HanzTx - 2013/11/05 21:24:27 UTC
San Francisco Bay Area
Pilot error
I also thought my experience as a Private Pilot would give me a boost learning to hang glide...
It's NOT.
How do you know? Have you compared the progress you're making to the progress you'd have made minus your Private Pilot experience?
I think it actually hurts.
You THINK.
Especially with landing.
You mean the...
Gil Dodgen - 1995/01
All of this reminds me of a comment Mike Meier made when he was learning to fly sailplanes. He mentioned how easy it was to land a sailplane (with spoilers for glide-path control and wheels), and then said, "If other aircraft were as difficult to land as hang gliders no one would fly them."
...dangerous standup bullshit that no one can ever do safely but everyone starts forcing students to do on Day One, Flight One?
Try to forget everything rigid wing, and control surface flying related with respect to landing.
Fuck the control surfaces. Get the glider lined up on a big flat field, stay prone and on the basetube, keep it level, and fly it until it stops flying.
I want to open a discussion, encourage people to give account of their own feeling and experiences of this relatively new yet influential aspect to our Hang Gliding world.
In times past, we only had our direct personal experience of flying and seeing others flying at the same site/time.
There were stories and accounts of others and their escapades but that's all.
Nah, people have been putting still and movie cameras on their gliders since the beginning of the sport. Granted, the volume, circulation, accessibility were all tiny fractions of what they are now.
In our very recent past and up until present, we have YouTube and Vimeo et al, in combination with the appearance of GoPro and such.
This has given us (and by US I mean Hang Glider Pilots young and old and of every level of experience and ability) a dramatically expanded, varied, and extended experience.
And a lot of really great details of a lot of really scary and/or nasty incidents - as The Industry continually ramps up its suppression and disinformation machinery.
Of different pilots and types of wings, harnesses, sites, conditions, techniques along with the myriad of different takeoffs and landing approaches and landings themselves.
We see on a daily basis many many pilots flying amazing places on stunning new Litespeeds and T2Cs and Laminars etc., the very slick harnesses and distinct lack of base bar wheels.
These pilots seemingly actually achieving our very own dreams.
And - more importantly - nightmares.
I for one have thought and felt deeply inside, 'I want to do that'. It doesn't look that hard to fly these blade wings...
It's not.
...all these others are doing it seemingly without any negative consequences. Maybe I could also.
I am on an advanced intermediate (Litesport), so it's not such a huge step for me. But being at present a somewhat irregular flyer I need to spend another hundred or so hours on the Litesport before I should even consider moving up, that's if I ever actually want to.
There are many of us out there who are not up to it, whether currency or ability wise.
Most people who fly hang gliders shouldn't be flying anything. One of the main attractions to hang gliding is you can get through the ground school, "theory", and written tests minus third grade reading, math, and science competency.
How many of you have felt tempted to move up too far too soon. What were the pressures/reasons behind this desire.
Performance is COOL!
How did you come to realise your error or did you try the blade and scare yourself witless or did you cope fine and are loving it?
After I learned to dune soar on Kitty Hawk Eaglet trainers and a shop Seahawk 180 I picked up a used Comet 165. It was the top comp glider for a good many years in the early Eighties. The most trouble I got into related to the performance was when I was doing one of my first mountain flights at a crappy Hang Three clinic at the crappy High Top, Virginia LZ under the crappy instruction of my crappy instructor - Mark Airey.
I genuinely am interested in trying to understand this issue further. I am safe, been there and managed to stay grounded (pardon the pun) in my decisions. But we are all different. No right or wrong judgements here, just a genuine desire for discussion which hopefully leads to better understanding and therefore management of this relatively 'modern' issue.
It's not a modern issue. It's as old as the separation between performance levels - and YouTube doesn't have shit to do with it.
Let's pull out the magic wand and turn all gliders on the planet T2Cs and make it impossible to manufacture Condors, Falcons, Sport 2s, U2s or train on any other aircraft. People who wanted to learn to fly hang gliders would learn to fly hang gliders and the bloodbath wouldn't be any worse than it is now - and considerably better if we decided to fix the obvious problems we refuse to now.
to acclimate people to control response, eliminate foot landings, and stop shooting for traffic cones in the middles of fields.
And I'd contend that a normal first training hill student coming in on a T2C with wheels like THIS:
is a whole lot less likely to need replacement parts or medical attention than some hotshot Hang Five punk like Ryan Voight going for a no stepper on a Falcon.
Get a rigid if you really want the most performance without needing to fly a 100 hrs a yr to stay current.
I see many young pilots...
Idiot.
...getting hurt shortly ( within 15 to 50 hrs) after they step up to a topless. I see most pilots flying them making crappy approaches and not having the experience of aerodynamic and meteorological understanding to stay ahead of the aircraft.
So it's because of the glider's performance that they have crappy approaches and understandings of shit like wind shadow and gradient? So it's OK for them to have crappy understandings of shit like wind shadow and gradient as long as they're flying Falcons?
Sooner or later they find themselves close to the ground and out of control and the wing will hurt them.
Sooner or later damn near everyone who regularly comes in with...
I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.
...his hands at shoulder or ear height will find himself close to the ground and out of control and about to crash.
A bad trend I see is for pilots to make approaches head down still on the base bar making long ground skims.
Not interested in your FEELINGS, Dave. Do some work on your writing, logic, thinking, try to get it through your thick fucking skull that "young" and "inexperienced" aren't synonyms, and then get back to me in a few years.
...this trend comes from watching comp pilots racing into goal or watching pilots zoom in in smooth air at the end of the day. There's a lot of wannabes out there.
Right. The new guys shouldn't be emulating the highly skilled pilots who've survived this sport long enough to make it into the upper rankings. They should be emulating their really crappy peers.
If you want one of these advance setups for the cool factor you are not ready for it. When you are top of the stack > at base when most everyone skinks out...
What's "skinking out"? Running low on lizards?
...when you are flying XC regularly...
Why does ANYONE have to fly XC EVER?
...when you are safely landing in new and different LZs where no one sees you...
Especially really crappy fields. It's not like anybody can ever become a really competent pilot just landing at airports.
When you feel that you have the maturity to master a wing that demands being mentally in control even when the wing and the air have you out of control you might be ready.
Yeah Dave. When you're mentally in control there's really nothing Mother Nature can do to you that you won't be able to handle.
Most of us older pilots...
Like Ryan Voight...
...had many 100s 0r 1000s of hrs...
Every hundred hours you accumulate ages you about five years. Assuming you start flying at age 25 you'll be about 75 by the time you rack up a thousand.
...when the topless wings came out. Some of us had the maturity to transition into them. Most of us have stepped back flying the topless only in a situation that needs that performance edge.
Yeah, unless you have the drag of a kingpost and a few extra wires up top the wing really can't be flown or landed safely.
But if we are not current on it we leave it in the bag.
Speaking on behalf of all topless pilots.
I could go on and on trying to make points that have been said many time in many ways.
Oh, why not Dave? How 'bout just a half hour explaining to us...
When I first started flying, my plan was to practice with the rental gear until I was ready to buy something equivalent to a WW Sport 2, thinking "why would I want a beginner glider?"
After gaining some experience (and reading a lot and talking to experienced people) I realized that the perceived performance upgrade with a glider like that also comes with the cost of higher maintenance, in terms of practice and skill. Given that I will not be flying more than one or two days a month, I decided that a Falcon will be the best, and will hopefully have it in my hot little hand next week. Knowing what I know now, I plan to keep the Falcon in my quiver forever.
If you're happy with that - FINE. The sole purpose of this sport is to enjoy flying and there's a pretty wide range of lift to drag ratios that lets people do that.
Karl Allmendinger - 2013/12/05 16:56:48 UTC
No doubt YouTube is a contributing factor these days, but I think it's mostly testosterone and ego, like it has always been.
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting turned on by a wing's performance and I'm not seeing crashes that are primarily the result of lower time flyers on higher performance wings.
Years ago one of the women pilots, I forget who, said, "The most dangerous thing in hang gliding is the male ego."
OMG!!! You dont even have wheels!!?!?!?!?
YOURE GONNA DIE FOR SUUUUREE!!!!
I have a brilliant idea. People who cant land for sh*t.... LEARN TO LAND That way when a weak link breaks on you, ITS A NON-ISSUE. Genius huh???
a fair example?
There were two responses. One was, "How dare you say such a terrible sexist thing!" and the other was "I know. I have one. If I didn't keep it on a short leash it would surely kill me."
Maybe we'll get lucky and OP's will get him - AGAIN.
Robert Moore - 2013/12/05 17:53:59 UTC
You nailed it, Dave.
Bullshit. Pretty much the only things that Dave's ever really nailed in this sports are sides of hills.
The prone-in-ground-effect trend is a really bad move for a very high majority of pilots - maybe for all pilots. I see pilots attempting some version of this quite regularly, and it usually results in a poor landing at best.
I also agree on the rigid comment. While learning to get the best from a rigid takes some time, I feel it's less than for a topless. Full flaps turn a rigid into a Falcon when it's time to land, but you're flying a super-ship the rest of the time. Get a used rigid, and out-perform the newest topless - often for less money.
So what you're saying is that it's not so much the high performance glider that's the problem - it's (foot) landing the high performance glider that's the problem.
highhuber (Scot) - 2013/12/05 19:00:29 UTC
Santa Rosa
Gliders
Here's my take on it. A Litesport is a fantastic ship. Unless you're flying tasks against topless gliders...
In which case you might do well to ask yourself if you got into the sport because you wanted to beat other gliders.
...I would stay on it until you either wear it out or need the little bit of extra performance the topless ships will give. If you are not getting a hundred hours a year or not going XC much you don't need the topless.
As far as getting a rigid... well, that's a personal call. I have both and the rigid has not seen any airtime since I got my 144 T2C. Here's why: The Atos has great performance on glide, roll rate and climb are not up to par with the T2C. This is because of the means of control - spoilerons. There is a lag time between roll input and actual roll.
My 144T2C flexwing has nearly instantaneous response to roll input. Yes, it requires more muscle to control it, but the speed and feel of responsiveness is what I love about it. When I first flew my T2C I thought it was twitchy. Dustin Martin told me yes, that's what you want. Responsiveness.
After a few flights I realized the advantage of this. In a thermal you're continually entering and exiting varying degrees of lift. To maximize your ability to climb your glider needs to be responsive. If it's not you spend time either fighting with it or waiting on it in the case of a rigid.
Also the feel of that responsiveness is addictive because you are more in tune with the sky and not just along for the ride like on a rigid. It's kind of like the difference between driving a sports car or a Cadillac Coupe De Ville. Of course the responsiveness of the 144 T2C requires you to be on it more because it will get out of whack faster and easier then a lesser performing wing. Especially in turbulent air near the ground. This is why the smart pilots with confidence in the wing's ability will come in on the basetube proned out till the wing settles into ground effect and loses most of its energy.
OH! So it's the SMART pilots who stay proned out so they can maximize the control and safety of their landings - not the assholes who just wanna look cool like Dave says. And - contrary to what Robert a really GOOD move for a EVERYONE - which pretty much always results in a good landing, provided one doesn't try to get cute at the end and and rotate up to the downtubes to whipstall for a foot landing attempt.
If you don't a small gust will bump you out of whack and if you're on the downtubes you may end up bending metal.
I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.
...something like that before?
A topless requires more pilot skill and input to fly correctly and safely.
Safety is only an issue near the ground, right? It's usually pretty hard to get seriously fucked up by not maxing out your climb in a thermal, right?
But not that much more.
So the differences between gliders tend not to be huge fucking deals, right?
The new lighter and stiffer sail cloths make them even more responsive. If you do move to a topless get a used one with a Dacron sail this will be much easier to fly. When you need ultimate performance and are ready the UvODLO6 skinned birds will give it to you.
So the question in buying a glider is what do you want out of your flying experience and what are your capabilities. Only you can decide that.
So would it be fair to say that - assuming reasonable pilot skill / control response and a sane field:
- pretty much the only time a topless might have a significant effect on the safety equation would be on final;
- the downside contributed by that wing versus something towards the lower end isn't that big a fucking deal; and
- that downside is pretty much dwarfed by the issue of prone on the basetube versus upright on the downtubes?
Auden Etnestad - 2013/12/05 20:19:39 UTC
Kongsberg, Norway
highhuber (Scot) - 2013/12/05 19:00:29 UTC
This is why the smart pilots with confidence in the wing's ability will come in on the basetube proned out till the wing settles into ground effect and loses most of its energy.
Tommy Thompson (soar8hours) - 2013/12/06 02:54:01 UTC
North Carolina
As the hang gliding community gets older, safer ways to land should be explored.
1. Off topic, Tommy. This thread is all about safer HARDWARE for CRASHING, not safer PROCEDURES for LANDING. Take your lunatic ideas elsewhere.
2. The safer way to land has been known since the dawn of the sport. But the hang gliding industry and culture have prevented it from ever gaining a foothold - 'cept, of course, in commercial tandem operations.
3. Fuck the older hang gliding community. A line of all the young people who've had seasons, flying careers, lives wrecked, destroyed, ended because their hands were on or moving to the downtubes would stretch to Toledo and back.
Our bones are more brittle and I think we should be trying new ways to land more like a plane.
We should be taking off, flying, landing, training, equipping, regulating as much like planes as possible and stop pretending that we have special exemptions from the laws of Newtonian physics.
Landing on wheels and not allowing the nose to go over is a good way to start.
So how are you gonna land in a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place?
Even though I fly what I consider a mellow landing wing, a Wills Wing Falcon...
I have always kept wheels on the base tube and think that an arrangement such as the early Pterodactyl ultralight main wheels and nose gear to land on would be great. After all it was a Manta Fledge IIB wing (I converted mine to a hang cage with motor and eventually added a canard) to start with and could handle hard landing just fine with the bungee cord shock cords.
But like everything else, if the manufacturers don't push it...
Fuck the manufacturers. Wills Wing has never even officially HEARD of a wheel landing despite:
Gil Dodgen - 1995/01
All of this reminds me of a comment Mike Meier made when he was learning to fly sailplanes. He mentioned how easy it was to land a sailplane (with spoilers for glide-path control and wheels), and then said, "If other aircraft were as difficult to land as hang gliders no one would fly them."
I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.
...or it's for the comp crowd...
Fuck the comp crowd. It's allowed scum like Davis to dictate universal 130 pound Greenspot Pilots In Command but it won't make safe wheels mandatory and thus stop encouraging/pressuring/rewarding the practice of flying without them.
...it's going to be a flop.
Probably. Maybe we just gotta wait a few extra decades for Darwin's case to become even more glaringly obvious. We'll either be seeing reform or extinction.
This is why I am considering reverting back to my old supine days, sitting up in comfort and safer too. I'd much rather have my legs out front instead of my head and neck!
Yeah, but prone looks cooler and, I think, gives you a little better control range and authority. Also thinking it would be a bit problematic with respect to aerotow configurations.
I have to say that landing on the wheels is so much fun it's not funny.
...enjoy rather than fear our landings.
You'd not need a cart to tow from...
Yeah you would. You need castering wheels and it's nice to have the keel supported and pitch set. And it's nice to take off with bigger heavier wheels than you'd wanna fly and need to land with.
...and no transferring upright...
...during the single most dangerous phase of the flight...
...and dealing with the critical flare timing.
What? You've been flying for 42 years and you haven't perfected your flare timing yet? Have you considered a clinic with Ryan Voight? Better get on the waiting list that's been building up while he's been recovering from his shoulder injury.
And today's supine paraglider harnesses are perfect for the job. Especially the XC enclosed ones.
2014 may be the year to introduce my ideas into reality and enhance my chances of flying another five or ten years!
Why don't you take your ideas over to Grebloville?
Final bit of troll food, I read about Tad's reputation this morning.
Tad Eareckson is a generally discounted crackpot and internet troll. He doesn't fly and has been perma-banned from most everywhere: .org, oz report and all the local club websites with discussion forums like ours.
He has two main speaking points. 1. All HG landings should be done prone as belly landings using wheels. All other foot landings are suicidal, he will say.
Mike Blankenhorn - 2013/03/12 03:57:34 UTC
Suicide is highly under rated, Tad should try it, but no wait he's lost his balls!
Orion Price - 2013/03/13 05:52:48 UTC
Tad really has no testicles. He says he had one surgically removed. However we all know they took both out.
That would be a great place to start - and you can count on Bob for covering fire if you start running into any flak.
Assumes she's hooked in for at least 52 seconds.
Flies real fast most of the flight, particularly after she's left the slope.
Small but - given the real nice landing surface - adequate wheels.
Goes to the downtubes but stays prone and low on the downtubes.
Never flares more than she could have from the basetube.
Gets the glider slowed to a brisk walk, close to stopping, and...
I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.
Probably shouldn't put much stock in it though - Steve hasn't survived anywhere near as many spectacular crashes as you have.
I have not flown any gliders that are that difficult to get and keep speed while on the up rights.
You see... the human shoulder limits how far you can pull in. Prone or upright, you can really only get your hands back about even with your shoulders.
They're all physically impossible.
Unless your landing in very strong ,(30 mph), turbulent winds which increase the chances of a sever gradient and make it even more dangerous to be head down.
Fuck that.
- It's virtually ALWAYS way to be head down.
- WHEN you crash BECAUSE you came in with dangerously reduced control BECAUSE you were head up your head WILL rotate down and it'll stop having all that kinetic and rotational energy it wouldn't have had if you'd come in head down in the first place.
- If you're coming in through a severe gradient it's MANDATORY that you be proned out with the bar stuffed. People in trouble will instinctively do this and people have been killed because they didn't have time to do this.
You may think it is easier and safer to be on the base bar but it will hurt us eventually.
Chris Starbuck. Fuck you.
You're saying that it's just a matter of time before all people who land prone - either as a matter of choice or, due to physical problems and impairments - WILL get trashed sooner or later. And that's total rot. In fact, name me a hang glider pilot who deliberately lands prone whenever possible or by necessity for any reason who's ever broken an arm or neck or dislocated a shoulder.
If it's that turbulent there is a good chance you will lose control during the transition.
No shit. So don't transition. See Steve Pearson's statement above.
Todays gliders are supposed to be more controllable with lighter bar pressure so it should be easier.
Yeah. It SHOULD BE. And I notice you're not saying it IS. What undeniably makes fixed wing aircraft more controllable is AIRSPEED.
All major accidents we had during landing in Israel were as a result of not transitioning to standing position.
While and because of coming in with the INTENT of transitioning to standing position.
Many times it was due to harness wrong settings.
See? Toldyaso.
I can not agree more to your remark that only extreme wind might require staying in the flying position.
1. TOO RIGHT, DUDE. *FLYING* POSITION. When you go upright you are out of FLYING position and into NONFLYING/WHIPSTALLING/ARM-BREAK position. And if things transpire such that you need to do some more FLYING after transitioning out of FLYING position YOU ARE FUCKED.
Ever here an expression along the lines of, "Never stop flying the wing."? When you go upright you no longer have that option.
2. And you're as totally full of shit as Dave is on the beginning of that idiot sentence.
Dontsink - 2013/12/07 16:05:37 UTC
Prone=lying down="flying position"
I never land prone or on the basebar, always rotated and on the uprights.
It's a no brainer that you never do a hook-in check before running off a ramp.
I'd guess that most foot launchers will have some kind of incident - connection or leg loops - by the time they get up to five hundred foot launches. The vast majority of those will be inconsequential - scooter tow, caught by someone, aborted on shallow slopes. A minor percentage will result in the glider going bye-bye and it's owner getting beat up a bit. A very small percentage will result in very serious injury or death.
Just 'cause you're doing something stupid and dangerous and getting away with it hundreds of times in a row don't make it a good idea.
I agree with Dave and you that leading with your neck is not safe.
Dave's totally full of shit on just about every point he tries to make. You go for a foot landing you're highly likely to blow the landing. You blow the landing you WILL BE leading with your head and neck.
My current harness does not rotate much at all (it is rotated in the video), the sliding bar is short. I can get it more upright by pulling/locking a string but it is a hassle and it will not allow me to go back to prone...
What hgyzv refers to as "flying position".
...in a hurry if I get below glideslope.
Not really following you here, Sink. I've read untold thousands of posts about how much better a glider handles when you're not in flying position. Maybe the tiniest penalty in drag but that's gotta be more than made up for by not having wheels on the basetube.
I might get a new harness next year (Vulto), I've tried one and it rotates to a really nice landing...
We all want to prevent broken and damaged down-tubes.
Bullshit. We all want to whipstall our gliders to dead stop landings within five feet of traffic cones in middles of huge putting greens. If we wanted to prevent broken downtubes, arms, and necks we'd roll in on wheels.
In trying to avode having the Base-tube stop moving forward while landing when the wing continues to move forward, resulting in a whack.
Then we lose all incentive for perfecting our flare timing. Not a good idea.
Many Pilots use wheels. But wheels increase parasitic drag, not our friend drag.
Don't you think that if drag were really a problem that two point aerotow releases would be built into gliders?
Well has anyone done any trials using instead of wheels. Using some skids. They would seem to enable the base tube to not come to an abrupt stop while the Pilot and his glider are moving forward along the ground.
Hopefully.
Also I think that while solving the issue of added parasitic drag. They might do an OK job of solving the dreaded cause of having a Glider Whack.
The dreaded cause of having a glider whack is people not learning to land. All they need to do is learn to land.
Ok Guys this is my thought on this issue, what are yours?
How 'bout USHGA's thoughts? You could:
- run your hook-in check, fly five hours, gain eight thousand feet, go seventy-five miles out and back, and land flawlessly on eight inch pneumatic wheels in a tight field after smoking some weed and get your rating revoked
- skip the hook-in check, abort an unhooked launch, take a sled run, blow your flare timing in dead air, catch a bare basetube, leave in a chopper with no feeling from your neck down, and get your Hang Five because those three minutes of airtime kicked you over the four hundred hour requirement
OK good By The BIG Guy
Felix Cantesanu - 2013/12/05 18:53:44 UTC
Skids have been around for a while now...
I attached pics of the regular WillsWing skids as well as skids on an Aeros Combat and skids from an Atos (those are kind of big but have rails underneath)
Cool ideas.
I like the Aeros skids best, they'll be on my Combat when I get one - about two years from now
Dan Lukaszewicz - 2013/12/05 21:01:16 UTC
Alexandria, Virginia
I suppose it depends on where you fly and how you launch. If you are going to foot launch from a mountain and land in a field with crops, tall grass, or sand I say go ahead and take the wheels off since they aren't going to help.
If you're going to launch from a mountain and land in a field with crops you shouldn't - PERIOD. If you're going to launch from a mountain and land in a field with tall grass it better be Yosemite - 'cause otherwise there aren't many reasonable excuses.
Wheels would be a great idea if you fly at a flight park and aerotow or truck tow. If you break a weak link immediately after leaving the cart wheels may prevent serious injury.
BULLSHIT.
- How can a SAFETY device - a device which can only INCREASE the safety of the towing operation and can, at worst, only INCONVENIENCE the pilot a bit - possibly precipitate a serious injury?
That ain't rocket science and you obviously don't need wheels or skids.
- Don't you think that if wheels were capable of preventing a serious injury at launch then Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney - who's head and shoulders above all other tug pilots in his concern for our safety - would add not having wheels to his list of reasons he'll refuse to tow us...
-- using:
--- anything other than a single loop of 130 pound Greenspot for a weak link
--- homemade equipment
-- wanting to use something heavier than a single loop of 130 pound Greenspot for a weak link
-- stating that the sole purpose of a weak link is to protect the glider from overload
-- quoting him making totally contradictory statements and lying
-- failing to recognize his legal authority as Pilot In Command of our gliders
-- being:
--- Tad
--- from Tad's Hole In The Ground
Plus, if the grass is short and the ground is smooth in your LZ it is possible to roll in on your belly if your harness zippers sticks or if you miss your flare window or catch some turbulence near the ground. It's always good to keep your options open.
If you're configured to punch a flare when the grass is short and the ground is smooth you've already thrown out the three options most likely to keep you from crashing and being injured on any given flight...
That way when a weak link breaks on you, ITS A NON-ISSUE. Genius huh??? 
