a safe landing is always preferred over crashing on a spot
So are you implying that you're more likely to have a safe landing when not shooting for a spot and more likely to crash when you are shooting for a spot?
however
they are not mutually exclusive
But you ARE more likely to crash when shooting for a spot, right? Can you think of any sane argument or cite any evidence to the contrary?
A hundred year lifespan and several rounds of Russian roulette are not mutually exclusive. But what does that do to the numbers in the big picture?
Why don't you give me some examples of people who've developed superb spot landing skills coming out smelling like roses from situations in which Hang Two wheel landers would've been fucked?
We're forcing people to land...
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."
...on their feet with their hands on the downtubes where they can't control the glider and where...
Most common HG injury... spiral fracture of the humerus.
...they have extremely high probabilities of breaking arms on the pretense that they'll inevitably advance to the point at which they'll be needing to land in narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place and...
There have been a number of bad landing incidents in the wash by a variety of experienced pilots because it is a dangerous bailout, period. It is NOT the club's landing zone either. It is a bailout and when it's hot on the surface it can and will bite you in the ass.
...if they constantly run emergency drills for this situation they'll be able to stay safe when it happens. And then on top of that we teach them to throw away the first half of any field they encounter, regardless of its size or lack thereof, so they can try to learn to stop on real or imagined Frisbees at their centers - or a bit beyond when flying gliders more prone to overshooting.
Got any ideas for making the sport even more insanely dangerous and astoundingly stupid?
Paul,
I want every bit of control as I can get. That's why I:
A. Like to be in the middle or upper end of the weight range
B. Push the spreader on the hang strap up near the sail not down near the carabiner
C. Hang as low as I can get (about ten millimeters clearance)
D. Fly fast when I want or need maximum control authority
E. Coordinate roll and pitch inputs
F. Never give conflicting control inputs
G. Go prone and get my hands on the control tube as soon as it's safe to after launch
H. Stay prone with my hands on the control tube on final
P.S. You ever see a private or airline pilot aim for the middle of a runway or an old Frisbee?
I think Asiana Airlines Captain Sum Ting Wong has been biasing things a bit farther down the runway lately.
Comes in fast, hands on the controls, scrapes the downwind tree line, and doesn't needlessly throw away half the field.
Yeah, but what will his chances of survival be if he ever needs to land on a Frisbee? Like when you're coming into a minefield and the only safe spot has been marked with a Frisbee?
I have no intentions of jeopardizing my future by aiming for some spot (Frisbee or imaginary) in the middle of a landing zone.
Michael,
Aiming for a spot usually means that you are in the correct LZ.
What if you see a Frisbee that some kids were playing with one of their backyards? Won't there be a pretty strong instinct to go for it?
Aiming for a field can put you into the next field, long or short, or assorted other more serious troubles.
So my choices are aim for the Frisbee in the middle of the field or just aim for the whole field, and thus risk missing it - no other options BETWEEN those extremes?
Assuming for a minute that you plan to cross the fence about five yards (meters) high, and you hit some heavy sink on final, then what do you plan to do, flap your wings?
If there's a fifteen foot fence then that DEFINES the field. That's my obstruction.
What's the logic (if any) behind locating the spot in the middle of the field, or maybe slightly toward the downwind end of the field for single-surfaced gliders, and slightly toward the upwind end of the field for double-surfaced gliders?
Single-surfaced gliders have a lot of drag, so you can approach fast and steep, and have the greatest chance of running out of airspeed before you get to the target. Double-surfaced gliders retain energy very well, so if you overshoot the spot, there will still be a lot of the field ahead of you to make a safe landing.
Not if you're setting up to touch down on a Frisbee beyond the center point. Just 'cause I'm flying a higher performance glider doesn't mean that I'm eating up an extra hundred yards of runway. There's all kinds of shit I can do to stop it in about the same distance a Falcon can stop - and a lot less if it's the typical dork who's been taught by some asshole to land on Frisbee's at middles of fields.
I think it's a real good bet that the kind of pilot who's got a bladewing and is properly qualified to fly it can put it down using a lot less runway than a typical Hang Two rated Falcon flyer can.
Why not just locate the spot very near the upwind end of the field so as to make this exercise even more dangerous?
The plan here is to minimize the danger.
Whose plan?
"Putting it on the numbers" is fine if you have an engine or dive brakes, but coming in too short (thus hitting the fence) can be WAY too short. Your body is breakable, and it is not always fixable.
So if I don't have an engine or dive brakes I can't put it on the numbers without some insane risk of hitting the fence? I got news for ya, red.
So you're saying to aim for a spot in the middle of the smaller field in order to throw away half of the runway and effectively make the small field even smaller.
Nope, the target spot is always the same size.
Couldn't you just buy smaller Frisbees for smaller fields? Maybe use plastic coffee can lids for really small fields and people no longer being challenged by Frisbees?
The trick here is to have the most possible field (maybe somewhat biased by glider type) available in case of a minor overshoot or undershoot.
I don't *DO* undershoots, red. That's one part of this game over which I've got TOTAL control.
Your final glide-path should intersect with the ground where the spot is located...
I don't need you or anybody else to set any fuckin' spot for me.
...giving you the largest possible room for error, either long or short.
And I don't need any goddam Frisbee out anywhere in any goddam field to determine my glide path or where I SHOULD intersect the ground.
You can hit lift OR sink, on your approach; you better have enough field available to you in either case.
When I'm on final I'm either just at or below treetop level INSIDE the field with lotsa speed - diving or slipping into ground effect. So I don't give a flying fuck about sink. Bring it on. I don't mind landing short and having to carry my glider a good bit farther to the breakdown area.
And lift is gonna have a REAL hard time making remaining runway length an issue for me when I'm skimming a foot or two off the deck.
If landing near a spot is too much of a challenge for now, that's fine (and that will change, with more airtime), but small LZs will hardly be noticeable when you routinely land safely near the Frisbee anyway.
It's not "too much" of a challenge for me now. It's something I have absolutely no interest in or use for. I DESPISE spot landings and spot landing contests. I didn't get into this sport to stomp on Frisbees. I got into it to fly. Stomping on Frisbees is something I could do in the living room if that had any appeal for me.
I LOVE landings - 'cept for the fact that they always mean that the flight's over. I especially love tight field landings and simulations. And I don't want them tainted by stupid dangerous shit like stopping on my feet and hitting spots.
But not for high-time pilots?
Sorry, you grabbed the wrong end of the stick, there. Non-level fields are BAD for low-time pilots. Experienced pilots should be well aware of the challenges of any LZ, and be able to handle them, or be able to reach a better LZ.
Experienced pilots ARE well aware of the challenges of crap fields and the fact that they probably can't handle them any more safely than a reasonably well checked out Hang 2.0 and...
So I just came back from flying in Austria (awesome place btw). Stark difference I noticed is a large chunk of pilots choose to fly with skids instead of wheels. Conversations I had with pilots they say they actually work better in certain situations as they don't get plugged up like smaller wheels. Even larger heavier Atosses were all flying with skids. I was curious why they consistently chose to land on skids on those expensive machines and they were saying that it's just not worth the risk of a mistimed flare or wing hitting the ground... And those are all carbon frames etc.
...they don't land in them.
And then choose bad LZs as a first priority, after your landing skills are well developed?
Hey, I never said THAT!
That's what it sounded like to at least two of us.
I meant, after your landing skills are well-sorted in the big open fields, then your priorities can (reasonably) change to sites which are closer to home, higher, better thermals, more friends...
Not much chance of that - 'specially with the crud I've got to choose from in this sport.
...or whatever, even if the LZ is somewhat challenging.
There are no "challenging" *LZs*. If a landing zone is challenging people WILL get hurt at high rates and the situation won't be sustainable.
A tight LZ can be DEMANDING but anybody who comes into a CHALLENGING field more than once or twice is just begging to lose the challenge. If you're gonna challenge something then challenge something you've got a good change of beating into submission. You can't beat a field into submission and even when you pull things off and come out smelling like a rose the field still remains totally undiminished in its ability to keep challenging you. You WILL lose after a few rounds.
The first priority of a low-time pilot should be safe landings, fairly close to a reasonable target.
Is that in the SOPs somewhere? Must've missed it. So what's a "reasonable target" and who gets to define it?
Nobody should intentionally choose a bad LZ...
Then what good are all those spot landing requirements that were such pains in the ass for us to get signed off? Shouldn't we intentionally choose bad LZs every now and then to keep those signoffs from being total wastes?
...but they better have the skills to deal with it, if earlier bad choices have left them with no alternatives.
Sounds like it's almost certain death if there's no Frisbee in the middle of the field or, perish the thought, if there IS a Frisbee but its at an edge of the field. Gawd! What if it's stuck in a tree!
A newer pilot here once got "up close and personal" with a fence at the end of a small LZ. He asked one of the locals what he did wrong. The answer was fairly clear: "You launched here, just a few months too early."
1. Real useful. So what amazing approach skills did the locals have that it was gonna take this bozo a few months to develop?
2. So who OKed this bozo to launch there?
As the pilot of a glider, every choice you make can eliminate a number of other alternatives, from the remaining selections available.
So always put the Frisbee in the middle of the field. That'll eliminate the possibility of anything bad happening in the first half of the field.
And always use an appropriate weak link with a finished length of 1.5 inches or less. That'll eliminate any possibility of your glider having its wings torn off and anything bad happening on tow at more than 226 or 260 pounds - depending on your bridle configuration.
Nic Welbourn - 2014/03/24 22:06:07 UTC
Canberra
Paul Hurless - 2014/03/24 17:51:24 UTC
Practicing so you're able to land where you want to instead of just floating in somewhere in a big field develops piloting skills.
This seems to sum it up.
Yeah. It SEEMS to.
This ain't about flying your glider into the ground...
Who said anything about flying his glider into the ground?
...this is about honing your landing skills such that you can land safely at your target...
1. MY target? What if my target isn't a Frisbee in the middle of the LZ?
2. What if I don't feel I need a target? No fuckin' way I can land safely?
...if you land *anywhere* in a big field...
Who said anything about landing *anywhere* in a big field?
...then you ain't practicing or aiming to perfect your landings.
2. So where the fuck was the spot? Didn't he just point it up the strip, into the wind, up the slope and wait for it to run out of steam? When did you see him tweaking his glide to nail his Frisbee?
3. So noman can stop safely at his target. He's practiced, honed his skills, perfected his landings to the extent that he doesn't need wheels anymore. So how come he needs a helmet?
Let's wager on a couple of different flavors of pilots. You take a couple dozen perfecting their landings by trying to nail the Frisbee in the middle of the LZ and stopping the way Paul No-Wheels Voight does and I'll take a couple dozen Niki Longshores...
Until I master the foot stuff, I'm bound to "training wheels." Basic landing approach (downwind, base, final). Final approach with lots of speed and gentle touch down on wheels. Though I don't know what it's like to land on my feet (yet), I am enjoying the wheels!
...keep them on their "training wheels" doing finals with lotsa speed and gentle touchdowns, make sure they never know what it's like to land on their feet - or...
Anyone that doesn't understand the importance of being able to land with accuracy shouldn't have a rating...
What DEGREE of accuracy? USHGA for a long time now has had a landing test option - muscled in by Joe Greblo - that just requires the candidate be able to stop anywhere on a two hundred foot strip. Is that your idea of accuracy?
...and if they don't understand why, it isn't worth debating.
Really? If this is a critical issue and you've got Twos signed off, flying high, shooting approaches, and not understanding the importance of nailing Frisbees in the middles of LZs isn't it necessarily the case that we've got a bunch of total shit instructors, observers, glider dealers, clubs out there?
I am not talking about landing on the spot every time with no-steppers.
So what ARE you talking about?
I always try for a spot...
Why? How are you planning on exploiting that skill once you've mastered it?
...but never at the cost of a safe landing.
So you seem to be saying that a landing where-the-fuck-ever is inherently safer than a spot landing - or am I not reading you correctly?
So the accuracy issue is critical, but you can't pull it off with any consistency, and you got a Three a couple of years ago, and you've been flying places like McConnellsburg and Woodstock. Shouldn't you have been dead a long time ago?
So what are you seeing in the way of any indications that we're trashing a lot of pilots...
...backup loops, standard aerotow weak links, and Quallaby release levers within easy reach, huh Matt?
I'll bet when you got your Three from the same motherfucker who signed Bill Priday off on his Three and Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney on his Instructor rating your understanding of the critical importance of the hook-in check was every bit as good as theirs, RIGHT?
Anyone that doesn't understand the importance of being able to land with accuracy shouldn't have a rating and if they don't understand why, it isn't worth debating.
Yeah motherfucker? Well I don't give a rat's ass about landing with accuracy - least not the bullshit kind of accuracy you're talking about - and I have:
- a ton of ratings and had them for a long time
- done a fair bit of XC flying
- landed in a lot of really hostile environments
- outlived one helluva lot of idiot spot landers - 'specially the ones who were so good they:
-- didn't need:
--- wheels
--- to use the wheels they were flying with
-- could:
--- consistently nail traffic cones in middles of LZs
--- safely:
---- land in narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place
---- manage the inconvenience of standard aerotow weak link breaks
Since I don't understand the importance of being able to land with accuracy maybe you could explain it to me. Here's an unbiased selection of your videos in chronological order:
I see zero evidence of you hitting or attempting to hit a predetermined spot. And, no, you don't get to designate a particular blade of grass as your spot a second and a half before you punch the flare.
In which of those eight landings:
- were the safety margins increased by you stopping on your feet versus rolling in on the wheels?
- was an aim better than what would be necessary to hit a polo field required?
- were you doing a goddam thing to practice for safely stopping in anything tighter than a polo field?
michael170 comes in there questioning the wisdom of training everybody that the first step in executing a safe landing is to throw out the first half to two thirds of the runway as an option and using a Frisbee to kick off target fixation mode. And then a bunch of you Jack Show assholes characterize him as someone who just points his glider at a field when he gets down to five hundred feet and hopes for the best.
The truth of the matter is that spot landers are all assholes in one of two categories:
- new flyers with low IQs who've allowed themselves to be brainwashed by skilled asshole instructors like Ryan Voight to target fixate on Frisbees in middles of fields
- skilled asshole instructors like Ryan Voight who specialize in brainwashing new flyers with low IQs to target fixate on Frisbees in middles of fields and run snake oil clinics to create the illusions that:
-- the ability to consistently hit a Frisbee in the middle of a field:
--- is an:
---- essential arrow for a competent pilot's quiver
---- achievable skill
--- has some measure of value out in the real world
--- won't sooner or later result in one of the practitioner's arms getting snapped in half
REAL pilots NEVER spot land out in the real world. They continually adjust to best apparent options. Same way they do for everything else - like thermalling and XC. They:
- never land in fields in which spot landing "skills" could be of any possible use.
- select the safest approach patterns and carry a lot of extra speed to keep other options open.
- don't worry too much about where they're gonna stop until they're safely in the field.
- fly the glider and let IT decide where it's gonna land.
- always have a Plan B or two to implement if/when Mother Nature decides to have some fun.
And I don't know who you think is out there flying and landing without any understanding of - or at least appreciation for - the kind of accuracy that DOES matter - like clearing obstacles, maintaining proper airspeed, adjusting to wind shifts and slope variations, stopping before arriving at the upwind fence or treeline - but that person either doesn't exist or is a self correcting problem.
I am not talking about landing on the spot every time with no-steppers. I always try for a spot, but never at the cost of a safe landing.
You obviously DON'T always try for a spot and probably NEVER try for a spot which, as far as pilot judgment is concerned anyway, would be to your credit. Nobody can safely spot land in real world situations, nobody can even consistently spot land in or after one of Ryan Voight's snake oil clinics in fake situations, and the ONLY effect of the spot landing on the safety equation is MAJORLY NEGATIVE - as you verify in your own schizophrenic post.
If ANYBODY needs to have a rating revoked it's the asshole who shoots for, advocates, teaches, and/or requires spot landings. They remind me a lot of the Rooney Link...
Anyone that doesn't understand the importance of being able to land with accuracy shouldn't have a rating and if they don't understand why, it isn't worth debating.
Tom, I just wrote and deleted my reply to you. I'm not going to comment on someone like you. You are not worth it.
...the second to last Jack Show post of the Arizona Dragonfly driver who suddenly became the greatest guy in the world right after his control system failed a month plus two days ago.
OK Matt...
So you're saying that somebody who's been signed off on a USHGA rating by a USHGA official but is essentially clueless on a critical life and death issue - like landing on Frisbees or...
...the purpose, breaking strength, towline tension limitation, legal status, optimal strength of an aerotow weak link - shouldn't have a rating and, if he doesn't understand why, it isn't worth debating.
So you're essentially saying that someone who's been the victim of an incompetent, negligent, and/or corrupt instructor and is unable to figure things out for himself deserves to get killed or, at least...
I would surely not want to try to change anyone's method for using a drogue. I think that by the time a pilot needs a drogue to reduce his or her glide, they have enough ability to think for themselves. And to the extent that they can't think, I try to make myself available to offer advice if they ask for it, and to simply be quiet and watch if they don't ask. In the latter case, it's win win, either I enjoy watching good piloting skills or I am treated to some entertainment.
...provide some entertainment for some asshole like Rob McKenzie.
Great company you're keeping there, Matt.
If you give a flying fuck about the sport and/or ANY of the people in it then EVERYBODY is worth debating.
Aviation is physics, physics is black and white, so if there's a debate one side is right and the other is wrong. And if there's a wrong side in the culture it WILL result in death and destruction.
Someone may be wrong because he's totally clueless - like Kinsley Sykes - or lying like a rug - like Rooney, Davis, Matt, Trisa, Bob...
EVERYBODY is worth debating.
- If he's Kinsley you address his cluelessness, help him get straightened out and gain some competence and empower him to help others.
- If he's some evil lying piece of shit like Rooney or Trisa you expose him for what he is, demolish him, neutralize him as an active threat to the sport and the people in it. (We seem to have done a pretty good number on that score on Rooney and Davis and likely Trisa as well.)
- If it's a con artist / saboteur like Bob you treat him as immediately above and debunk his lies and crap but you don't allow him to keep ignoring or misrepresenting everything you say and tie you down. You tell him to go fuck himself and wait for him to at least come up a newish con.
So, anyway...
There was a HUGE violent debate on weak links, bridles, and releases being fought on two fronts a bit over a year ago in the wake of the Zack Marzec fatality and all the places where you've been getting your aerotow training, equipment, experience - Manquin, Ridgely, Quest, maybe Kitty Hawk - had been major players in the background on that one. So were none of the participants in those discussions worth debating?
I was very sorry to see this. I met Zachary at the 2011 KHK HG Spectacular. They guy had a great energy. Nothing wrong with posting a link to a public page. If anything ever happens to me I hope someone will care enough to do the same for me. All you will see is pictures of the things I love most in life, my family, friends and flying.
RIP my friend.
Not sounding to me like you really give all that much of a flying fuck about flying and your flying friends - or, given the Quallaby crap you continue to fly with...
2014/03/25 20:08:50 UTC - 3 thumbs up - Paul Hurless
2014/03/25 12:05:11 UTC - 3 thumbs up - Jason Boehm
2014/03/25 05:13:55 UTC - 3 thumbs up - gluesniffer
No big surprises there.
I hope michael170 has the time and energy to keep those douchebags talking. I always get such wonderful material to work with.
"The more prone your wing is to overshooting the runway the more you should permit it to eat up runway before you stop it."
I'll treasure that one to the end of my days. And, hopefully, before that I'll get to see someone come to the end of his days by following that advice.
Comes in fast, hands on the controls, scrapes the downwind tree line, and doesn't needlessly throw away half the field.
I didn't see anyone suggesting placing further restrictions on an already restricted landing field.
I don't think I saw anyone NOT suggesting placing further restrictions on an already restricted landing field.
It's safer to practice reducing the size of your approach in a larger field, where you don't need to be so close to a downwind obstruction and have more options.
Bullshit. We start all of our Day One, Flight One students optimizing their landings for narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place. Why not do the job right and start them whipping 180s around a few feet inside the treeline as well? Weed out a good chunk of the faggots who aren't adequately attracted to risk on top of that.
In the video you posted, I'll bet Brian used the method Dave referred to.
Are we watching the same video? The one I'm watching shows him freestyling his way down to a downwind glide path and doing a smooth, steep, low 180 back onto final.
I wouldn't be surprised if he became familiar with that tight approach, in a field that didn't require it.
1. Duh.
2. So show me some instructors who start preparing their high Hang Ones and low Twos for approaches like this.
Part of being in control of a glider is taking an active role in determining its speed and direction.
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.
...your Dragonfly drivers and Rooney Link.
You determine the safest way and place to land.
Bullshit. What's the Frisbee gonna do if all the sudden we're supposed to be making decisions like that?
Then do your best.
In the half of the field you have remaining - if you're lucky.
michael170 - 2014/03/26 01:58:14 UTC
I didn't see anyone suggesting placing further restrictions on an already restricted landing field.
Red Howard - 2014/03/24 03:45:13 UTC
It should be located in the middle of the field...
Aiming for an old Frisbee in the MIDDLE of a field is needlessly throwing away HALF of the field.
Yeah, but if you don't throw away the first half of the field you risk hitting the downwind treeline.
It's safer to practice reducing the size of your approach in a larger field, where you don't need to be so close to a down wind obstruction and have more options.
Indeed!
In the video you posted, I'll bet Brian used the method Dave referred to.
I'll take that bet.
The bulk of the crap Dave wrote was concerned with nailing the Frisbee with a no-stepper.
I wouldn't be surprised if he became familiar with that tight approach, in a field that didn't require it.
Neither would I.
I'm pretty sure he mastered it during the afternoon session of his first day.
Part of being in control of a glider is taking an active role in determining it's speed and direction.
Part of?? That's about all there is to it.
Well yeah. But don't forget that you need to go upright and get your hands on the downtubes...
Think you have your shit together better than a USHGA certified instructor with your credit card number and a Frisbee with a Focused Pilot logo on it? Arrogant asshole.
...AIRSPEED, Tom? If you have airspeed you can punch through and compensate for a lot of shit.
I would not make that bet.
Nah. The bet YOU'RE making is that you'll never need to use more than the last half of the runway.
If you hit some sink, and the LZ "starts" with a fence, you would be on the wrong side of that fence...
He's already on the right side of the fence. What's his motivation to cross it again?
...and deep into whatever the landscape there may offer.
And you will probably have NO WAY to know anything about that landscape because - with your luck - there will undoubtedly be a totally opaque fog layer between thirty and forty feet.
If the target is in the middle of the field, you would be as safe in an undershoot situation, as you would be in an overshoot of the target.
Same way all other fixed wing aircraft land. Sink, headwind, icing, lightning strike, microburst, engine failure, running out of gas, sticky landing gear, stray cow... Always have somebody put a Frisbee at the centerpoint of the runway. Ya just can't be too careful in this game. It would probably be a good idea to string some barbed wire across the runway about a third of the way from the downwind end to reduce the temptation to land close to the numbers.
Putting the target near either end of the field (upwind or downwind) is very unsafe.
How do you know? Have you tried putting Frisbees at the upwind end of the runway to see how the crash rate is affected? It took the Aerotow Industry - I mean really, no exaggeration - hundreds of thousands of tows to determine that a loop of 130 pound Greenspot fishing line on one end of a one or two point bridle was the ideal aerotow weak link for all solo gliders because there was a possibility that it would break in time to keep someone from being creamed in a lockout emergency. How 'bout running a few hundred real world tests then getting back to us?
Please take a poll (publicly or privately), and come back with a list of HG pilots here who think that it is okay to "put it on the numbers" as your "normal" landing scenario (landing as close as possible after just clearing the inbound fence).
Take a poll (publicly or privately) and see what percentage of glider jockeys:
- understand what a suspension spreader is supposed to do
- make the slightest pretense of any adherence to USHGA's hook-in check regulation
- refuse to do preflight sidewire load tests because their afraid they'll pop a wire on the ground and have to scrub that day
- believe that a towline transmits pressure to the glider
- would switch to using a straight pin barrel release after hearing multiple reports of the bent pin crap welding itself shut
- can:
-- grasp the concept of being able to use a tow release to release from tow in an emergency
-- spell "carabiner"
- have a plan for surviving a towing emergency better than waiting for a Rooney Link to blow
- could be forced at gunpoint to fly without a backup loop
- are:
-- working on perfecting their flare timing
-- profoundly humbled in the presence of Jim Rooney's keen intellect
-- capable of:
--- determining the towline tension limitation they're flying with the weak link they're using
--- verifying that they're connected to the glider without lying down in the harness while a friend holds the nose down
--- considering the possibility they're not connected to their gliders after having done a hang check in the setup area
--- stopping on a putting green without practicing for landing in a narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place
--- not reading something on a web forum in which they have no interest without using an ignore button
Otherwise, you may be wanting some good health-care insurance.
Yeah Tom.
- If a hundred percent of your respondents believe that their only hope of not flying into a fence is to whipstall their glider to dead stop on a Frisbee half to two thirds of the way down the runway you should fall in line with them on all of your important decisions in life.
- The really big danger in landing a hang glider is flying into a fence because you tried to land in the FIRST half of the runway.
P.S. There is no such thing as a "medical bankruptcy." The bills would be due in full.
Do they give people any kind of breaks when there's been no detectable level of brain activity for the past half dozen years or so?
Relax, Tom. The thought of flying into that fence is so horrifying to me that I plan on putting the Frisbee ninety percent of the way down the runway and using a 72 inch drag chute to stop on it.
Just when you think you've totally plumbed the depths of the stupidity this sport has to offer and could no longer be stunned by ANYTHING...
And look at THIS:
2014/03/26 04:51:40 UTC - 3 thumbs up - fly,surf,&ski
I'm guessing you're totally on board with this, Jonathan. 'Cause I don't hear you saying anything.
I wonder just how many total shitheads you'd need to euthanize out of this sport to arrest its plunge down the rabbit hole.
Arrogant asshole.
