http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=34985
Low Turns to Final
Telepilot - 2016/12/31 13:02:11 UTC
A few points, AIRTHUG
First, I really do appreciate your analysis of the subject.
If only he could've blathered on ANOTHER eight pages.
Especially the Risk vs. Reward. Very well thought out.
Like his analysis of glider roll control force transmission.
(As I re-read my comment about the "Risk vs. Reward Seminar", I thought it sounded snarky...sorry, but I recently attended an actual Risk vs. Reward Seminar and I think I typed it without thinking.)
You also typed "siminar" without much in the way of thinking.
Second, you suggest I say something to the individuals as I see it happen. I don't know these guys AT ALL and more importantly, I won't see this particular bunch for several more months if at all ever again. And as far as asking the internet herd to comment, I think it's valuable that we bring this discussion up so we can all look out for it.
No. Anybody who posts anything on the internet is just a stupid keyboard pounder. The quality people are the ones who read everything but never post anything. (Bobby Bailey's a fucking genius when it comes to this shit... for example. (We could post samples of his fucking geniusosity - but there wouldn't be any point because you wouldn't be able to understand any of them.))
Or just maybe a guy will question what he himself is doing.
Right. He won't do this while he's actually flying but upon reading something on The Jack Show...
...one man's crazy dangerous rad sick gnarly stunt, just might be another's bread-and-butter snooze-fest done-it-a-million-times kind of thing.
That particular thought troubles me. I think this is where complacency might be a factor. I mentioned earlier a concept of "The Normalization of Deviance" where a group sort of feeds on the accelerating un-safe behavior of others in the group right up until an accident happens. Kinda like, "The other guys are doing it and I've done it so many times before that it must be normal."
Ever hear of Chris Muller? But it wasn't really that what he was doing something risky / batshit reckless but that he did something WRONG that everybody else was doing RIGHT.
Lastly, you suggest that a typed explanation for others to comment on is inappropriate. I believe that it's kinda like defining Porn in that I can't describe it but I know it when I see it. Ya know?
Sure. I've always been good with people being imprisoned for decades based upon an individual's indefinable impression/opinion of something.
My main concern is an un-suspecting member of the public getting hurt and putting our self- insurance in jeopardy.
My main concern is that the last molecule of pretense that these were actual student instructional flights evaporated decades ago and the references to the other people under the gliders as "passengers" never manage to raise anyone's eyebrow as much as a fraction of a millimeter.
I don't think I'm alone here on that. Cheers.
You're never alone there on The Jack Show on ANYTHING. Because if you are Jack will ban you in a New York minute for rubbing people the wrong way.
mario - 2017/01/01 00:35:22 UTC
No, you are not alone on this Telepilot.
While reading this thread I feel that I'm missing something between the lines.
My brother used to give me and others tandem flights and I can tell you that he understood the extra "weight" of his responsibilities.
He'd have been so much more inclined to just crash himself doing stupid shit. No impact to any others that way.
It is true that there are flying sites that require low maneuvering for landings and I have witnessed very good pilots giving tandems in those places without worrying-because I trusted their skills and understanding of the gravity of the situation.
But let's never practice for those landings at sites that DON'T require low maneuvering for landings - because all that does is needlessly expose participants to excess risk.
This is the same for challenging launches.
Meaning FOOT launches. 'Cause nobody ever talks about challenging dolly or platform launches 'cause they don't exist.
What I don't understand is when a tandem pilot takes unnecessary extra risks when there are plenty already. As has been stated already, it is no longer just about you, but a shared concern with another life (and all their loved ones) and the freedom for the rest of us to practice this sport.
And here was an ACTUAL accident waiting to happen:
http://www.crestlinesoaring.org/node/1095
Las Vegas Accident | Crestline Soaring Society
Jeffw - 2015/03/30 18:28
Driver with zero expeerience met in the parking lot?
Previouse 2 "students: ended with broken legs/feet?
So poor kellY?!! are there not rules, guidlines, protocals? where they are broken? I am sick from the irresponsible recklessness of Kelly, and the death of the child. That is the only place my sympathy lies.
And where was everybody? And then we get:
Aldpal - 2015/03/30 19:45
UNBELIEVABLE
Jeff, your post has lots of questions and indicates you don't have the answers or knowledge of what happened, yet you are comfortable making a judgement of my friends character, and say you have no sympathy for his death. Remarkable. The only facts your post contains is incontrovertible evidence of your character and lack of class. Out of respect for the CSS forum, I will refrain from expressing what I really think of you and your post. Hopefully we will get a chance to discuss this in person some time, so I can be a little more candid with my language.
So tell me some more about holding irresponsible tandem drivers accountable and expecting appropriate feelings of responsibility for the lives of the entrusted passengers. If any of you motherfuckers were really serious about this you'd have come down on Aldpal like a ton of bricks and made his continuation in the sport totally untenable.
I very much appreciate that AIRTHUG contributes on this forum as I consider him a wealth of good advice...
What a coincidence! AIRTHUG *ALSO* consider himself a wealth of good advice!
...and I am happy for his attempts to educate us...
Attempts?
...but this time I find some of his writing troubling.
Maybe you should go back and review some of his previous writing. I find him remarkably consistent (predictable).
I fail to see how it is wrong to bring up a concern of safety and judgment. I don't remember Telepilot naming names...
Unfortunately.
...and I have no idea if he or she is overreacting, but it does seem like a worthy discussion. But then again, maybe I'm just a dense meat sack.
NMERider - 2017/01/01 00:58:17 UTC
...but this time I find some of his writing troubling.
As well you should Mario. Cryin Ryan could be the poster child for hypocritical elitism in any sport.
Now that Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney is toast - permanently.
Not just hang gliding. His blog url might just as aptly be addressed: fakeflightadvice.bs. In this case he has absolutely no remorse for placing our meager and tenuous liability insurance resources in jeopardy and therefore placing every one of our local USHPA chapter flying sites at risk of closure. Unless you want to do all of your future flying at Elsinore, Ord, Blackhawk, etc. say nothing and do nothing. Anyone who for any reason threatens our liability insurance threatens our free flight privileges. Cryin Ryan won't address this issue because he knows in his heart that it's true but chooses to deflect attention away from his guilt. This is nothing new. It's his M-O.
Happy New Year!
Revenue from the tandem thrill ride industry is u$hPa's lifeblood. Ryan's u$hPa's fuckin' poster boy:
http://www.ushpa.org/media/36
http://www.ushpa.org/media/37
literally. Ryan's never gonna utter a single syllable against anything mainstream u$hPa.
Ryan Voight - 2017/01/01 02:30:04 UTC
mario - 2017/01/01 00:35:22 UTC
It is true that there are flying sites that require low maneuvering for landings and I have witnessed very good pilots giving tandems in those places without worrying-because I trusted their skills and understanding of the gravity of the situation. This is the same for challenging launches.
So you accept that making low turns or higher risk choices, tandem, is acceptable "when required"... but not when done needlessly. I'm sorry... but every flight in a hang glider is technically "needless"... and more, performing tandem flights at sites that "require" low maneuvering is in effect choosing to do low maneuvering tandem. The choice to fly tandem at such a site is akin to the choice to do low maneuvering at a site where it's done by elective, but isn't "required".
But let's be extremely careful to say NOTHING about the legitimacy of treating and executing every landing as RLF 'cause u$hPa safety culture dictates long straight finals to old Frisbees half the runway length to the upwind obstruction, actual RLF practice and skills are virtually nonexistent in the sport, and participants consequently get mangled and killed all the fuckin' time.
Your point that you trusted their skills and understanding of the gravity of the situation is paramount to this discussion. First, you felt they were still flying within (well within?) their skill capabilities, right?
How come this execution isn't well within EVERYBODY's "skill" capabilities? What's so fuckin' difficult about it? Tell me where the "skill" comes into play.
And second, you felt they knew/understood/respected the risk and potential consequences of their choices, right?
How have we established that there's any risk involved? If we eliminated rolling launches from the tandem thrill ride industry tomorrow does anybody think for a nanosecond that a heavy price wouldn't be paid?
'Specially given that world hang gliding treats hook-in checks like the fuckin' plague?
- 2003/03/29 - Steve Parson / Eleni Zeri
- 2006/02/21 - Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney / unidentified chick victim
- 2012/04/28 - Jon Orders / Lenami Godinez-Avila
But let's all go rabid about Low Turns to Final and give the mountain launching tandem hook-in check skippers a total free pass.
With these requirements of yours met, you were accepting of their choice to do low turns flying tandem.
Here's another thought... ANY primary LZ - 'specially at a commercial operation - can almost instantly BECOME restricted. Gliders tend to have a narrow choice range when it comes to the timing of the landing. This, in fact, was a critical issue in one of this thread's top participants:
15-20722
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/13650564173_a8a354352b_o.png
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7031/13650523775_06dc2694e4_o.png
19-30028
Consequences were severe and could've easily been a quad. Wouldn't have happened with a Low Turns to Final versus drag chute approach to the RLF issue. Low Turns to Final strategy tends to expand options. Drag chute strategy tends to limit them.
My point is, and I don't mean to be harsh here, but they don't need your approval.
But keep up the great work helping them to keep Rube Goldberg release systems out of circulation.
So, if they had it, great... but if they did it differently, or someone did it without satisfying those two things (or your perception of their satisfying those two things, actually)... that does not necessarily mean they are a great risk to our insurance and "the powers that be" must be informed immediately. It doesn't mean they're acting intelligently or accepting those risks intellectually, either... so I'm not actually defending whoever it is we started this thread talking about... I'm just saying, because someone feels they're flying in a risky manor, doesn't mean they actually ARE...
DO put some effort into learning to spell "MANNER" one of these days, Ryan.
...but this time I find some of his writing troubling. I fail to see how it is wrong to bring up a concern of safety and judgment.
It is not wrong to bring up a concern for safety!
It is when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. (Any thoughts on why Dave Hopkins isn't gracing us with any of his wisdom on this one?)
I hope that is not the impression I gave you, or anyone here!!!
And if you're not anyone here!!! - in Jack's Living Room - you can go fuck yourself.
But I'm saying bring up the safety concern TO THE INDIVIDUAL(S) YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
Sure. Just explain to them the physics of why bent pin barrel releases have zilch load capacity. Build a load tester and let them see for themselves. Show them the posts from Lauren Tjaden and Bart Weghorst documenting the catastrophic failure incidents at altitude. All hang glider people are totally reasonable - 'specially the professionals. How do you think we could've amassed the track record length we have otherwise?
Bringing it up here might be good, and might make a few people think...
Good freaking luck.
...but in reality, I've spent a LOT of time writing articles and posting on this forum...
Since it's the fairest and most egalitarian game around.
...and forget about culture change, it's pretty rare that even a single individual changes.
THIS:
37-23223
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3713/9655904048_89cce6423a_o.png
motherfucker sure did. And while his contribution seems to have not changed all that much in the field it FOREVER radically changed the conversation regarding the focal point of the safe towing system.
But I'm a dense meat sack too... and I just a not quite ready to be at peace with feeling like I did all I could to help people...
Never a fraction as much as Zack Marzec did.
...and so I'm here (and yes, I'm grumpy about being here- apologies for that, as I'm sure it comes through in my writings).
It's really amazing what comes through (and DOESN'T) in your writings, Ryan. Please keep up the great work.
Telepilot - 2016/12/31 13:02:11 UTC
...you suggest I say something to the individuals as I see it happen. I don't know these guys AT ALL and more importantly, I won't see this particular bunch for several more months if at all ever again.
Again, my point is solidified- you don't know these guys AT ALL. How can you judge the "risk" in their low turn approach?
How can a competently trained and qualified Three NOT be able to judge the risks involved in the stuff he's supposed to be able to execute?
Remember, risk = how likely to go bad + how bad is it if it does go bad. We could all imagine the potential results of catching a wing tip or otherwise misjudging a low turn approach... but the how likely is it to go bad, that's tougher to identify.
If you're a total fucking moron anyway.
It will be different for pilot A than it is for pilot B.
How 'bout this example, Ryan?:
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?
Jim Rooney - 2011/08/28 10:40:24 UTC
Hi Tormod.
Oh, not at all.
I think what you're picking up on is my lack of willingness to discuss this with people that have already made up their minds.
Sorry for that, but it's just the nature of the beast.
I have no issue with discussing this with people that don't have an agenda.
I get very short with people that do however.
Am I "certain" about anything?
Nope.
However, some things get real obvious when you're doing them all the time. One is that weaklinks do in fact save people's asses.
You're 100% onto it... relying on the skill of the pilot is a numbers game that you'll lose at some point.
I find that so many people do not appreciate how fast and furious lockouts can happen.
They're exponential in nature.
Twice the time doesn't equate to twice the "bad"... it's four times the "bad"... then 16... it gets dramatic fast.
Is a weaklink going to save your ass? Who knows? But it's nice to stack the deck in your favour.
Now flip the argument and you start to see the devil.
A glider can take a whole shitload more force than a weaklink can.
So, if you're of the "sole purpose" cult, then you see no issue with a LOT stronger weaklink.
Well, it won't take long with that system before we've got a lot more dead pilots out there.
So they can stuff their philosophical purity bs... cuz I have no desire to tow someone to their death, no matter how willing they may be.
I'm not playing with this stuff in my head and just dismissing it. There's been a lot that's gone into this system.
I've seen too many people walk the "strong link" road only to find out the reality of things.
Fortunately, they've been unscathed, but there have been a lot of soiled underpants in the process.
I'm happy to discuss this stuff.
But I'm sick to death of arguing about it.
We were assured in no uncertain terms by hang gliding's universally acknowledged top expert on everything that we'd see a bloodbath beyond anyone's imagination - tug drivers included - if we started putting Tad-O-Links into circulation on any measurable scale. How's that been working out?
And pilot C is different still. You only know- or have a good idea at least- of how "risky" that approach is for YOU.
How? The motherfucker's never dipped a wing below two hundred feet.
That's human nature really. Watch any extreme sport athlete on TV and you probably can't help but find yourself thinking this dude's crazy...
Bullshit.
...but in actuallity, they've achieved a higher level of skill and understanding than we can even fathom...
Bullshit.
...and they've made a career of doing this crazy (looking) stuff, again and again and again. Their skill, understanding, and risk assement/management is so far ahead of our own- for that activity- that it seems like "luck" they survived. But they've been surviving over and over and over and over, for many years, before getting to the upper pinnacle of that activity that they are on TV and you're just now finally seeing them do whatever they do.
And aren't we incredibly fortunate to have you to explain that to all us stupid keyboard pounders.
Jono- read the above- when you understand SO LITTLE of the risk management and skill building in what you are seeing, it's pretty human to deem it "luck". I won't discount my fair share of luck in my life, and in my flying endeavors as well... but to say I've survived all I've done by luck is basically your admission of ignorance. That's fine- I said earlier, what you don't get to see is the study, the work, the training regimen, the years upon years, the kabillions of repetitions and the teeniest of incremental baby steps...
So was it OK for many of us to suddenly become happy with 200 pound fishing line as the focal point of our safe towing system after establishing such an incredibly long track record with 130? Can you cite any instances of anybody nudging up to 150 to see how well that worked in comparison? And did we ever figure out what the focal point of our safe towing system is supposed to work to do?
I am by no means tooting my own horn- I haven't done anything that the REAL pioneers didn't do long ago, in much less advanced equipment, and probably with less knowledge and educational resources available.
Yeah, the technical aspects of looping a hang glider are complex nearly to the point of being beyond human comprehension. Most people just throw in the towel and take up careers in quantum physics.
I was only able to study, train, practice, and learn to do what I have done in a hang glider because these guys went and did it, trial and error...
TRAIL and error.
...school of hard knocks...
What a load o' crap.
I'm not a pioneer, or even an advancer of what can be done in a hang glider... but I do think I'm a fine example of how even one of the MOST risky things people have thought to do in a hang glider, can be prepared for and approached with a very rational and safety-oriented approach.
From a motherfucker who repeatedly swears on stacks of bibles that a hang glider can be roll controlled hands free through weight shift alone by running towards the high wing.
I have two kids now...
Great news for the gene pool.
...and people can't believe I still loop.
Where's the data that indicates looping is dangerous? Coastal and other ridge guys loop their brains out all the fuckin' time with huge margins and zilch issues. The only times we get issues are with shit execution or 2mm or defective wires that nobody's bothered to stomp test. What DOES crash, injure, quad, kill people is being upright on final. And complaints about that are nonexistent.
I'm not pressing further into entering at higher and higher speeds anymore, or stretching the top out at lighter and lighter G loading... but if looping, as a husband and parent of two, is too risky now... I shouldn't have been doing it then, either... Which seems to be Jono's clear opinion.
Any inkling of anything that might have gone wrong with this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bRrpHNa68iY/UQ6Pv9gRZyI/AAAAAAAAjTg/Hc22bx5122Q/s2048/20943781_BG1.jpg
one? Has the hang gliding community totally baffled. But u$hPa believes the open face helmet may have been a significant factor in his suffering of fatal injuries.
Which he's entitled to, since opinions are like @ holes...
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?
Jim Rooney - 2011/08/31 09:25:57 UTC
So please, find me something... that you didn't make... that I can go out and buy from a store... that's rated and quality controlled... that fits your desire for a "non one size fits all" model, and *maybe* we can talk.
But you see... I'm the guy you've got to convince.
(or whoever your tug pilot may be... but we all tend to have a similar opinion about this)
...but like I said regarding the thread topic... his feeling that way doesn't make it so... it's actually kind of meaningless, as he has no idea what the level of risk is/isn't for me to perform a loop...
Get fucked, Ryan. Joe Public watches Blue Angels performances and the crowd can tell just fine when everything's going according to schedule and when something really bad is about to happen.
Just like we have no idea what the actual level of risk is for these tandem pilots.
...you suggest I say something to the individuals as I see it happen. I don't know these guys AT ALL and more importantly, I won't see this particular bunch for several more months if at all ever again.
I wasn't really suggesting you talk to them next time you see them (although now that is your only option)... but what I at least meant to be suggesting is that, in the future, you (and everyone else) GO TALK TO THE PILOT IN QUESTION... like, that day, on the spot. Doesn't matter if you know them. Probably better if you don't! But try to inquire about their mindset, about their rational in making those choices, or how safe or risky they feel they were, and why. Maybe they demonstrate they're (almost) as ignorant as Jono... or maybe they actually show you that, while it APPEARED they were being reckless at first glance, they were actually being quite calculated in their choice and execution, and they were staying well within their expertise (flying with plenty of "safety margin").
If there are practices that are clearly and quantifiably dangerous then modify the u$hPa SOPs accordingly and enforce the rules. Otherwise just shut the fuck up.
Flying pro toad is a blatant violation of u$hPa's conditions for obtaining and operating under its FAA aerotowing exemption as it mandates use of certified gliders and flying pro toad decertifies the crap outta the glider. u$hPa doesn't give a flying fuck about compliance, the FAA doesn't give a flying fuck about enforcement, within the span of a bit over three years two professional pilots who would've been fine two point were killed instantly launching at Quest. And NOBODY does a GODDAM THING about it. So please shut the fuck up about Low Turns to Final.
I *strongly* disagree the first course of action is to run and tell your Regional Director! Not before talking to the pilot yourself!!!?!
If somebody runs a red and almost smashes into me in the intersection should I talk to him or phone the cops and give them his description and license number?
And then you might reach out to whomever their Tandem Administrator was... because that's who felt that person would be a safe and responsible tandem pilot, and if they're not meeting that expectation (responsibility!)... the Tandem Admin will likely remove their rating.
Don't you think it a bit odd that there aren't any self identified Tandem Administrators participating in this discussion? If this is:
- an actual issue for concern then I submit that they're being criminally negligent in their implementation and oversight of the program?
- a total bullshit or worse issue then why are they doing zilch in the way of educating the membership?
For it to get to a Regional Director, and to the Board level, it's really got to be egregious AND contentious, and therefore can not or should not be handled by these other means...
And if it IS actually egregious AND contentious be sure to look at the cases of Tad Eareckson and Bob Kuczewski as models for how things will be handled and resolved.
Self regulated does *not* mean tell someone who volunteers to keep the ship afloat, and have them deal with it.
Yeah, when somebody volunteers for or gets elected or appointed to a position of responsibility he CERTAINLY shouldn't be expected to have or demonstrate any responsibility for actually doing anything of any actual substance. It's just a more elite level of hang gliding's mutual masturbation society culture.
It means that, as a part of this sport and community, it's each of our responsibilities to regulate ourselves (our own actions, and those of everyone around us). Don't pass the buck... talk to them yourself, face to face, in a non-confrontational or judgemental way, FIRST! And don't jump to conclusions that can not be made without the info you need to get from the pilot themselves
1. And Ryan can cite TONS of examples of this mechanism working out in the real world.
2. Awesome implementation of English grammar, Ryan
