You are NEVER hooked in.

[Tad Eareckson]

Someone came to me with a concern that Tad was a child molester...

Tad is not any more of a child molester than Elvis Presley or Jerry Lee Lewis. Calling Tad a child molester is like calling Abraham Lincoln a rapist because he was involved with Mary Todd and several pregnancies resulted. I kinda wish you'd drop the slur but I guess there's no hope of that.

...and his conduct might harm our forum.

- WHAT *CONDUCT*? Calling assholes like Sam and Pilgrim out on stuff and discussing hang gliding issues with Bill Cummings?

- Is there anybody ELSE whose conduct MIGHT harm YOUR - sorry OUR - forum?

- Ya gonna get into the issues of future crime? Cut someone up because of what somebody else THINKS he MIGHT do?

- There ARE NO and NEVER WILL BE any goddam kids on your goddam forum. It's a TOTALLY BOGUS issue that you used as an excuse to take me out. (How convenient!)

I asked Tad if he felt remorseful or if he felt he'd done anything wrong.

- What I told you was that I didn't understand what could/would happen to him (and me) as a consequence of the viciousness of the legal system and machinery when it kicked in - and I DEEPLY regret that. But he stayed with me for a couple of years 'cause I was the only person who accepted him as he was and was able to protect him to some extent from bigots and bullies such as yourself. And there are a lot of kids like that who don't have anyone to protect them from bullies and bigots and blow their brains out because of the harassment and isolation. (And I know the feeling very well myself.)

- There's a REAL GOOD chance that if you took me out of the equation he'd have gotten into a relationship with somebody else which would've blown up in their faces in a similar manner.

- How someone FEELS about something is none of your or anyone else's fucking business. We really don't wanna start getting into issues of how people feel and instead worry about what they DO. If Rooney launches at Whitwell with his carabiner dangling I can FEEL any way I want to. If I disconnect his carabiner when he's not looking before he launches at Whitwell that's a different matter.

As usual, I went right to the source and I asked Tad about it.

Maybe you shouldn't have done that because there was no relevant conduct.

bobk wrote:

bobk REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE. That was WAY out of bounds.

That's when Tad launched into his own public confession.

Gawd you're slow on the uptake. That was a STATEMENT - not a confession. Your thinly veiled little accusation made it necessary. Trust me - I know how these things play out and how do the necessary damage control to minimize things.

That public confession led to additional phone calls where Tad revealed his attraction to 7 or 8 year old boys.

- I got news for ya. EVERYBODY'S attracted to seven or eight year old boys. When parents start hating each other they go to court and try to kill each other fighting over the seven or eight year old boy. If a seven or eight year old boy falls over the rail into the Lowland Gorilla exhibit he'll get picked up and taken care of until he regains consciousness. People who say they're not attracted to seven or eight year old boys are generally LYING.

- "Led to" additional phone calls? YOU MADE additional phone calls.

That's when I sent him a private email message asking him to leave the forum on his own or I would ban him. I had hoped he would voluntarily leave on good terms, but he did not.

And you were really surprised when I didn't?

[bobk]

Tad, the biggest problem I had was your lack of remorse and your willingness to blame everyone but yourself (as you've demonstrated above). A 12 year old child who has not reached puberty has no idea where his (or her) mature sexuality may take them. That's one of the many reasons we have laws protecting them. It disgusts me that child predators take advantage of that unshaped innocence for their own pleasures. In the process they condemn their victims to a life of shame and self-doubt or confusion. That's what you've done whether you can face it or not. That's why you've asked me to not mention the name of your victim - because this hasn't been a harmless experience for him.

Warren mentioned double jeopardy, and he's right that people should only have to pay once for their crimes. But one crucial ingredient of any repayment is remorse. If you are not sorry for what you've done, then you've never paid the full measure for what you've done. More importantly, if you don't see anything wrong with what you've done, then you cannot be relied upon to be self-regulating in your future behavior - other than the possible fear of getting caught. The US Hawks forum is lightly moderated because we want people who are at least somewhat self-regulating in their behavior. We allow free speech, but with that freedom, we also expect a commensurate amount of self-restraint.

Tad, your behavior in this matter is 100% consistent with your behavior in all other matters where we've had differences. In all cases, you've refused to admit certain obvious facts. Whether it's launching with a tight strap in high winds or assuming that a 12 year old can be an equal partner in a homosexual relationship, your views are distorted and you remain blinded to those distortions. That's the fundamental problem and it will continue to haunt you until you address it. Your blindness will continue to endanger those who trust you in "friendships" ... or in hang gliding. That's the danger that I felt I needed to remove from the US Hawks forum - and I did.

Tad, I am not an expert, but I believe you will never get past this until you break down (almost literally) and admit that you were wrong to have those relationships and realize that your own "logic" has failed you and can do so again. That will bring you to an understanding that you cannot rely solely on your own logic and that you should seek out and consider the opinions of others when determining what is right and what is wrong. That's the path out of the hell you've created for yourself.

Zack, you can ignore this fundamental problem and blame me for this fiasco or you can provide feedback to try to help Tad understand where he's gone astray and to hopefully correct his thinking. The choice is yours. I'm just watching and taking notes on where everyone stands and what everyone does. I hope that this will die down soon, and I hope that Tad will direct his anger at solving his problems rather than at attacking everyone who brings them to light. Zack, you can be helpful if you're willing to take that more difficult challenge.

[Tad Eareckson]

Tad, the biggest problem I had was your lack of remorse and your willingness to blame everyone but yourself (as you've demonstrated above).

You are perfectly welcome to have that problem.

A 12 year old child who has not reached puberty has no idea where his (or her) mature sexuality may take them.

And a twelve year old child who HAS reached puberty DOES.

That's one of the many reasons we have laws protecting them.

- That law didn't protect him - it OUTED him.
- When I was twelve I didn't want YOUR laws protecting me.
- There were - and are - no laws protecting him from the kinds of things his enemies were dishing out.

It disgusts me that child predators take advantage of that unshaped innocence for their own pleasures.

And you assume that that's a description of OUR relationship.

In the process they condemn their victims to a life of shame and self-doubt or confusion.

- Without a doubt or any exception 'cause YOU'VE stated it as a fact.
- Whereas other people don't have lives of shame and self-doubt or confusion.
- But I'll bet you're the absolute pinnacle of not having shame, self-doubt, or confusion.

That's what you've done whether you can face it or not.

- And of course you know that for a fact because you've talked to him.

- And if he didn't tell you what you wanted to hear it was either because he was so damaged he didn't know right from wrong or had a political agenda different from your political agenda.

That's why you've asked me to not mention the name of your victim -

- I didn't mention a name of my victim 'cause I don't have a victim.
- I gave you a two syllable first name only - good luck.
- Yeah, I don't want him identified 'cause I know what people like you will do to him - from first hand experience.

...because this hasn't been a harmless experience for him.

Not after the forces of Christian morality got involved it wasn't.

But one crucial ingredient of any repayment is remorse.

And who the fuck made it your job to make me express it?

If you are not sorry for what you've done, then you've never paid the full measure for what you've done.

See above, asshole.

More importantly...

- You're not the goddam legal system.
- Stay the hell out of stuff you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever understanding.

We allow free speech, but with that freedom, we also expect a commensurate amount of self-restraint.

- "WE"? Who the hell is "WE"?
- Funny, I didn't see that in the mission statement.

Whether it's launching with a tight strap in high winds...

Quote me wanting to make launching with a tight strap in high winds mandatory. (But I've already said that a couple of hundred times.)

...or assuming that a 12 year old can be an equal partner in a homosexual relationship...

I love it when you keep stressing the HOMOsexual issue. It keeps showing so well where you're really coming from and makes you a lot of enemies.

That's the fundamental problem and it will continue to haunt you until you address it.

Yeah, I'm just haunted by that all the time. It's a real bitch. I thank you for your concern.

Your blindness will continue to endanger those who trust you in "friendships" ...

Well you just make sure you get to all of my thousands of "friends" and make them aware of the danger they're in. (I can think of one or two who'll tell you to fuck off.)

That's the danger that I felt I needed to remove from the US Hawks forum - and I did.

Good job, Bob. Now start watching what *I* can do.

Tad, I am not an expert...

OH!!! REALLY!!!

...but I believe you will never get past this until you break down (almost literally) and admit that you were wrong to have those relationships and realize that your own "logic" has failed you and can do so again.

Well, thank you so very much for you OPINION. But I'll probably just go on as I have been for the next twenty-five years as I did the last without any of your help or concern.

Zack, you can ignore this fundamental problem and blame me for this fiasco...

Ya know, Bob... I never had any problems with the VG system on my glider so I never tried to fix them.

P.S. Give "The Man Without A Face" a read sometime - not the warped revision Mel Gibson put on the screen but the BOOK. That's a pretty fair representation of what a lot of these relationships were like before the witch hunt got in gear.

[Zack C]

Just so that I understand you, Zack, is that the extent of the "mistreatment" that you've spoken about?

This discussion should be off-line (actually, it should never have existed in the first place), but it's kind of late for that...

There's really nothing I can say that Tad hasn't already said better, but in the interest of hearing it from someone else...
1. You continually misrepresent Tad's statements.
2. You banish him to the basement without any justification other than some faux 'experiment'.
3. You hear a rumor concerning Tad's personal life that was already addressed by the legal system decades ago and somehow decide it has some kind of relevancy to US Hawks.
4. You thus decide it is your duty to pry into Tad's personal life (which is 'none of your goddam business'), and as much as Tad would rather not talk to you about it, he is forced to to straighten the record from your unnamed source.
5. You then reference this discussion publicly, forcing Tad to straighten the record publicly, and maintain your reference was vague enough that it was his choice to bring it up. You probably believe that, but it ain't hard to read between the lines:
- 'The topic we discussed on the phone'? That must be pretty bad...it can't even be mentioned. Couldn't be the cussing or anything else Bob has criticized Tad for before as Bob's never been shy about that stuff.
- 'Safe place for people of varying ages?' I'm pretty sure he means 'safe place for children' since there's not a whole lot that's safe for children but not adults.
- And Tad has not given Bob assurances that children are safe with Tad on the forum?
- So we have an unmentionable topic involving Tad making US Hawks unsafe for children. Not a big stretch to suspect Tad is a child molester...and it's human nature to suspect the worst.
6. Probably not many people read the basement, so this personal issue is somewhat buried, but you then feel the need to reference it on the main forum without any explanation of relevancy.
7. Finally, you ban Tad from your forum, rendering your self-righteous judgment that he has not paid enough for his crime, with only vague references to the unsubstantiated belief that his presence on the forum is a threat to children as an explanation.

So yeah, I can kinda see why Tad would be pissed at you.

I'm glad at least that when you solicited members' opinions on 'how to handle' the situation they were mostly silent except to express distaste in the subject being broached at all.

Zack, you can ignore this fundamental problem and blame me for this fiasco or you can provide feedback to try to help Tad understand where he's gone astray and to hopefully correct his thinking.

No, I'm not going to try to 'correct' Tad, as I don't know anything about his past personal life, it's 'none of my goddam business', it has no relevancy to hang gliding or the mission of this forum, and I'm not about to get on a high horse and moralize.

I don't know whether you were genuinely doing what you felt was the right thing to do or just looking for convenient justification to finally can Tad, but I believe your actions were inappropriate and set a terrible precedent for your organization.

Zack

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=884
The Bob Show

Bill Cummings - 2011/12/17 21:52:28 UTC

Tad, I saw a post on the Oz Report by Jim that had information concerning your past legal history.

I'd be real careful about referring to what comes out of either the Oz Report or Jim Rooney as "information". I was the source of anything the lying little shit ever got of any substance and I addressed the crap he wrote at:

http://www.kitestrings.org/post696.html#p696

And I did Davis a bit immediately above.

I didn't know anything first hand so I didn't say anything to anyone.

About a month ago in a phone conversation (the call I'm referring to wasn't bob by the way) I heard the same thing as was posted on the Oz Report. That was still second hand information and I didn't say anything to anyone.

What the hell - knock yourself out. It's already gotten more press than the past dozen hook-in failure fatalities combined. Maybe in another twenty years or so people will have gotten bored enough with the issue to start focusing on something that actually matters.

The first time I had any first hand information was from your post.

If you think Bob outted/outing you before you did yourself then copy/paste (I can't believe I just asked for that!) the post and time/date stamp where Bob did. I could well have missed it but I went back and still can't find it.

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/12/13 05:55:39 UTC

If I boot you permanently it will be due to my concerns over the topic we discussed on the phone. This forum should be a safe place for people of varying ages to visit. You have not given me any assurances that's true with you on this forum.

With the blizzard of words that you post it's possible that I missed it twice but more than likely even you can't remember what exactly was said/typed.

Yeah, that's why I rely on memory as little as possible - on the forums and ramp.

Until I see the post with the time/date stamp where Bob posted what you are saying he posted I am stalled on this one issue of whether or not you are being disingenuous at Bob's expense.

Zack doesn't seem to think I'm being disingenuous. Check out his comments in the previous post.

Below is a quote from Sam, I think!

Yes.

"Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in."

"Tad:
...which is a flat contradiction of everyone's rating qualifications and the absolute best way I know to get someone killed in this sport, but I don't see you doing much to address that one.

"Preflight (comma) Hang Check (comma) Know you're hooked in (period)"

Flat contradiction?

Hang Gliding - 1981/05

Just Doing a Hang Check is not Enough
Article and photos by George Whitehill

Yes. In the article which introduced the revision of the ratings requirements the hang check was specifically excluded and the idea that one should consider himself hooked in following one is the antithesis of the intent.

What if the lift and tug was the know you're hooked in part?
Flat contradiction?

I wanna be feeling the tug on my leg loops immediately before and as I'm committing to launch but there's NEVER an advantage to KNOWING one is hooked in until it's too late to do anything about it.

Kinda like taking off KNOWING that the weak link and/or the engine won't blow. You do everything you can beforehand to minimize those possibilities but you keep assuming they'll happen and behave accordingly until you're beyond the point at which they're issues.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1
Hello US Hawks!!

Andy23 - 2011/12/24 03:04:53 UTC

Re: New Member

I'm new to California and just signed up for US Hawks after a great day at Dockweiler Beach. Looking forward to getting back there in a few days!
Thanks to Bob for all the help today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFRZFGqFqfE

Hey Andy,

What happens in the couple of seconds JUST PRIOR TO when this video starts running? I'm guessing nothing 'cause:
- if something WAS happening it would probably have been on the video; and
- Bob was helping you.

Anybody on Hawks gonna say anything? Just kidding.

[Tad Eareckson]

Zack C - 2011/11/19 13:24:52 UTC

Tad used lift-and-tug for decades at many sites in every sort of conditions without issue. As far as I'm aware, Bob, you've never attempted it in the conditions you're afraid of.

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/19 21:01:28 UTC

And I never will. You said to try it with people on my wires, and in those circumstances I might try it. But I've wrestled with enough gliders on launch to know that I'm NOT going to do that when I don't have a full crew to back me up. I've personally seen gliders get flipped on launch flinging their pilots like rag dolls through the air and slamming them onto the ground. I was in the air over Torrey when I saw that happen to a friend of mine. He was in the hospital for some time with various broken parts (including his pelvis as I recall). In fact, I was flipped myself on top of Kagel when I was a Hang 2. Fortunately, only my pride was bruised, but I know first-hand how quickly a glider can go from just slightly out of control to a life-threatening disaster. You don't EVER want to do ANYTHING to increase that probability. You especially don't want to do something that you KNOW you can do 30 seconds earlier in complete safety - a hook-in check.

Aaron LaPlante - 2010/06/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwoE6IFeJ94


Oops! I goofed up ground handling while walking out to launch and ended up Ninja Turtle style! Keep your nose in the wind! Enjoy!

latunatexx (Chris Valley) - 2010/06/10

Been there, done that. Turtled at the 600' at Ed Levin, and ripped the hell out of the leading edge. Now I use a wire assist at anything over 12 mph. Hope all ended well.

Had a great couple of flights at the Fort yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doe_sNB1wbg

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=17603
Some [maybe old] thoughts about Failure to Hook In

Steven Sims - 2010/06/09 20:41:32 UTC
Atlanta

I have been reading a lot of old threads, and the thing that concerns me most about this sport is FTHI.

So far - EXCELLENT.

I know it is going to bite me one day when some odd event happens between my last hang check and my launch.

Here's a thought...

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

- Stop thinking of the fuckin' hang check as something that makes you LESS likely to get bit and...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25550
Failure to hook in.

Steve Davy - 2011/10/24 10:27:04 UTC

OK- how many times does he need confirm that he is hooked in? And when would be the best time to make that confirmation?

Brian McMahon - 2011/10/24 21:04:17 UTC

Once, just prior to launch.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25 03:59:58 UTC

I agree with that statement.

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.

...recognize that it does the precise opposite.

- Read the fuckin' requirements for your fuckin' ratings...

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

...and start following them so as to reduce the time between your last HOOK-IN check and your launch to a MAXIMUM of one or two seconds - EVERY TIME YOU LAUNCH.

So, I've been thinking through some possible procedure improvements and safety mechanisms.

Great. Skip the regulations and get creative.

1. Paint carabiner neon orange (or some color that contrasts with the harness and lines). The idea here is that it will help fellow pilots spot dangling 'biners.

- Couldn't do any harm.

- But why aren't we training ALL Hang Ones to be looking at the suspensions at ALL of their fellow pilots on launch at the ONLY time it matters?

Not a solution by any means, but why should we have 'biners that camouflage themselves? It will also make it easier for the pilot to see the 'biner relative to hang straps and lines when it is hooked in, possibly reducing some of the optical illusion false hook ins and making it just a little easier to spot tangles.

- It won't help the pilot see it any better unless he's turned around looking for it and nobody's ever had much of a problem spotting his carabiner when he's turned around looking for it.

- Don't talk about tangles. They're not critical issues and are a distraction from the problem we're trying to address.

It might also reduce instances where only the nose of the 'biner is hanging on the strap because the open bright orange gate would be more obvious.

Couldn't hurt, probably wouldn't help. You're either checking for the problem or you're not.

2. Add a small loop to the shoulder area of the harness and always hook the carabiner to this loop whenever it is not hooked into the hang straps. By this process, the 'biner will only ever be in one of two steady states: on your harness shoulder loop, or hooked into the hang straps. The harness shoulder loop should allow the 'biner to hang so that it is purposely in the way of where you would place the downtubes to pick up the glider. Perhaps it could be positioned such that you could still pick up the glider a little off center so you don't have to worry about scratching or denting your downtube against the 'biner, but where it still is a little awkward and could not allow you to launch normally without feeling that something was amiss. The shoulder loop itself would be of doubled over nylon webbing, or some similar material and design which would hold its own open circular shape so that it is easy to get the 'biner on and off with one hand and without the nose snagging on it. The shoulder loop could be on either side of the body, but I would put it on my right. I tend to turn to my right to unhook with my left hand for some reason. My right shoulder is mere inches away and pointing right at the 'biner as I unhook it. Even if I am unhooking due to some external emergency, I think it is quite likely that I would maintain this part of my routine and still clip the 'biner to my shoulder because it is right there. If the shoulder loop is well formed and stays open, it should take about one extra second to hook the 'biner there instead of dropping it. My left hand has to pass by my right shoulder anyway as I turn around to go deal with whatever my distraction is. Having a little bit of shock cord on the 'biner to keep the harness straps organized at the bottom would probably help keep it all quick and clean. Hooking in is just the opposite, but if I forget to do it, the 'biner is going to clang into my downtube and/or get sandwiched between my shoulder and the downtube, and I'm going to notice that.

- If something's inconvenient or vulnerable to disruptions it won't be done reliably.

- So when someone picks up his glider without interference from the carabiner that's supposed to be connected to that loop when not connected to the glider, he'll be all the more confident that he's connected to the glider. Great!!!

3. Attach a magnet to the carabiner and stitch a Hall effect sensor into the hang strap, which would send a signal to a microprocessor and light green 'go' or a red 'no go' LEDs somewhere on the control frame or keel. It could also have an audio alert of some kind that only goes off when an accelerometer detects the glider is being lifted or when a motion sensor or a infrared or ultrasound distance sensor detects someone is under the glider. It could be really elegant and intelligent, but not cheap, of course. The simple LED system would be pretty cheap, but also innocuous; you'd have to remember to look at it just before you start running.

Yeah!!! After he sees that LED glowing green he knows he's good to start running off the ramp. Super!!! I got a better idea. Just have a red LED glowing all the time so when he sees it he'll think he's not hooked in and do the fuckin' check he's supposed to be doing JUST PRIOR TO *EVERY* LAUNCH anyway.

I can't see any reason not to do #1. Although, powder coat would probably be better than paint. Does anyone sell brightly colored steel 'biners? I haven't seen any yet.

Now a potential pitfall I do see with #2 is over-dependence. What happens if I try out a buddy's harness and he doesn't have this shoulder loop for the 'biner?

What's it matter? It's not like you've actually engineered and installed a device like this on your own glider.

Will I pick up the glider to move it to the ramp after waiting a while, and then, not feeling the 'biner on my shoulder because it is dangling behind me, will I assume that I am hooked in? Hopefully I will already be on high alert and do multiple hang checks since it is a strange harness. Are there any other reasons why everyone who does walk around in their harness doesn't hook their 'biner somewhere obvious like their shoulder or their chest?

Why don't you just do what the people with brains and common sense in this sport do?

Rob Kells - 2005/12

Each of us agrees that it is not a particular method, but rather the fear of launching unhooked that makes us diligent to be sure we are hooked in every time before starting the launch run.

ALWAYS assume you're NOT hooked in for EVERY LAUNCH so for EVERY LAUNCH you'll be scared SHITLESS and will thus BE on high alert for EVERY LAUNCH. (Always worked for me.)

And so, on to #3...part of me cries at the thought of adding electronic systems to a hang glider. If it works reliably, though, I would use it. Designing in fail-safes and subsequent testing to prove it would be the toughest part I think. It would be great to learn from others' attempts at similar systems. Surely, in forty years, someone has come up with something like this before, right?

Yeah. Scores of times. And yet for some reason you see even fewer of them in the field than you see people doing hook-in checks JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=17603
Some [maybe old] thoughts about Failure to Hook In

Richard Bryant - 2010/06/09 20:56:27 UTC
New Egypt, New Jersey

My head hurts! You're way over-thinking this.

How could your head POSSIBLY hurt? It's not like you have enough wiring connected up there for much of anything to be much of a problem.

There are many methods and procedures to help avoid FTHI.

Most of which do the precise opposite.

Aussie method for one... Then there's the Lift and Tug (or whatever it is called).

If you ever unhook with your harness on, keep repeating, out loud, "I'm not hooked in."

Make it a habit to hook in and walk through the control frame, checking your lines.

Fly with friends that look out for you and help you make sure you're hooked in.

Got that?
- Aussie Method: If you're in a harness you must be hooked in to the nearest glider.
- If you:
-- do the Lift and Tug (or whatever it's called) you can assume you're hooked in.
-- ever unhook with your harness:
--- on, keep repeating out loud, "I'm not hooked in."
--- off, keep repeating out loud, "I'm hooked in."
-- hook back in with your harness:
--- on, keep repeating out loud, "I'm hooked in."
--- off, keep repeating out loud, "I'm not hooked in."
-- are launching with lots of your friends around, relax. NO WAY they'd ever let anything bad happen to you.

DiarmaidMurphy - 2010/06/09 21:14:25 UTC

I don't worry about this because it will never happen to me...

Just kidding!

I like the LED idea because I like gadgets.
I don't like the noise idea because I don't like noise.
I like the hook on my shoulder idea because it sounds convenient for locating my biner before launch.
I don't like the powder coat idea unless the biner colour matches my harness or glider.
I like the hang check.
I don't think over dependance would be an issue because you should be more careful using someone else's kit anyhow.

Again, I like the hang check. Failure to hook in does not bother me. It's a risk I accept and try to manage using the hang check. What bothers me is cloud suck.

- The act of using someone else's gear is itself a disruption of your normal procedure.

- Disruptions of normal procedure is a major factor in a high proportion of failure to hook in fatalities.

- The hook-in check is the procedure which neutralizes the distraction issues.

- You don't do hook-in checks - EVER.

- Damn near all the people who've died because they assumed they were hooked in liked the hang check, were not bothered by the issue of failure to hook in, accepted the risk, and tried to manage it using the hang check.

- Idiot.

Frank Peel - 2010/06/09 21:15:21 UTC
San Jose

What TV said is good advice.

Yeah, hard to go wrong with a statement like that.

One solution is to have a procedure and internalize it. Never deviate and if you are interrupted, start over.

Regardless of how absolutely moronic that internalized procedure is. Always carefully inspect your tow bridles before each flight to make sure you won't blow tow at the worst possible moment then install a new loop of 130 pound Greenspot to make sure you will.

For instance, before launching I will have done the following multiple times: check both leg loops, parachute pins/handle, chin strap, sunglasses strap tightness, and that I am hooked in.

All equally critical issues (speaking of absolutely moronic internalized procedures).

I start at the bottom and work my way up doing it in that order. I execute this mental checklist immediately after hooking in...

Yeah. IMMEDIATELY AFTER hooking in. I'll bet that's really reassuring IMMEDIATELY BEFORE launching.

...and if I hooked in prior to walking out to launch do it again when I get there.

Yeah, I imagine that's ALSO very reassuring.

This process is repeated every minute or so if I'm standing on launch for very long.

Yeah, go through that entire procedure every minute or so if you're standing on launch for very long. God forbid that you launch with an unbuckled helmet or a loose sunglasses strap.

After twenty years and a lot of launches the idea that it could happen to me still scares the bejeepers out of me.

Even more than the idea of your sunglasses sliding a quarter inch down your nose?

That even the idea of failing to hook in scares you is a good thing.

So if you're more scared of the idea of failing to hook in than you are about launching with your helmet unbuckled or your sunglasses strap loose, wouldn't it be a good idea to lighten up on the useless crap and do the fucking hook-in check within two seconds of launch - even if you DO clearly remember doing the last one forty-five seconds ago?

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=17603
Some [maybe old] thoughts about Failure to Hook In

Bob Kuczewski - 2010/06/09 21:24:48 UTC
San Diego

Lots of good thoughts.

Yeah Bob...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=822
US Hawks Hook-In Verification Poll

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/11/07 05:42:59 UTC

Sam, you are quite a genius!!

And Sam's quite a genius!!

I suspect you may be a newer pilot because that's the perspective that asks the simplest question: "Why not?".

I've got an even simpler question. How come everyone's frothing at the mouth rabid about enforcing spot landing requirements but nobody gives a rat's ass about the requirement that a hook in check be performed just prior to launch for all flights for all ratings?

It's also a coincidence because I've had some similar thoughts.

Yeah, big surprise.

I gave some serious thinking to a simple battery/LED circuit that would go through a jumper that could only be shorted by a little tiny connector attached to your harness. So the only way to complete that circuit (and light the LED) was to have that connector attached. The launch rule is very simple.

A RULE, Bob? Sounds a bit nanny state to me. Shouldn't it just be a launch SUGGESTION?

You don't launch unless the LED is lit.

How 'bout this:

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

simple launch rule? Just kidding.

With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot sees that the LED is lit at some point when he's on the ramp if, in his judgment, he can safely perform that check.

We good with that?

In the simplest configuration, the LED just stays on throughout the flight, but if battery drain is an issue, you could have a way to disconnect the jumper after launch. For a few pennies more you could even have it on an electronic timer (555 or similar) so it goes out after 10 minutes. The basic system would cost less than $5 and just be an LED, resistor, batteries, wire, jumper, jumper pins, and tape. The timer system might cost another $5 at most. There are lots of variations that include a switch on the harness or some other means to turn it on and off.

So how many of these things have you put into circulation in the past year and a half? Got one on your own glider? How 'bout mirrors?

One of the things that concerned me when I was thinking about this was what happens when you've come to depend on it and then fly someone else's glider without that system?

One of the things that concerns ME is that there are untold tens of thousands of glider divers who would use an idiot electrical device the same way they use the idiot hang check and Aussie Method - so they can ASSUME they're connected to a glider just before running off the cliff and skip the hook-in check (like you always do).

The answer is that you'll be trained to look for that glowing LED...

So you won't hafta be trained to do the fuckin' hook-in check.

...telling you you're hooked in. You won't be seeing it and that should create a high level of concern, and I suspect you'll be checking your hook-in even more often!!

Got that? LED:
- glowing - You're hooked in (and probably have your leg loops). Relax.
- not glowing - Maybe running off the cliff isn't as good an idea as it would be if the thing were lit.

At least until that effect wears off. Then you're in trouble again.

Hey Bob, what if he just ASSUMED that he was in trouble all the time for every launch and did something JUST PRIOR to every launch to verify his connection?

Oh, right. Then he'd be LYING to himself just about all the time and we certainly couldn't tolerate anything as immoral as that.

Keep thinking, and keep posting. There's nothing wrong with that!!

Yeah, just don't think or post too much 'cause if you do and start coming up with stuff that Bob doesn't agree with he'll to use whatever he can from anything in your background to try to intimidate you into silence.