - part of the attraction actually.

So Joe... Were you this much of a lying sleazebag in the Air Force or did USHGA just recognize the aptitude and nurture it?

[Tad Eareckson]

2005/09/03 AT crash plus 039 days:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/10/12 16:47:25 UTC

As far as I know there were 3 witnesses, myself and 2 others, which all say the same thing. Jeremiah behind the controls from the start. They take off, get low on the tug weeklink breaks from the tow plane, one wing stalls out, glider rotates to an almost straight down attitude, picks up speed and impacts.

Based on that information it's my personal opinion that the weaklink broke because of the increased pressure on the line from being low, and taking the power away from a glider that is pretty much stalled caused the lack of control, and the wing to drop. It seems to me that it was simply pilot error which lead to the weaklink breaking. Afterall, if the weaklink didn't break they still would have been flying.

2005/09/03 AT crash plus 049 days:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

Davis Straub - 2005/10/22 21:54:49 UTC

Towing Committee - 2005/10

2- Factors that may be contributing to AT tandem accidents and possible procedure adjustments

Review of aerotowing procedures, AT accident data and discussion with top AT Tandem pilots suggests that there needs to be increased awareness of the importance of positioning under tow and the potential hazard of pushing out under tow. Situations can develop where a hang glider can stall under aerotow. Stalls that occur on tow are aggravated and result in a much greater altitude loss than previously believed. Various tandem aerotow operators have reported that they have experienced a stall while being towed and confirmed that the stall was quite abrupt and the recovery altitude was considerable. There are several possible situations that can lead to an online stall, including but not limited to: flying too far to the inside of a turn, crossing a shear at a different moment than the tug, flying into the tug propwash, inadequate tow speed (possible with a light tug and a heavy tandem). Pushing out in one of the above situations (or combination of situations) could cause the onset of a stall. Tandem pilots need to be cautioned regarding the dangers of pushing out on tow as well as the significant altitude required to recover from an on line stall.

Dave Glover has conducted an online discussion on this topic. Based on his, and this committee's findings this committee proposes the following statement to be added to tandem and aerotow study, test, and administrator/supervisor packages:

Experience in tandem hang glider flight using aero-tow launch, along with analysis of accidents and incidents that have occurred during such flight, strongly suggest that for safety reasons, the following cautions be observed.

If the tandem finds themselves too low behind the tug the tandem pilot must pull in and release rather than push out. Just because you have pushed out on tow without incident, in the past, does not mean that there is not extreme underlying danger. If the tandem glider becomes disconnected from the towline with a nose high attitude, while pushing out, a very abrupt stall (super stall) will result and MUCH more altitude than one would expect will be required for recovery (up to 1000' or more); in the most extreme cases may result in a structural failure.

Tug pilots towing tandems require extra awareness particularly early in the tow in order to help the tandem pilot avoid critical situations from developing. Prior to initiating a tow, assessment of the appropriate tow speeds based on total weight of the tandem glider, instructor and student should be made; more total weight will require increased tow speeds. A glider CAN stall on tow; towing a little faster is better than a little too slow to help prevent the glider from stalling. The tug pilot should fly the appropriate airspeed to maintain the tandem glider in the proper position and avoid pulling up abruptly leaving the tandem glider low.

Pending BoD approval this statement to given to Safety in training Committee for dissemination to AT and ATP pilots

Respectfully submitted Steve Kroop, Towing Committee

2005/09/03 AT crash plus 120 days:

Joe Gregor - 2006/01

2005/09/03 18:30 - Cushing Field, Illinois - 47-year-old male, H-4, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator - Northwing T2 - over/under

A highly experienced tandem pilot and student crashed while launching via aerotow. Initial witness reports indicate that the glider entered a lockout and was disconnected from the tug in a non-flying attitude at approximately 250' AGL due to a failure of the towline. The accident glider dove steeply to the ground, impacting before showing any sign of recovery to controlled flight. The instructor and student died on impact.

2005/09/03 AT crash plus 193 days:

http://www.ushpa.aero/advisory.asp?id=1
USHPA - Safety Advisory #1

USHGA - 2006/03/15

Safety Notice

HG Tandem Aerotow Operations

It was noticed over a number of years there have been a number of fatalities to participants in hang glider aerotow instruction. The president of the USHPA, therefore, formed an Ad Hoc Joint Committee of the chairs of Safety and Training, Tandem and Towing to investigate this, appointing the Chair of Safety and Training to preside. Tandem instructors Matt Taber and David Glover were invited to participate.

This committee reviewed a number of possible causes for aerotow tandem fatalities. One particular possible cause stood out as predominate. This was the common belief that when a glider gets low on tow the pilot can safely push out and let the glider climb up to the level of the tow plane safely because the glider will not stall under tow.

This issue is so important that this committee and the towing committee have recommended that the following message be sent to all aerotow pilots and all Aero-Tug pilots with a particular emphasis to aerotow tandem pilots.

Experiences in hang glider tandem flight using aero-tow launch along with analysis of accidents and incidents that have occurred during such flight strongly suggest, for safety reasons, the following cautions be observed.

If the pilot of the tandem glider finds that he/she is too low behind the tug and slow enough that the glider will not climb without pushing out pass trim, then the pilot should pull in and release rather than trying to push out and climb to the tug altitude. Though pushing out to climb to the tug altitude has been a common practice usually accomplished without incident, there is a deep underlying danger in doing this. Should the tandem glider become unattached from the tug during this maneuver, the nose high attitude of the tandem glider attained while doing this will cause a very abrupt stall which will result in a much greater altitude loss than one would expect (possibly more than 750 feet). The most extreme cases may result in structural failure of the glider.

Towing tandems requires extra awareness on the part of the tug pilots, particularly in the early part of the tow to help the tandem pilot avoid the development of critical situations. Prior to the start of the tow, proper tow speeds based on the gross weight of the tandem glider should be determined. Greater total weight will require correspondingly higher tow speeds. It is CRITICAL to understand that the towed hang glider is at risk when the tow is slow and the glider is low. When towing a tandem glider, the tug pilot should fly the appropriate airspeed to keep the tandem glider in the proper position and if there is any doubt the tug pilot should fly slightly faster and avoid flying slightly slow. The tug pilot should avoid pulling up abruptly and leaving the tandem glider low. If the glider is low on tow, the tug pilot should attempt to speed up and to descend to the altitude of the towed glider, releasing the tow rope only as a last resort.

These points are crucial to the safety of aerotow tandem flight. However, this letter is addressed to all aerotow rated pilots and tug pilots, not just to tandem pilots. This is because in consulting with pilots about this issue, we found that this problem is exhibited under the same circumstances with solo gliders as well. Because of the lighter wing loading of the solo gliders, the reaction of a solo glider is not as severe, but can still be violent.

To insure that all AT rated tandem pilots are notified, we are asking that the AT-rated tandem pilots sign on to the USHPA web site (http://www.ushga.org) and fill out a form that states that they have read and understand the safety notice. If you are an AT-rated tandem pilot and do not have computer access (ie. no email address) you will be sent the form to fill out and sign, and a USHPA addressed, stamped envelope. Understand that we are not asking if you agree with the safety notice, but that you have read it and understand what it says. You will need to do this in order to have your tandem rating renewed.

Flying with a tandem passenger is a special privilege which the FAA allows us to grant to qualified pilots. These pilots are supposed to be highly skilled. We expect tandem flights to be safer than solo flights, not more dangerous. Safety records do not currently seem to support this expectation. We expect tandem flights under the rules of the USHPA to be conducted in such a way that this expectation is realized.

David G. Broyles, Chairman of Safety and Training Committee
Steve Kroop, Chairman of Tow Committee
Paul Voight, Chairman of Tandem Committee

Hey Joe...

How come in the:

- clearest most detailed, definitive, and unambiguous eyewitness account publicly available which is questioned or disputed by NO ONE - including you

- USHGA Towing Committee's draft advisory which is challenged or criticized by NO ONE - including you

- USHGA Safety and Training, Towing, and Tandem Committees' final official advisory which is challenged or criticized by NO ONE - including you - and remains on the books to this day, challenged or criticized by NO ONE - including you

ALL of the emphasis is on the glider:
- being low, slow, and level straight behind the tug
- becoming "disconnected" from the tug
- STALLING
- going down like a fuckin' brick
THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF THE KILLER "LOCKOUT" THAT WE ALL KNOW IS CAUSED BY HIGH TOWLINE TENSION.

How come you're the ONLY ONE implying that a glider:

- under the command of a highly experienced Hang Four, Advanced Tandem Instructor, AT Administrator

- with an advanced student who's previous flight experience has been entirely tandem with this highly experienced Hang Four / Advanced Tandem Aerotow Instructor / AT Administrator with ZERO reported previous control problems

- in perfect position and attitude behind the tug in glassy smooth evening air

just suddenly locks out at 250 feet for no reason whatsoever and goes all the way down like a fuckin' brick?

We have tandem training fatality precedents to which that the three USHGA committees involved in the advisory allude:
- 1996/07/25 - Bill Bennett / Mike Del Signore
- 1998/10/25 - Jamie Alexander / Frank Spears, Jr.

And, of course, for every low altitude fatal we've got a few hundred high altitude nonconsequentials that nobody ever hears or does anything about.

So you cite me from the entire history of modern hang glider towing, any flavor, with people who know left from right under the glider a single smooth air lockout like the fictional one in your total bullshit "report".

Looks to me like these guys invented a whole new way to kill themselves in hang gliding that nobody else has ever even thought of before. Shouldn't such ingenuity merit a fourteen page magazine article with photos of the stars, their crumpled wreckage, the valiant tug pilot, a series of Pagen illustrations, vector diagrams?

How 'bout a name for the new phenomenon?

"Dude. There I was, glassy smooth evening air, 250 feet, good speed, lined up level straight behind the tug, bull's-eye in center of the Cone of Safety, release within easy reach, bent pin backup, fresh hook knife with an International Orange handle, an appropriate weak link with a finished length of 1.5 inches or less. Perfect setup for gettin' hit by an Arlan. But my thoughts were all on missing the taxiway sign and nailing that traffic cone on the other end of the flight. Thank GOD for PDA 'chutes!"

[Tad Eareckson]

Hey Joe...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=865
Tandem pilot and passenger death

That was the only public place people - concerned like most and unconcerned like sociopaths like Davis, Rodie, Bart had to talk about that one.

There were people on there traumatized by one or the other those deaths (probably not both 'cause it doesn't look like Jeremiah had been on the scene long enough for glider people to have gotten to know him) and people who were planning on becoming glider people but undoubtedly never did because nobody did anything wrong and two people got killed instantly anyway.

There were thoughts and concerns expressed about:
- glider:
-- condition
-- loading
-- reflex bridle adjustment
-- stall recovery altitude
- the tug's weak link being the catalyst for the fatal stall
- weak links failure sequence
- total douchebag operations like Wallaby teaching that gliders under tow are impossible to stall
- Kolb tow speed
- pilot control authority at over versus under position
- over/under versus side by side harnesses
- the possibilities of:
-- wake turbulence being a factor with the glider low
-- a hang-up on a tail wire
- a reported parachute deployment attempt
- parachute accessibility
- the ballistic parachute option

And after four months we get:

Joe Gregor - 2006/01

2005/09/03 18:30 - Cushing Field, Illinois - 47-year-old male, H-4, advanced tandem instructor, AT administrator - Northwing T2 - over/under

A highly experienced tandem pilot and student crashed while launching via aerotow. Initial witness reports indicate that the glider entered a lockout and was disconnected from the tug in a non-flying attitude at approximately 250' AGL due to a failure of the towline. The accident glider dove steeply to the ground, impacting before showing any sign of recovery to controlled flight. The instructor and student died on impact.

What a BLATANT display of TOTAL UNMITIGATED *CONTEMPT* for:
- the lives of these two people
- the families and friends of these two people
- everyone concerned about what:
-- led up to and precipitated the stall
-- happened between the point of the stall and impact
- the sport of hang gliding
- all decent people in the sport of hang gliding and all to come
- the safety of any and every one who ever hooks up to a towline

And you totally fucking get away with it. All those people involved in all those intense and heated exchanges in fifteen pages of discussion, you tell us two guys locked out, broke the towline, dove in, died on impact - and NOBODY says ANYTHING ANYWHERE.

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=818
Peter (Linknife) Birren

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/27 01:49:22 UTC

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/10/13 19:47:26 UTC

The weak link broke from the tow plane side. The towline was found underneath the wreck, and attached to the glider by the weaklink. The glider basically fell on the towline.

You wanna comment on THAT empirical evidence? Or do the conditions of your USHGA Safety Award preclude you from saying anything negative about understrength weak links?

Peter Birren - 2011/11/27 02:13:08 UTC

No, I'm not going to comment on Arlan's accident and you really ought to quit as well because neither you nor I were there. The difference is that you have no trouble talking out your ass about that which you know nothing about. I could, however, speculate on several scenarios from having spoken at great length with the tug pilot and eyewitnesses. How many of those at the site did you speak with?

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/27 04:47:34 UTC

No, I'm not going to comment on Arlan's accident and you really ought to quit as well because neither you nor I were there.

- And yet ANOTHER never fails indicator that you're dealing with someone with a brain half the size of a walnut.

"If you weren't looking up through a telescope while the Columbia broke and burned up during reentry you couldn't POSSIBLY have any idea what went wrong and why."

- ARLAN didn't have an ACCIDENT. Arlan ran a dangerous operation using dangerous equipment out of compliance with USHGA/FAA regulations and got his student killed in the course of a NOTHING, ROUTINE, tandem training flight. The fact that he got killed too was incidental to the real tragedy.

The difference is that you have no trouble talking out your ass about that which you know nothing about.

Yeah dickhead? Then why don't you start telling me what I've got wrong, disgrace me in front of my cult members, and start bringing them back to The True Path of USHGA Righteousness?

I could, however, speculate on several scenarios from having spoken at great length with the tug pilot and eyewitnesses.

Why bother? You weren't there so getting eyewitness accounts could serve no possible purpose in enhancing your understanding of the situation.

How many of those at the site did you speak with?

- Those at the site at the time? NONE.

- So how did what they told you off the record differ from what they put in print?

- In other words, when were they telling the truth and when were they lying?

- What were their reasons for lying and/or suppressing accurate information about the crash?

- What are your reasons for not having publicized your conclusions about why this double killing took place? Did the eyewitnesses swear you to secrecy before whispering their true accounts? Or does USHGA recall your Safety Award if you don't go along with the whitewashes and cover-ups?

- Ya wanna start by explaining why the front end weak link blew before the glider's - when neither aircraft was in immediate danger - when the Standard Operating Procedures state that it should be a hundred pounds over?

P.S. Bob, you wanna help him out a bit here? Tell him that he should just ignore the questions to which the answers will be inconvenient? Show him how to break through walls to extract himself from the corners he's painted himself into? I'm certain he'll be eternally grateful.

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/27 14:49:31 UTC

Peter, I do think you should pretty much ignore Tad at this point. Tad doesn't really want to make progress in this sport. If he did, then he'd be doing what I've suggested above.

Warren Narron - 2011/11/27 16:52:45 UTC

I've already said that Peter doesn't need any encouragement to ignore uncomfortable questioning. Peter Birren came on to this site 'swinging a big club' using vulgar language in an arrogant manner. I didn't see him being called down or people being advised to ignore him.

Now that Birren has argued his way into a corner, he is given a free pass to skip merrily down the road past the very bodies he can now refuse to talk about?

Let Peter Birren, answer the questions.
He came here looking for a fight, let him fight.

If he knows something in contrast to the politically expedient story that we have heard, then he needs to say it. Come out of the box Peter, and answer the questions.

P.S. Earlier today I discovered that Fynlcut was Craig Hassan and edited all Kite Strings posts accordingly.

Tad Eareckson - 2014/08/03 01:29:13 UTC

Great! You just earned yourself a place on a list of mine you're never gonna be able to get off of.

That stupid motherfucker had earned himself a place on a list of mine he'd never be able to get off of five years ago when we first crossed paths. Nice to see that I don't need prior histories to nail the categorizations in short order.