instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Steve Davy · Post by **Steve Davy** » 2018/02/18 06:25:38 UTC

Anybody else notice that we haven't been hearing much from one of our favorite Jack Show Fiction Writers lately?

He's figured out that there's not much more damage that he can do. Same goes for Paul Hurless, Dennis Wood...

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/02/19 15:04:05 UTC

Yep. They've done their bits to have all voices of intelligence, competence, reform eliminated from the mainstream hang gliding gene pool and brought the sport to a point from which I can't imagine it finding a way to sink lower. Since it's been proven beyond any doubt for the better part of four decades that there can be no negative consequence from a weak link break we now have line breaks to allow for negative consequences.

Well done Brad, Paul, all you useless motherfuckers who let them get away with everything they got away with.

And now back to the individual most instrumental in transforming hang gliding from a flavor of aviation into a religion...

On the same day and at the same place as the previous accident...

- The previous WHAT?

- See:

http://www.kitestrings.org/viewtopic.php?p=2625#p2625
1982/09-06

Here's a pretty good facsimile of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYe3YmdIQTM

'cept with the driver - undoubtedly Henry Wise based on his reaction when I dredged it up on the Houston rag - making a good decision in the interest of the "pilot"'s safety instead of the Infallible Weak Link increasing the safety of the towing operation. (But don't worry Donnell... Under Skyting Theory Infallible Weak Links always breaking at the worst possible time, when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation (and just before one of the pilot's arms is broken into four pieces) is merely an argument that you've heard. And arguments have absolutely no place in Skyting Theory. Just like DATA - and common sense. (And that was also a career ender and that victim of your theory was far from a first timer.)

...another pilot...

Yeah Donnell. Another PILOT. (The first guy was a first - and undoubtedly last - timer.)

...found himself involved in a dangerous incident.

Through absolutely no fault of his own, of course.

It began with a wind gust which turned the glider approximately 45 degrees crossways to the towline.

Bull fucking shit. A WIND (as opposed to molasses) gust can't and doesn't turn/head the glider "crossways" to the towline. The glider needs to be rolled for that to happen. A crosswind - gust or steady - will move the glider downwind from its original or earlier ground track. And the glider will continually stay aligned with the towline / point towards the vehicle, winch, pulley, tug.

The pilot...

Douchebag on the rope.

...started to correct...

Create.

...the problem by turning back on course...

- He had been on course. He was turning off course and onto an irrelevant ground track.
- Which he could only do by rolling the glider to the upwind side of the original ground track.

...but then he became concerned about the possibilities of a lockout...

- The one into which he was flying himself - à la John Woiwode.
- No shit. Notice he HADN'T become concerned about the possibilities of a lockout when the glider was tracking along where it wanted to be.

...and decided it would be wiser to release.

It would have been wiser if he'd stayed on the ground until he'd understood or figured out what the fuck he was supposed to do and not do on a tow flight. Also what he needed in the way of equipment to be able to fly competently. See immediately below.

While he was reaching to release...

And not flying the glider - since the Hewett concept of a safe towing system precludes a release system that permits its dope on the rope to do both.

...the glider continued to turn away from the vehicle until it was approximately 90 degrees crossways.

It couldn't have been. If the vehicle is moving forward the wind would have to be howling near ninety cross for the glider to be approaching that - assuming there's some pretense of a pilot making some pretense of appropriate control back there.

At that time the spotter tripped the safety release...

The SAFETY release. The one on the glider can only be used when everything's going right. And when they aren't the guy on the glider is entirely dependent upon the pilot on the truck to assess situations and address them appropriately. So much for the quaint concept of Pilot In Command.

...freeing the towline from the vehicle.

- And leaving it to be dragged around by the glider until the guy riding it can figure out how to unload it.

- Sounds like both individuals had the same impression of where the situation was heading at the same time. But the ground guy beat the guy on the glider. Do you find that the least bit problematic?

The pilot then went on to land without apparent difficulty.

Lucky him.

ANALYSIS:

According to skyting theory...

There's no such thing as Skyting theory.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory
Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

All you have is a HYPOTHESIS - and a pretty crappy one at that.

...there is no danger of a lockout as long as the bridle line does not touch the control bar or flying wires.

Yet here we have two individuals - one on the bird, the other on the power unit - both sensing at precisely the same time that the situation was going critical and deciding on the same immediate preventive measure. And yet neither one of them mentions this happening.

At the original 45 degree deviation it is doubtful that this occurred, but at the final 90 degrees deviation it is almost certain that it did occur.

There. You fixed the data from them such that it's now consistent with and verifies your theory.

Therefore, there was no danger of a lockout at 45 degrees...

27-41810
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5579/14820212815_4a9087727f_o.png

...but there was considerable "potential" danger at the 90 degree situation. Exactly how much danger no one can say, for the skyting system has not been adequately tested at such extreme limits.

It's been tested just fine, Donnell. The problem is that whenever an Infallible Weak Link doesn't break when it's supposed to you make the assumption that it was accidentally doubled and when a glider locks out with none of the tow components touching anything you make the assumption that they were.

In any case, the safety rules...

...based upon the assumptions of my bulletproof theory...

...that applied to this incident are as follows:

...

The net effect of all these forces acting together has, in my experience, always helped turn the glider in the correct direction, even at cross angles as great as 90 degrees. Never-the-less, I do not recommend that you deliberately place yourself in a situation where you need to rely upon these forces to help get you out.

Why not? The theory's totally solid. It's always worked in your experience - even at cross angles as great as 90 degrees. Matter o' fact, the more out of kilter you get the stronger the correcting force gets. You're actually much better off at fifty degree misalignment than you are at five.

You may just discover a particular case where they do not help.

Name something analogous in aeronautical theory. If there's a particular case in which the outcome isn't explained and predicted by the theory then the theory is rubbish.

Neither the theory of these forces nor the experimental testing of such situations can be considered complete at this time.

Well, here we are well over a third of a century later and nobody's discovered any flaws anywhere. So I'm sure we're on pretty solid ground.

Did you ever:

- go up a thousand feet in nice glassy evening air, roll it out of line, take your hands off, see how well it worked weight shifting your body to the high side and bringing you back level and centered?

- make any effort to have this stuff reviewed by competent aeronautical engineers and physicists?

Never even bothered to look into any release systems that allow a PILOT to blow tow with BOTH hands on the control bar? Nah, why bother? No advantage to it in Skyting Theory.

Donnell Hewett - 1980/12

Now I've heard the argument that "Weak links always break at the worst possible time, when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation," and that "More people have been injured because of a weak link than saved by one." Well, I for one have been saved by a weak link and would not even consider towing without one. I want to know without a doubt (1) when I am pushing too hard, and (2) what will break when I push too hard, and (3) that no other damage need result because I push too hard.

Don't ever let any reality get in the way of really solid theory.

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/02/20 18:17:40 UTC

Sorry, people of varying ages. Blast from the past - right around an even decade ago. Still really pisses me off 'cause of the:
- blatant lies and attacks on my character from Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney
- participation of the Capitol and Maryland Clubs douchebags who let him get away with that crap
- forum "moderator" who went with the flow
- local guys with reasonable levels of intelligence who didn't have the integrity to wade in and give me covering fire
- shit aerotow operation that:
-- came to town
-- created and empowered Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney and turned him loose
-- took over the airport and acted like they owned it (until new management moved in and helped finish them off)
- tongue biting I did because I was dependent upon the local monopoly for airtime

Consider sticking with this. Some of it's kinda fun.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2871
speed link

JD Guillemette - 2008/01/29 17:52:12 UTC

Tad,

I have only had two failures to separate from the tow line. One was at Highland, after a successful tow and primary release, the bridle looped it's self on to the carabineer at the end of the tow line. No problem just pulled my "Bailey" on the shoulder and I was off. That was not a release failure and it could happen to your rig. I even got may bridle back because the ground crew had to untangle it from the carabineer for the next customer.

The second time was at Quest. I was towing off the shoulders only. I have two "Bailey" releases, one on each shoulder. At each end of the bridle I had a wink link attached to the releases. Although identical, I consider my right release to be primary and the left one to be back up. I set up the primary release for a tow. I actually remember doing it now, but I put the weak link loop on the back side of the release hook (convex side), hinged the curve pin back between the loop lines of the release, and slid the sleeve over it. When I went to release, the pin had to rotate backwards (point first) to dump the line. It just managed NOT to split the loop lines of the release and hooked.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8323186050/

I could see exactly what happened about a foot in front of my face. I had time and altitude. I tried to unhook the curve pin, but with my gloves and tow forces I could not. So, I just pulled the other release and separated from tow. When the bridle whipped back the snagged primary came loose and fell away ... too bad I lost my bridle. That was operator error and I believe your shoulder (single point) tow system has the same type of release and could be set up to fail in the same way. Even if straight pins are used the same situation can happen except in either rotation directions ... yes I have tested it.

After an uneventful flight I discussed what happened with Lisa Kane. We came to a few conclusions.

Although I rigged it backwards it was the weak link that caused the problem, the weak link material is so thin that it did not spilt the release loop far enough apart. In fact even if you rig it in the correct direction you can still over rotate the curved pin so far the curved part of the pin can catch the release loops and cause a failure but it is far more unlikely (read deliberately set up that way). And yes with the weak link loop on the bridle you can produce failure with straight pins but with equal probability in either direction.

Another, conclusion was that had it not been for the second release I may still be on tow ... or at least until the Tug ran out of gas ... I know the tug pilot could give me rope. Because the tow force was split between my right (failed) release and the left, the weak link was "seeing" normal tow forces. The weak link would only break if say, the primary release worked and the bridle got caught on the tow line, now the left shoulder tow point and weak link are "seeing" double tow forces and breaks, that's they way it's supposed to work.

A lot of pilots fly with only a release on one shoulder and a weak link on the other shoulder ... that could be a problem if the one release fails to separate, for the reasons I have stated above. But I don't go around twisting people’s arms to look at my release scheme.

What have I learned .... OK ... I choose to use a weak link but only on the backup release side ... and properly rigged. On the primary side I just use a loop in the bridle (no weak link) for the release pin. The diameter of the bridle cord makes it improbable to produce the same failures. In fact even curved pins rigged backwards will release ... but as tow bridle diameter decreases probability of failure increases.

Not all releases a fool proof and 100% effective ... INCLUDNG YOURS. I have seen both your "Double point" and "Single point" releases on many occasions ... and not by my choice. Yes they are clever, but with multiple pulleys or routing within the glider frame work, I find them over complicated and at some time it may fail in a way you never considered because of their complexity. The best solution, at least for me is simple, effective, and backed up.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2871
speed link

Tad Eareckson - 2008/01/31 12:55:45 UTC

JD,

I normally don't carry a firearm, blackjack, chloroform, handcuffs... (at Ridgely anyway), nor do I twist people's arms, so I'm having just as hard a time understanding how you were subjected to the offensive sights of my release systems against your will as I am comprehending how Jim has been forced to read my posts.

But anyway... apparently you didn't deem them worthy of your time and thought processes and were content to continue using the same stuff everybody else does while I went on flying my system. Consequently, you've had to reach for a secondary release two more times than I have.

Yeah, a two point bridle wrap IS a release failure. It's a built in risk of electing to fly with a two point opening bridle and the frequency with which it manifests itself is dependent upon the quality of the primary bridle (yours wasn't very good) and the tension under which you release. Peter Birren's recommended configuration totally eliminates that possibility (at the expense of some very minor tradeoffs). And the bridle design I implemented last summer probably does (at the expense of a lot of needle and thread time).

Additionally I have an autorelease feature in my system which guarantees that I'll be off tow instantly without having to take any action in the event of a bridle wrap following a weak link break and makes it at least very likely following a normal release.

I'm also wondering if you had a secondary weak link at the time of your wrap 'cause Sunny reports that, on the tandem gliders anyway, its failure is a virtual certainty in such circumstances.

Thank you very much for reporting the Bailey problem you discovered aloft and the related one you discovered on the ground. The latter is definitely the way to do things (like, for instance, simulating an accidental opening of a nonlocking hang glider carabiner (anybody have any success with that yet?)).

I did a little experimentation based on your information and although, yeah, the bigger the diameter the less the likelihood of a lock, I was able disable the Bailey with the pin rotated properly while 5/32 inch line was engaged and backwards with quarter inch. Those are, respectively, 1200 and 2700 pound polyester lines - a bit above what is required at that interface.

Maybe you should have swallowed some anti-nausea medication and taken a little longer look at my stuff 'cause - NO, the malfunction you described actually cannot possibly occur in any of my several variations of barrel release.

The basic design is vulnerable to one flavor of idiot induced defeat but I've made modifications to make that grotesquely counterintuitive procedure something between difficult and impossible. (Flying isn't for everyone and my personal feeling is that someone stupid enough to make that mistake and persistent enough to defeat the safeguards should be in a supervised living situation at all times anyway.)

Obviously you have no interest in improving your reliability and performance over what it is now but anyone is welcome to check out my barrel release designs at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/

in the Secondary Components set and see why it's impossible for them to lock up in the manner described.

The only advantage of the core hardware of your one point system of choice is that it's easily manufactured, i.e. - cheap. They're unnecessarily bulky, prone to accidental release, inefficient, and of marginal strength.

You've dealt with a known danger by compromising another aspect of your safety system - eliminating weak link redundancy. There's absolutely no reason for your (one point) bridle to be long enough to wrap but it's a pretty safe bet that it is. You only have a weak link at your port barrel. You get blasted down low, you're locking out, your weak link fails, and your bridle wraps.

If you had had a starboard weak link as well, you'd be free flying by now because it fails at 140 pounds and would just have been shock loaded at something well in excess of 280. Instead you're still on tow, you no longer have a weak link on your end of the system, your lockout is getting worse, you have a mechanically inefficient release under up to four times as much load as it has ever experienced in the course of your flying career.

Now let's throw in the tug scenario described in Towing Aloft (Page 349) in which its (doubled) weak link breaks but the bridle also wraps - not a huge stretch of the imagination under that kind of loading. Now you're still locked out and the loads on the releases at both ends are limited only by 2000 pound Spectra hollow braid - or whatever breaks first on one of the planes.

Skip the next four paragraphs - you might learn something.

-

Now, for standardization and optimization purposes, let's orient the barrel releases such that the curved pins rotate outboard upon actuation.

So why not just take two minutes and sew together the inboard edges of the release webbing within the range of the pin's eye and end to make it physically impossible to connect by rotating backwards or over-rotating in the proper direction?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8331320702/

Then take two more minutes and do the same thing to your port release.

Then replace your bridle with something too short to wrap and install weak links on both ends.

OK, enough lipstick on that pig. If you wanna see how to do it right - check the pictures.

-

You can come back now. The easy fix is done with.

I hear this "complicated" criticism all the time, invariably from people who don't know what they're looking at and almost exclusively from people who are flying with dangerous crap themselves (case in point). But, strangely, none of them has ever been clever enough to simulate or predict a failure scenario. And, I suspect, you and I may have very different definitions of complexity, simplicity, and effectiveness.

As far as the "backed up" issue is concerned... If my primary actuation action were to fail - I have Plans B, C, D, and E. You stop at B - not counting a hook knife (which I don't 'cause it has no place in an AT discussion). And I have a lot more weak link redundancy than you do.

So you find multiple pulleys and routing within the glider framework overly complicated? I'm sure you do. I put a pulley in the basetube of my old glider, the manufacturer put two in the kingpost (I'll relay your concerns). I just found eight pulleys on a Talon diagram, all of them out of the airflow. I can't tell you how happy I am that Steve Pearson designs gliders and you fly them rather than the other way around.

But who knows? Maybe Steve will take your concerns to heart and the T3 will feature fewer pulleys (who needs mechanical advantage anyway - that stuff is for sissies) and a VG line routed outside of the starboard downtube. Your dream machine. Still too complicated? Hell, eliminate the sprogs - they don't do much most of the time anyway.

Pulleys have been going into aircraft for the past century, all of them out of the airflow whenever possible, and I don't recall hearing of them causing a lot of problems. I do, however, recall that you had an issue with the crap hanging in the breeze on your Falcon control frame.

And, one more issue...

I don't know when you discovered that there was a way to accidentally defeat a Bailey release but:

I'm guessing it wasn't last weekend;
this is the first I've heard of it; and
the only reason I'm hearing of it now is 'cause it happened to come up in conversation.

So - unless I've missed something - you've put about as much effort into publicizing the actual dangers of the popular system as the undefined and totally imaginary ones of mine.

Damn near everybody who aerotows, save for a small percentage who have followed the leads of Peter and yours truly, incorporates a Bailey or two in his system and most of the two point primary releases are shoddy enough so that the secondaries frequently come into play.

So you see lotsa folk with only a release on one shoulder and a weak link on the other. You know - until now more than just about anyone else - that it's possible for the release to lock.

Therefore you also know that if what happened to you happens to them they no longer have any means of releasing.

Hopefully you also know that a person can be dead or beyond the point of survivability before a weak link fails.

So you see dangerous equipment configurations all the time and do NOTHING? So much for the ol' watching out for each other community thing.

Yet another reason I'm more into eliminating the design flaws.

Yeah, it's a tiny matter. 99.99 percent of the time it won't make any difference. And 99.99 percent of the time we don't have problems with hooking in.

But despite the fact that you may find the effort about as effective and rewarding as teaching pigs to sing, maybe you have a social obligation to go around figuratively twisting arms. That way, at least, when someone ends his flying (and walking) career because of a literally twisted neck he will dictate from his hospital bed to his significant other that "This accident could have been prevented with two and a half inches of dental floss. JD tried to tell me that but I didn't listen." Then maybe the next person will.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2871
speed link

JD Guillemette - 2008/02/06 10:30:54 UTC

Tad,

I may not agree with everything you do ... but you are a clever guy.

From you photos of the Bailey Release, it was not immediately clear what you had done to modify it to make it "fool proof" ... but after a while I did see it. You stitched the back side of the webbing loop that holds the curved pin. Making it nearly impossible to rig it backwards. And now the curved pin when properly rigged goes into the pocket formed and it makes it, again, nearly impossible to over rotate the curved pin to produce a failure.

In fact, without having it in hand, it seems the only way it could be defeated, and someone would have to go a long way to do it, is to rotate the pin backwards on the outside of stitched part and attempt to catch pin on the front side. I suspect that the barrel would not fit over this arrangement. I don't think that anyone capable of doing this should be flying.

Tad had you already modified the Bailey Release or have you modified it in response to post? If so, I regret not posting sooner the in flight failure I experienced in 2005. If you had previously modified the Bailey Release, sham on me for not paying more attention to your release.

I plan to modify and test my releases before I tow with them again.

I may not agree with everything you do, but there are few things that I think are truly brilliant.

Crow doesn't taste as bad as I thought.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2871
speed link

Jim Rooney - 2008/02/06 23:14:48 UTC

Eat something else... he copied that design.
A properly constructed Bailey has a stop (a rivet) that prevents this from happening.
How do I know this?... I was one of the guys that pointed out the problem to him (and how a Bailey doesn't have this problem).

So credit where credit is due... the "brilliance" here belongs to Bobby.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2871
speed link

JD Guillemette - 2008/02/07 12:51:57 UTC

Now that I think of it, I'm not sure where I got my "Bailey" releases. I don't think any of them have the rivet. I think the first one that I still have on my I-Tracer harness was given to me by my first Aero-tow instructor. The other two were on my Rotor harness when I bought the harness used. I just assumed that they were Genuine Bailey Releases, but without the rivet they must be imitations.

Although I have not seen a genuine Bailey release, it would seem to me that a rivet is a better solution to the problem, especially when curved pins are used. Bobby Bailey's designs have always impressed me, simple, elegant, and effective designs. It is no surprise to me that Bobby had already resolved the issue.

For these same reasons, It just bothers me when people try to "improve" upon Bobby Bailey's designs ... simply put, the designs are at the maximum of efficiency and safety. So I'm right back to where I was. I see no problem in the way things are currently done and creating overly complicated mouth actuated releases is just a waste of time.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3035
Tad's Barrel Release and maybe an alternative

Jim Rooney - 2008/02/11 23:09:18 UTC

Here we go, reinventing the wheel again.

Couple erroneous conclusions....
A Bailey release can not be rigged incorrectly. Yours was either a bad copy or an incomplete/defective release. A proper Bailey release has a rivot stop in it that prevents it from being rigged wrong. Yours did not have this.

After arguing this with Tadd, he eventually "fixed" the same "problem" with his barrel release... a "problem" that was already "fixed" in with the Bailey release. Before he added the stop, you could rig his the same way.

So....
Why are we reinventing the wheel again?
What advantage does a straight pin have over a curved pin?

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3035
Tad's Barrel Release and maybe an alternative

Jim Rooney - 2008/02/13 09:06:35 UTC

Selective memory I see.

When you first showed me the straight pin release, I told you I wouldn't touch it because "I had to give instructions on how to use it so that people would not rig it wrong". I showed you how you could rotate the pin sideways and close the barrel... and pointed out how this was not possible on a Bailey release. I told you if you fixed that, then I'd use it.

You modified the release to include a stop.
You made this modified release specifically for me.

Don't tell me your releases had this before then. Oh you had barrel realeases, but they did not have stops... they could be rigged wrong. The Highland boys didn't see a problem since students do not rig them... only we do. I don't agree with this conclusion, but it's not my company.

Oh..... in failing to answer my "what advantage does a straight pin have" question... you attempt to reverse it to "what advantage does a curved pin have".

Well, two things....
One... no one's trying to improve on your design. The bar was set with the Bailey... it is to YOU to "improve", which you have not done.

Two... The advantage of a curved pin... it can handle differing thicknesses of materials. Yours can't. You have a very narrow range and then you run into the problem of that pesky stop. That's why yours have weaklinks on both ends... nice and thin.

Call it insignificant if you will, but YOU are the one that is the incumbent... the onus is on you, not Bobby.

JD Guillemette - 2008/02/06 10:30:54 UTC

Tad,

I may not agree with everything you do ...

- Who asked you to?
- Like WHAT? Please confine your answer to issues relevant to hang gliding.

...but you are a clever guy.

Except when? In what relevant issues do I suddenly and inexplicably become totally fucking clueless?

From you photos of the Bailey Release, it was not immediately clear what you had done to modify it to make it "fool proof" ... but after a while I did see it.

Good.

You stitched the back side of the webbing loop that holds the curved pin. Making it nearly impossible to rig it backwards. And now the curved pin when properly rigged goes into the pocket formed and it makes it, again, nearly impossible to over rotate the curved pin to produce a failure.

Wow. What a clever guy I am.

In fact, without having it in hand, it seems the only way it could be defeated, and someone would have to go a long way to do it, is to rotate the pin backwards on the outside of stitched part and attempt to catch pin on the front side. I suspect that the barrel would not fit over this arrangement.

Good. So now we can ignore the issues of it being easily reachable - and thus totally useless in emergency situations - and nonfunctional under load.

I don't think that anyone capable of doing this should be flying.

I don't think that anyone capable of doing what you did should be flying. Hell, I don't think anybody who doesn't see the massive stupidity of incorporating a bent parachute pin for the core mechanism should be flying.

Tad had you already modified the Bailey Release or have you modified it in response to post?

I got ahold of a Genuine Bailey Release - one of the ones with the rivet - and copied the idea with a line of stitching so I could take credit for Bobby's brilliance and pass myself of as another fucking genius when it comes to this shit.

If so, I regret not posting sooner the in flight failure I experienced in 2005. If you had previously modified the Bailey Release, sham on me for not paying more attention to your release.

- That's OK. The whole fucking sport is founded in and based on shams.
- Guess I wasn't twisting your arm hard enough.
- I don't incorporate bent parachute pins in my equipment.

I plan to modify and test my releases before I tow with them again.

Just make sure not to test them under any loads that make it up to the halfway point of the u$hPa AT equipment SOPs.

I may not agree with everything you do...

Yeah, you said that already. And still you haven't actually cited anything.

...but there are few things that I think are truly brilliant.

Well, I'm not a fucking genius when it comes to this shit so obviously I'm only capable of doing a FEW things truly brilliantly. Best go to Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney for the other 95 percent.

Crow doesn't taste as bad as I thought.

How would you know? You've only had the tiniest morsel.

Jim Rooney - 2008/02/06 23:14:48 UTC

Eat something else... he copied that design.

Eat shit, Jim.

- Bobby doesn't DESIGN releases. He just ripped off the Schweizer sailplane release design that's been around since the beginning of time for the Dragonfly and slaps together whatever crap is readily available for the gliders. He doesn't give a flying fuck about the gliders 'cause he hasn't flown a glider in fifty years. And when he killed a glider behind him as a consequence of one of his shit release "designs"...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8318781297/

...his response was to ground the release from the comp for three days and force everybody to use weak links too light to get them airborne - about a third of what many of us are now happy with.

- I've never in my life copied a glider release design. I've looked at other designs and incorporated some of their elements and improved on them. And the only time I've worked with anything that could be considered original was Steve Kinsley's bite controlled multi-string one point release. And that development is openly and well documented on the Capitol Club rag. And nobody can document one shred of evidence of me copying or developing anything and presenting someone else's ideas as my own. That's the kinda crap you tend to pull once every third post.

And I've never in my life credited someone else's idea as my own - or failed to credit someone else to give the impression that the idea was mine.

A properly constructed Bailey has a stop (a rivet) that prevents this from happening.

- There's no such thing as a properly constructed Bailey. It's a moronic cheap easily reachable bent pin piece of total shit. The last asshole to get killed by one was an airline pilot with a Tad-O-Link as the focal point of his safe towing system behind an unidentified 582 Dragonfly driver at Quest on 2016/05/21.

- "This" doesn't "HAPPEN". Some total fucking moron like JD Guillemette MAKES it happen. I don't design equipment for the kinds of total fucking morons who can't connect brain dead simple release mechanisms 'cause they have no business flying and crudding up the gene pool in the first place.

- A properly constructed Bailey has a stop (a rivet). Right. What kind of total fucking moron would RIVET the webbing halves together instead of just laying down a line of stitching...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8331320702/

...seeing as how ALL of these cheap pieces o' shit are slapped together on sewing machines anyway?

- How was I able to COPY the design when I used stitching while Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey used a rivet? Wouldn't I have had to use a rivet to copy it? And one of them is a better idea. And we all know which one it is 'cause you didn't shoot off your stupid fucking mouth about how far superior the rivet "idea" was.

- Where do you think I was able to get ahold of one of these Genuine Bailey Releases from which I was able to copy Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey's brilliant design. Obviously they're so rare in the Highland Aerosports sphere of influence that I thought I could get away with the plagiarism. It was only my bad luck to have you around to be the only Guardian of the Faith to be able to call me out.

- Sorry Jim. I somehow missed the advisory concerning these dangerous Genuine Bailey Release knockoffs. Ditto apparently for JD. And he WOULD have been killed in a critical situation. Even deader than Jeff Bohl who somehow managed to rig his knockoff properly. So where is it? Any mention in the magazine and/or on the Jack and/or Davis Shows?

How do I know this?... I was one of the guys that pointed out the problem to him (and how a Bailey doesn't have this problem).

- (Just the ones everyone's actually using. Including the ones on the tandem discovery flight gliders.)

- How well I remember. It took four or five of you stupid pin bending motherfuckers - none of whom can be documented to have ever had an original idea in his fucking life - circling and shouting at me to convince me of the extreme danger of my crappy experimental design regarding the kinds of douchebags who fly Highland Aerosports.

Meanwhile, back in reality... Adam asked me to come up with a solution to make it impossible to flip lock:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/14026541561/

the mechanism to accommodate some of the gene pool crud to whom they cater. Cited a product of some other operation coming to Ridgely and trying to connect to a glider by hooking his carabiner into the spinnaker shackle of his two point Quallaby Release. I came up with a solution that didn't make it impossible but did make it a major pain in the ass.

- So how come none of you GUYS went public with your concern? Make sure that all the muppets were aware of this clear and present danger?

So credit where credit is due... the "brilliance" here belongs to Bobby.

- Well then... Let's not forget to credit the fucking douchebags putting these improperly constructed Brilliant Baileys into circulation and not checking for them at the flight lines while they're making sure that the pilots are all using appropriate weak links with finished lengths of 1.5 inches or less.

- Got that, people of varying ages? Punching a rivet through two layers of webbing to prevent a bent parachute pin from being deliberately rotated through is an example of Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey's BRILLIANCE. Total smoking gun slip-up. 99.99 percent of Bobby's brilliance stems from never putting anything down in print - ANYWHERE.

JD Guillemette - 2008/02/07 12:51:57 UTC

Now that I think of it...

Suck my dick, JD. You've never thought of anything in your entire fucking life either.

...I'm not sure where I got my "Bailey" releases.

Probably cheap Chinese knockoffs. The US hang glider aerotow market is flooded with them.

I don't think any of them have the rivet.

Go figure.

I think the first one that I still have on my I-Tracer harness was given to me by my first Aero-tow instructor.

- How come you're naming neither him nor the operation?
- Funny your first aerotow instructor gave you a defective release, dontchya think?

The other two were on my Rotor harness when I bought the harness used.

- Original owner must've been killed because of the defective Baileys. Notice any bloodstains?

- Wow. Bailey Releases from two sources and no riveted Genuine Bailey Releases. Go figure. (Ever wonder how the original owner of your Rotor harness was ever able to get cleared for launch using his dangerous knockoffs?)

I just assumed that they were Genuine Bailey Releases...

The way you're assuming now that this Genuine Bailey Release actually exists somewhere.

...but without the rivet they must be imitations.

- BRILLIANT deduction, Sherlock!
- Any thoughts on who's imitating them and why they're not bothering imitating the rivet? Just kidding.

Although I have not seen a genuine Bailey release...

NOBODY's seen a Genuine Bailey Release. Notice not one of these other Capitol Club assholes has commented on the rivet issue?

...it would seem to me that a rivet is a better solution to the problem...

Better than the stitching I proposed? Then how come Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney wasn't dancing around screaming his fucking head off about how superior Bobby's rivet is to Tadd's stitching?

...especially when curved pins are used.

Yep...

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

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

But I've had it once where the pin had bent inside the barrel from excessive tow force. My weaklink was still intact. The tug pilot's weaklink broke so I had the rope. I had to use 2 hands to get the pin out of the barrel.
No stress because I was high.

ESPECIALLY when curved pins are used.

Bobby Bailey's designs have always impressed me, simple, elegant, and effective designs.

I'm glad, JD. I'd really hate to see you ever using anything other than Bobby Bailey's designs. If it weren't for Bobby Bailey we'd all still be jumping off windy cliffs with beach umbrellas. (Odd that I don't remember him being in any of the conversations about the lower bridle attachment being moved off the basetube and onto the pilot.)

It is no surprise to me that Bobby had already resolved the issue.

Yeah. He anticipated that one person on the face of the planet would be stupid enough to rig his bent pin piece of shit the way you did. And punched a rivet through two layers of webbing. It would NEVER have occurred to me - a mere plagiarist always plotting to parasitize whatever I could of Bobby's glory - that anybody flying these things would be that stupid. I just assume minimum IQs in the mid double digits range. Pity that all those cheap Chinese knockoffs got into circulation without Bobby saying anything on the issue and you slipped through the cracks anyway.

For these same reasons, It just bothers me when people try to "improve" upon Bobby Bailey's designs ... simply put, the designs are at the maximum of efficiency and safety.

- But of course I hadn't read that sentence before.

- Fuck yeah. And isn't it absolutely ASTOUNDING that a stock M111C Stainless Steel Curved Parachute Pin - the very same piece of hardware we use for our reserve containers - turned out to be the PERFECT size, length, strength, curvature for the other application! And they say there's no God.

- I'd expect nothing less from the only person in the entire recorded history of hang glider aerotowing stupid enough to rig this piece o' crap the way you did. What really bothers me is your brief excursion into:

I may not agree with everything you do ... but you are a clever guy.

So I'm right back to where I was.

I never had the SLIGHTEST doubt you would be.

I see no problem in the way things are currently done and creating overly complicated mouth actuated releases is just a waste of time.

Thus it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Amen.

So...

After an uneventful flight I discussed what happened with Lisa Kane. We came to a few conclusions.

How come one of the conclusions that we came to wasn't that this wasn't a Genuine Bailey Release?

(Lisa KAIN had been a Ridgley tuggie for a while in the early years before being asked to seek other career opportunities for being a condescending know-it-all bitch a few too many times. Went down to Quest and on 2006/02/05 pulled John Dullahan (DC area) pro toad into a breaking off monster thermal. Low level lockout, "weak link broke just as I hit the release", right downtube and wrist broke on impact. Paul and Lauren, John Simon present.

Note the site, date, monster thermal. Seven years minus three days prior to Zack Marzec.)

Although I rigged it backwards it was the weak link that caused the problem, the weak link material is so thin...

Wow. The focal point of your safe towing system caused the problem because it was so thin. (Speaking of Zack Marzec (and Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey).) Who'da thunk.

Jim Rooney - 2008/02/11 23:09:18 UTC

Here we go, reinventing the wheel again.

When the square one we have is, simply put, at the maximum of efficiency and safety.

Couple erroneous conclusions....
A Bailey release can not be rigged incorrectly.

What's it matter? We have plenty of fatality reports which show that one jammed prior to launch is no more a liability than a properly rigged one in any...
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3391
More on Zapata and weak link

Paul Tjaden - 2008/07/22 04:32:22 UTC

I have never had a lockout situation happen so quickly and dramatically and had no chance to release as I have always thought I could do.

...critical situation.

Yours was either a bad copy or an incomplete/defective release.

One of the ones that doesn't pass with flying colors the rigorous Flight Park Mafia testing standards that nobody's ever heard of. So who's the source?

How do I know this?... I was one of the guys that pointed out the problem to him (and how a Bailey doesn't have this problem).

What's the point of being one of the guys that pointed out the problem to Tadd (and how a Bailey doesn't have this problem) if the market's so flooded with these bad copies and/or incomplete/defective releases?

A proper Bailey release has a rivot stop...

Yeah Jim. A prepor Bailey release has a rivot step. Can't stress how important it is to get things right in all you do.

...in it that prevents it from being rigged wrong.

- So does a proper pilot. But none of you incompetent Ridgely motherfuckers were never able to turn out any.

- That must've been what happened when you fuckin' dickheads were launching John Claytor on 2014/06/02 in that howling left ninety cross and he locked out off the cart and broke his neck. Non Genuine Bailey Release that could be rigged wrong, Tad-O-Link that didn't break when it was supposed to, tug pilot that didn't fix whatever was going on back there by giving him the rope, Risk Management Committee that didn't manage the risk until just after impact... Just wasn't his day.

Yours did not have this.

Mine never needed one. Couple other things I never needed:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5492/14666057035_1786a4e18c_o.jpg

http://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5277/30076449505_1f6ed2f804_o.png
08-19

motherfucker. (Well, I did need to be stretchered off ridge south of the original/old Woodstock launch but I was just really badly bruised and I didn't wait until the CAA investigation was complete to publish a full report that left no one wondering about or questioning anything.)

After arguing this with Tadd, he eventually "fixed" the same "problem" with his barrel release... a "problem" that was already "fixed" in with the Bailey release.

Yeah, you guys wore me down. I kept insisting that there was no way some total fucking moron could rig one of my releases to lock but there were enough of you semiliterate total fucking morons arguing with me long enough for me to realize that I'd been dead wrong.

Before he added the stop, you could rig his the same way.

Chad Elchin rigged his new 914 Dragonfly and its ballistic parachute wrong...

...John Simon flew into a Ridgely taxiway sign and broke both arms. What's your fucking point?

So....
Why are we reinventing the wheel again?

Who the fuck is WE? Show me a single invention that came out of anybody at Ridgely in its seventeen season history.

What advantage does a straight pin have over a curved pin?

None whatsoever. Hard to imagine why anybody anywhere is using straight lever arms for anything.

Jim Rooney - 2008/02/13 09:06:35 UTC

Selective memory I see.

When you first showed me the straight pin release, I told you I wouldn't touch it because "I had to give instructions on how to use it so that people would not rig it wrong".

- Bullshit. I'm pretty sure both Ridgely tandems were using my straight pin barrels before you ever oozed your way onto the scene and DEFINITELY long before you became a tug driver and the planet's all time greatest hang gliding instructor. Nothing like that conversation ever took place.

- Oh, perish the thought that a hang gliding instructor should have to give instructions on any hang gliding equipment so stupid people wouldn't rig it wrong. (By the way... How much tandem airtime have you logged dangling from the basetube while diving into the powerlines?)

I showed you how you could rotate the pin sideways and close the barrel... and pointed out how this was not possible on a Bailey release.

Fuckin' piece o' shit liar. Jeff Harper said something to Ric Niehaus about being able to lock the pin and Ric relayed it to me but was too stupid to be able to describe the mechanism. I couldn't figure out what the fuck Jeff had been talking about for a long time. Then I got it. And my reaction was that nobody on the planet could possibly be stupid enough to rig it that way. How naive I was back then.

I told you if you fixed that, then I'd use it.

- If you'd actually told me that I'd have told you I didn't give a flying fuck whether you used it or not. I realized what a total douchebag you were after about three encounters and wanted nothing more to do with you 'cause I knew the type. (But grossly underestimated the damage you'd be able to wreak on the sport.)

- Why? I thought that, simply put, Bobby Fucking-Genius Bailey's cheap bent pin shit was at the maximum of efficiency and safety? Why downgrade?

You modified the release to include a stop.

- On Adam's request. Not yours.
- A stop which was entirely my idea and no one else's.

You made this modified release specifically for me.

Bull fucking shit. I made a release pair that I GAVE you that was the same as the other sets I was making at the time. That was while you were still half crippled from your unhooked bounce at Coronet Peak. (The one that preceded your paraglider collapse bounce at Coronet Peak.)

Don't tell me your releases had this before then.

Yes Jim. I owe it all to you. Virtually all innovations in hang gliding between 2002 and 2015 can quickly be traced back to the hang glider guy with the exceptionally keen intellect. Now please take a few minutes to briefly describe a few of your many other engineering contributions to the sport.

Oh you had barrel realeases, but they did not have...

Or need.

...stops... they could be rigged wrong.

Suck my dick.

The Highland boys didn't see a problem since students do not rig them... only we do.

- Really? If you had legitimate students then how come they never rigged any of the equipment. Or were you just running illegal commercial tandem thrill rides for pay? I think you've already answered that because students are supposed to be setting up and preflighting entire glider/harness/parachute configurations complete with release systems. And you've just told us that you were incapable of teaching ANY of them rotate a parachute pin through a weak link loop without fucking up the operation. Thanks bigtime.

- This is 2008. Does anybody have any thoughts about how Sunny and Adam might feel about this little shit they trained from the ground up, qualified on the Dragonfly, hired as a tug drIver referring to them as "The Highland BOYS" and very publicly denigrating their professional judgment? And they're clearing for launch, mass producing these improperly constructed / incomplete / defective Non Genuine Bailey Releases that can be rigged improperly.

I don't agree with this conclusion, but it's not my company.

And now it's not ANYBODY's company. It's totally extinct - along with all the motherfuckers who sunk all that money into Dragonflies, tandem thrill ride gliders, support equipment. The sport hasn't heard a single peep out of any of them since the final implosion a bit shy of two years ago.

And I have a strong suspicion that when all they needed was ONE tug driver to start the 2016 season and stave off catastrophic collapse that Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney wasn't an option anybody would stomach looking into.

Oh..... in failing to answer my "what advantage does a straight pin have" question... you attempt to reverse it to "what advantage does a curved pin have".

So again... What was your interest in them? I never once flew any of the bent pin crap and never had the slightest desire to.

Well, two things....
One... no one's trying to improve on your design.

Thank you. Looks like I totally fucking nailed it.

The bar was set with the Bailey...

No argument there. And I can remember when the bar was set at towing off the control frame and practical aerotowing didn't exist.

it is to YOU to "improve", which you have not done.

That's OK. You motherfuckers did all the improving I could've hoped for. And the mainstreamers are all watching the whole fucking sport imploding.

Two... The advantage of a curved pin... it can handle differing thicknesses of materials. Yours can't. You have a very narrow range and then you run into the problem of that pesky stop. That's why yours have weaklinks on both ends... nice and thin.

- And little dickhead JD's have a weak link on one end and a loop of two thousand pound Spectra on the other. 'Cause there's no fuckin' way he'll need a weak link in the system after the weak link end wraps at the tow ring.

- I have weak links on both ends so that there's absolutely nothing possible that can happen to leave me without weak link protection - which also happens to put me in compliance with FAA regs and u$hPa SOPs - you off the scale stupid little shit.

- According to your colleagues and dear friends at Quest and Florida Ridge having weak links on both ends doubles the required towline blow tension. Aren't you gonna comment on that?

Call it insignificant if you will, but YOU are the one that is the incumbent... the onus is on you, not Bobby.

Nah, I got an onus removal cream from the drug store. I'm good now. (Tell Bobby he can suck my dick too.)

http://estore.hanglide.com/images/product/a/aerotow-secondary-release.png
Lockout Mountain Flight Park

http://www.moyes.com.au/store/accessories/shoulder-tow-release-detail
Moyes - Accessories : Shoulder Tow Release

http://ozreport.com/pub/images/P3300017320085.jpg
Davis

http://www.blueskyhg.com/
Blue Sky / Steve Wendt

http://www.avianonline.co.uk/aerotow-releases-p-1799.html
Hang Gliding & Paragliding Shop -Avian on line.

Lameroo - Steve Blenkinsop
12-10717
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2919/14074412792_c30b955e80_o.png

Quest - Niki Longshore
17-03146
http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7147/27271442445_7ea040d1e2_o.png

http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8102/29253962250_0ab23bf13a_o.png
19-03152

I DEFY anyone to find a single other reference to this alleged Stop Rivet of the alleged Genuine Bailey Release. Find me ONE photo ANYWHERE. Also find me one other individual in hang gliding stupid enough to rig an idiot Bailey Release the way JD did.

So Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney totally painted himself into the corner. By his "logic" the incomplete/defective Bailey and unstopped straight pins were all equally and extremely likely to kill someone. Straight pins are statistically nonexistent and ALL Baileys are incomplete/defective. Yet reports of rigging problems - even non event failures at altitude... Totally nonexistent. The rivet solution in a desperate decades long search of an actual problem.

Rooney's a despicable little socially retarded sociopath. He had no power as a kid and learned to maintain a low profile to keep from having the shit beat out of him a couple times a week. Then he got some geek job with Nickelodeon at which he was and had to remain a nonentity.

Then he found his niche at Ridgely where as a tug driver he could pretend to be a cool fighter jock, talk about the cavitation of the props being spun by wide open 914 Rotaxes, get his ass kissed and dick sucked by my old club crowd, fly tandems with cute chicks who'd never need to stand him for more than a half hour, pretend to be the world's greatest expert on everything and a close MATE of all the cool dudes, declare himself Pilot In Command of our gliders and us his PASSENGERS, have people's lives in his hands by virtue of his dump lever, threaten the flying careers of anyone who stood up to him.

And then on 2013/02/02 we got Zack Marzec and that motherfucker became walking dead.

It was ALWAYS Christmas for us whenever he opened his mouth and a fuckin' nightmare for the Establishment Ponzi schemers. Compare/Contrast with an intelligent sociopath like Bob who's world class at pretending to say stuff of substance while never actually doing so. Or to the really big players who never go on record saying anything about anything.

Rooney was a global phenomenon who could only have thrived in that particular window of hang gliding history. The degradation conditions were total Mama Bear - JUST RIGHT. Couldn't have happened before when there were still a few remnants of rational intelligent discussion (be sure to thank Dennis Pagen for preparing the fertile ground) and can't happen again in this era of collapse, codes of silence, line breaks.

Hope he spends his remaining decades the way I'm sure he's been spending his time since this second chopper ride off of Coronet Peak - totally socially isolated and powerless. Last Davis Show appearance - 2017/01/31 03:15:17 UTC. Over a year ago.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30912
Death at Quest Air

Jim Rooney - 2013/02/03 10:57:17 UTC

I hate getting "that" phone call. I got it this morning.
I'm considering becoming an asshole. With all the nice people dying, it just seems safer. So kiss my ass.

I met Zach up at Morningside.
Zach was hard not to like... and hard not to like instantly.

He will be sorely missed.

You aren't - and won't ever be. And nobody's ever heard of Zack now either.

I wonder when the last time your name was mentioned anywhere outside of Tad's Hole In The Ground.

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/03/15 14:39:14 UTC

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54907
Lost Site?

Mark G. Forbes - 2018/02/01 05:26:59 UTC

I fly my PG in morning and evening air, relatively light winds or at coastal sites with consistent, smooth air. If it's getting thermic, or particularly, thermic with wind, then I don't want to be up there. Mid-day, I pretty much don't fly in summer; I do this for fun, and I prefer the milder morning and evening conditions. Others have a higher tolerance for turbulence and risk, and skills beyond mine.

So here, on one of the two Official u$hPa hang gliding forums we have u$hPa's Official Damage Control Officer making the mistake of going on the public record with a statement/admission that paragliders CANNOT be flown safely in thermal conditions. (Duh.)

Throws in some pathetic bullshit implying that with superior SKILL one can operate SAFELY in aforementioned conditions. But if that were legitimate one wouldn't need to be tolerating RISK, would one?. So it's an obvious LIE. Like the one about the SKILL needed to safely go up behind a Dragonfly pro toad and/or Rooney Link protected - which died at Quest along with one of u$hPa's Kool Kid Golden Boys on the early afternoon of 2013/02/02.

And that epic smoking gun admission CANNOT be taken back, edited, deleted without quadrupling the damage. We've got it on tape and we all know what happens as results of clumsy cover-up efforts.

And so then Yours Truly goes to u$hPa's Pilot Proficiency "System" SOPs and finds...

The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Inc. - 2017/03/04
12. Standard Operating Procedure
02. Pilot Proficiency System
16. Advanced Paragliding Rating (P4)
-B. Advanced Rating - Required Witnessed Tasks
01. Logged Requirements

-d. Must have at least three 1-hour flights in thermal lift without sustaining ridge lift. Flights must originate from at least 2 different sites in Intermediate level conditions.

-f. Must have logged a minimum of 75 hours total airtime, with no more than 25 of these hours to be tandem. Of these 75 hours, 25 must be in thermal lift, with no more than 10 of these 25 hours to be tandem flights.

18. Paragliding Special Skill Endorsements
-A. Special Skills attainable by Novice and above (P2-P5).
-6. Turbulence (TUR):

-e. Must have logged five 30-minute thermal flights without sustaining ridge lift.

...that as an AT MOST INTERMEDIATE pilot - by definition before one's developed the skills and risk tolerance necessary to safely handle the paraglider canopy collapses below two hundred feet that kill somebody at a rate of about one per week - u$hPa is FORCING him to fly in the conditions in which u$hPa's Official Damage Control Officer won't under any circumstances. (Pretty good bet, by the way, that Mark's a Four - and thus and thus fully qualified to fly in the conditions he won't totally risk free. (And notice that he doesn't say anything about moving up the Pilot Proficiency ladder in order to develop and qualify for the "skills" required for flying paragliders in thermal conditions.))

u$hPa is SO FUCKED...

http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2093
USHPA sends safety letter about HG & PG fatalities

Bob Kuczewski - 2018/02/07 07:47:40 UTC

I disagree strongly with Tad on many things, but he makes a very good point here:
They FORCE you to fly in dice rolling conditions to prove yourself as a competent, skilled, safe, responsible pilot.

...on this - HISTORICALLY and with major global implications.

So what's their response?

http://www.ushpa.org/page/ratings-and-skills
Ratings + Skills

Ratings + Skills

As part of its Mission, USHPA provides an organizational framework for instructor and pilot training and certification.

For a general overview of USHPA's pilot ratings, please read Ratings and skills introduction. If you're a new pilot, be sure to check out Learn to Fly and Continuing Education.

USHPA SOPs

As a member-serving organization, USHPA operates under a collection of Standard Operating Procedures, also known as SOPs. Members have full access to all 220 pages of the SOPs, which cover everything from how meetings will be conducted to requirements of sanctioned competitions. Section 12 of the SOPs is all about the Ratings System.

- SOP 12-01: USHPA Basic Safety Requirements
- SOP 12-02: Pilot Proficiency System
- SOP 12-03: Foreign Ratings
- SOP 12-04: FAA Regulations; FAR Part 103
- SOP 12-05: Directors / Administrators / Examiners / Observers
- SOP 12-10: Towing / Aerotowing Administration

Who Does What

Ratings and Special Skills

All Pilot and Rogallo members are eligible to obtain ratings. There are several different types of Rating Officials, and the ratings they are able to grant depends on their individual qualifications and certifications.

About rating officials - Explanation of the difference between Instructors, Observers and Examiners, all of whom can potentially grant Ratings or Special Skills. Note that Administrators are not considered "rating officials" since they make appointments, rather than grant ratings

Ratings and special skills table

Appointments and Administrators

In addition to basic flight ratings and associated special skills, there are also appointments and certifications, such as those for Basic Instructors and Tandem Administrators. These advanced training opportunities are discussed in more detail in Advanced Education.

All rating officials - An overview of all the possible types of rating officials in the system, with links to the members who hold these ratings.

As a member-serving organization, USHPA operates under a collection of Standard Operating Procedures, also known as SOPs. Members have full access to all 220 pages of the SOPs...

Which is another way of saying that NON Members will (now) have ZERO access to ANY of the 220 pages of the SOPs.

You do not have access to this document.
File not found.

Not the Pilot Proficiency System - which has been publicly available since the beginning of time, not even the fucking FAA Part 103 regs. All now dark secrets for Boys Club Members In Good Standing Eyes only.

Of the thirteen links above the five open to public eyes:
- Ratings and skills introduction
- Continuing Education
- About rating officials
- Advanced Education
- All rating officials

That's a major Kite Strings victory. Those motherfuckers WANTED those ratings requirements PUBLIC in order to:
- help attract serious participants/members
- present a facade of competence/professionalism to the parents contemplating sending their eleven year old kids up on tandem thrill rides

But they realized they couldn't afford to have them analyzed and put into context by a T** at K*** S****** who knows what the fuck he's looking at.

And they can't EVER make any POSITIVE revisions to the ratings/qualifications SOPs because...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting

Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC

We can establish rules which we think will improve pilot safety, but our attorney is right. USHPA is not in the business of keeping pilots "safe" and it can't be. Stepping into that morass is a recipe for extinction of our association. I wish it were not so, but it is. We don't sell equipment, we don't offer instruction, and we don't assure pilots that they'll be safe. Even so, we get sued periodically by people who say we "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done something that would have averted their accident.

It's not just concern for meet directors and policy makers...it's about our continued existence as an association. It's about minimizing the chance of our getting sued out of existence. We're one lawsuit away from that, all the time, and we think hard about it. I would LOVE to not have to think that way, but every time a legal threat arises, it reminds me that we have a very dysfunctional legal system in this country (note: not a "justice" system...there's little justice involved) and we have to recognize that reality and deal with it.

...any POSITIVE revision would set the criminally negligent motherfuckers up for being sued out of existence. So any changes they could make could only be along the lines of all the changes they've made in the past - gutting earlier standards and making advancement more tedious, odious, expensive, way south of useless for the pilot and more profitable for the commercial interests feeding u$hPa's coffers.

And we're watching the accelerating inevitable collapse of the Ponzi scheme. When a significant chunk of the mainstream cocksuckers on the Jack and Davis Shows are making the noises about u$hPa they are now...

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/03/15 17:42:53 UTC

http://www.ushpa.org/page/ratings-and-skills-introduction
Ratings and skills introduction

Ratings and skills introduction

Flying is a skill that few people get to develop. Among those who fly, only a tiny fraction learn how to fly like a bird, launching from their feet, exploiting the movement of air to stay aloft, and at the end returning to earth once again on foot. The skills needed to fly the way we do are very specialized, yet essential for us to be able to fly safely.

In the early days, pilots learned through trial and error, hoping to survive the mistakes long enough to learn the skills. Many did not. The early years of hang gliding were a time when the sport gained a reputation for danger which it has yet to overcome. Risk is still present today, but our knowledge of how to avoid accidents and fly safely has made the risks manageable. The training and rating system we have now is built on the sacrifices of those early pioneers and the knowledge gained over forty-plus years of teaching our sport.

Today's training emphasizes incremental steps, from running on flat ground with a wing and harness, through short runs down a shallow slope, to steeper slopes and higher ground that offer seconds to minutes of airtime. A student learns the basic skills in a gradual sequence, each skill building on those that came before. As the skills are mastered in progression, the student gains the ability to fly with confidence and to handle more challenging conditions. This learning process never stops, even for Master-rated pilots with decades of experience. Good pilots are always learning, always studying how to be even better fliers - this is, after all, how they got to be good pilots in the first place!

At some point though, you want to know how you measure up. Are you a good enough pilot to fly at a given site? Do you know enough to be able to make that judgment? This is one of the things that the rating system is for. Another reason for ratings is to give other pilots a basis for estimating your skill level and ability to fly. This might not matter so much at your home site, with your regular flying buddies, but when you venture to a new locale and meet the pilots there, you'll need to give them a way to evaluate you.

Flying is a skill that few people get to develop.

And virtually no one in hang gliding. Because we all spend 100 percent of our time in training and 99 percent of the time in our more independent flying careers working on perfecting our flair timing. (And trying to figure out how to spell "flare".)

Among those who fly, only a tiny fraction learn how to fly like a bird, launching from their feet...

Since nobody's ever heard of platform or dolly launching.

...exploiting the movement of air to stay aloft...

- ...flapping our wings to reach safe landing areas when there is no movement of air in which to stay aloft...

- While flying upright with our hands at shoulder or ear height on the control tubes in order to eliminate the risk involved in low transitions.

...and at the end returning to earth once again on foot.

Unless we're doing tandem "discovery" flights - 99.999 percent of which are rolled in on wheels.

The skills needed to fly the way we do are very specialized, yet essential for us to be able to fly safely.

How the fuck do you know anything about flying safely? You've openly stated that u$hPa shreds all SOP proposals with any taints of increasing safety and all fatality reports screaming of incompetence and negligence in standard u$hPa training programs.

In the early days, pilots learned through trial and error...

- Then in the earlier years of the Twenty-First Century during the reign of Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney we began learning through trail and error. Then when we realized that wasn't working all that well we just started going by the most popular opinions expressed on the Jack and Davis Shows.

- Since no standard aeronautical theories, principles, procedures had the slightest degrees of legitimacy in hang gliding.

...hoping to survive the mistakes long enough to learn the skills.

What a load of total crap.

Many did not.

And now we just shred all serious incident reports to give the impression that we've evolved through the process of trail and error and have our shit totally together and invent invisible dust devils to explain the stuff we're unable to sweep under the carpet.

The early years of hang gliding were a time when the sport gained a reputation for danger which it has yet to overcome.

How terribly unfair. After all these decades we've spent getting everyone's flare timing perfected.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting

Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC

It's not just concern for meet directors and policy makers...it's about our continued existence as an association. It's about minimizing the chance of our getting sued out of existence. We're one lawsuit away from that, all the time, and we think hard about it. I would LOVE to not have to think that way, but every time a legal threat arises, it reminds me that we have a very dysfunctional legal system in this country (note: not a "justice" system...there's little justice involved) and we have to recognize that reality and deal with it.

There's absolutely no justice out in society at any level.

Risk is still present today, but our knowledge of how to avoid accidents and fly safely has made the risks manageable.

"OUR" knowledge?

- Whom are we talking about?

- Where do those of us not yet possessed of our knowledge go to find out what it is? Just name one dependable source.

- How did that work out for Zack Marzec? It seems that even though we have the knowledge of how to avoid accidents and fly safely a fatal impact in the middle of the Quest Happy Acres putting green still qualifies as an example of managed risk.

The training and rating system we have now is...

Is perfect in every way to the extent that it's remained virtually unchanged through all those decades we were supposed to have been learning how to fly safely and manage risk through trail and error.

...built on the sacrifices of those early pioneers...

Yeah motherfucker?

- Name ONE early pioneer who contributed SHIT through some stupid SACRIFICE.

- How come we never hear anything about the SACRIFICES from which Wilbur and Orville made in developing aeronautical theory and launching modern aviation from SCRATCH in the space of a period under ten percent of the entire history of hang gliding.

...and the knowledge gained over forty-plus years of teaching our sport.

Nice foot shot, Mark. We've been gaining all this knowledge over forty-plus years of "teaching" OUR sport yet we see virtually ZILCH in the way of alterations of the Pilot Proficiency System elements.

I got my Four signed off on 1991/12/17 and my Three on 1982/07/25. That's well over 26 and closing on 36 years ago respectively. How come nobody's ever contacted me or put out a general advisory alerting me to the issue that what I was taught and qualified for back then was clueless dangerous crap? And surely if that were the case there'd be a staggering body count as a consequence. So how come I've never seen a single comment on a single incident report citing this obsolete misdirected training as a shadow of a contributing factor?

Today's training emphasizes incremental steps, from running on flat ground with a wing and harness, through short runs down a shallow slope, to steeper slopes and higher ground that offer seconds to minutes of airtime.

Wow! That's so radically different from the way I was being taught and teaching in 1980! Back then the thinking was to start people off on higher ground with minutes of airtime and gradually work them down to running on flat ground with a wing and harness. It's really amazing how far we've come after forty-plus years of trail and error! Who'da thunk!

A student learns the basic skills in a gradual sequence, each skill building on those that came before.

And then when they're ten times as much as they need to be qualified for their Threes we allow them to prone out and place their hands on the control bar - but just after eight hundred feet of descent from launch and eight hundred feet prior to landing. Gradual progress is the real name of the game.

As the skills are mastered in progression, the student gains the ability to fly with confidence and to handle more challenging conditions.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bRrpHNa68iY/UQ6Pv9gRZyI/AAAAAAAAjTg/Hc22bx5122Q/s2048/20943781_BG1.jpg

This learning process never stops, even for Master-rated pilots with decades of experience.

Sure stopped for THIS:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7597/16975005972_c450d2cdda_o.png

Master rated motherfucker. Not to mention his:

http://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5788/23461251751_e98b9c7500_o.png

eleven year old tandem "student".

Good pilots are always learning...

Yep. "Always a student."

...always studying how to be even better fliers...

And really nailing those perfectly timed flares. Ever timing them more perfectly.

...this is, after all, how they got to be good pilots in the first place!

Really makes ya wonder how come we've never seen any of these revelations on how to be better flyers incorporated into any SOPs. Or maybe they have. As a nonmember prospective pilot I can no longer see anything in any of the SOPs. So I've just got last year's edition to go on.

At some point though, you want to know how you measure up.

Helluva lot better than this:

09-20
http://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5315/29962431842_1b260f7a81_o.png

supremely u$hPa endorsed motherfucker - whom now nobody's ever heard of before.

Are you a good enough pilot to fly at a given site?

I have no way of knowing. I'm not sure I've attained the requisite levels of skill and judgment attained through my experience flying subsequent to be signed off on my last rating.

Do you know enough to be able to make that judgment?

Probably not. Best err on the safe side, stay home, play checkers.

This is one of the things that the rating system is for.

Yeah, but my last rating was over a quarter century ago. One of those shit fours minus all that innovation we've had through trail and error. I'm not sure if my 1991 standard aerotow weak link will work as well as the whatever it was they started using when the accepted standards and practices changed. And Highland Aerosports will certainly be there tomorrow.

Another reason for ratings is to give other pilots a basis for estimating your skill level and ability to fly.

But...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8697/16463566373_3f21d65f25_o.png

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7625/17069957780_1058651e05_o.png

...just an estimate. It can be off a bit one way or the other.

This might not matter so much at your home site, with your regular flying buddies, but when you venture to a new locale and meet the pilots there, you'll need to give them a way to evaluate you.

And what could POSSIBLY be better than an official u$hPa stamp of approval? Preferably with a signature of a Dr. Trisa Tilletti, Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney, Bart Weghorst, Pat Denevan on it.

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/03/15 22:07:14 UTC

http://www.ushpa.org/page/ratings-and-skills-introduction
Ratings and skills introduction

Ratings and skills introduction

USHPA Rating Program

To help pilots track their progress, USHPA has developed a five-level rating program, completely described in SOP 12-02 Pilot Proficiency System . The programs for hang glider and paraglider pilots share many common skills, though some are specific to the type of wing. As a rough guideline, this is what the various rating levels mean:

H-1/P-1 Beginner Pilot

This rating identifies a student who has demonstrated the basic ability to fly in a straight line. The beginner pilot is not yet ready to go out flying independently, but can take off, fly straight and land. She also understands the basics of glider setup and breakdown.

H-2/P-2 Novice Pilot

A novice has learned about turns, maneuvering and how to estimate where he'll land. He has flown from higher ground under supervision and demonstrated confident handling of the glider in flight, as well as operation in stronger winds. He's had some training about meteorology, air movement, clouds and other environmental factors, and the legal "rules of the road" that govern our flying. He may be approved to go out and fly with more experienced local pilots at easier sites, but has not yet gained the level of experience needed to operate independently.

H-3/P-3 Intermediate Pilot

The intermediate pilot has gained further experience and training in flight skills and decision-making. With the basic mechanics of flight fairly well worked out, an intermediate pilot's focus is on refining her ability to make good decisions and correctly interpret the site and conditions for flying. She has received more training about weather forecasting, micrometeorology, airspace regulations and our internal rules that govern our sport. She's now skilled enough to make her own decisions, and (we hope) wise enough to consult local pilots when venturing to a new site. Though she may be able to make independent decisions, she wisely flies with a friend for safety and greater fun.

H-4/P-4 Advanced Pilot

Pilots at this level have accumulated the flying experience and judgment necessary to handle conditions at a wide range of flying sites. This doesn't mean that they can fly every site! A part of "judgment" is knowing when a site or conditions are beyond the pilot's ability to handle them safely. Advanced pilots know when and where to fly, as well as when and where not to fly. They often serve as mentors and role models to less-experienced fliers. At some sites, advanced pilots are empowered to close the site or limit flying if they feel conditions are unsafe for lower-rated pilots. Some may also obtain instructor training and go on to teach the next generation of new fliers.

H-5/P-5 Master Pilot

A pilot with a Master rating has, in addition to all of the flight experience and knowledge, demonstrated outstanding skill in flying over a long period. She's flown many different sites, in varying conditions, on a broad range of different wings. He's practiced different launch methods (towing, for example) and has acquired specialized skill signoffs. She's flown safely for a long time and has the endorsement of other pilots for her rating.

USHPA Rating Program

To help pilots track their progress, USHPA has developed a five-level rating program, completely described in SOP 12-02 Pilot Proficiency System .

Gee Mark, when I try to access that link all I get is:

You do not have access to this document.
File not found.

Why are you denying me access? Isn't a primary mission of u$hPa...

http://www.ushpa.org/page/mission-and-history
Mission and History

Mission and History

USHPA's mission is to ensure the future of free flight.

Mission Statement

The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA) will pursue its mission through:

A. Advocacy. USHPA will interact, proactively when possible and reactively when required, with agencies, organizations and individuals whose interests affect our sport.

B. Communication. Externally, USHPA will advance the positive awareness of hang gliding and paragliding among the non-flying public.

...to advance the positive awareness of hang gliding and paragliding among the non-flying public? How does locking the ratings requirements out of public view advance that element of the mission? No, wait. There's another part to that point...

Internally, the organization will cultivate a culture of communication and transparency.

So I guess externally, the organization will cultivate a culture of stonewalling, secrecy, opaqueness. No, you're good. Pardon the interruption.

The programs for hang glider and paraglider pilots share many common skills, though some are specific to the type of wing.

Yeah. 'Cause with the paraglider type of wing the wing frequently ceases to be a wing in thermal turbulence. So you have to have specific SOPs pretending to qualify pilots to deal with those situations.

As a rough guideline, this is what the various rating levels mean:

Well, since we're unable to see for ourselves what the various rating levels mean we'll certainly be content with your rough guideline.

H-1/P-1 Beginner Pilot

This rating identifies a student who has demonstrated the basic ability to fly in a straight line.

...and is attainable by a sack of potatoes - which general exhibits skill far superior to the human in 75 percent of first session efforts.

The beginner pilot is not yet ready to go out flying independently, but can take off, fly straight and land.

On his feet with a perfectly timed flare - in the case of a hang glider. 'Cause if he pursues that flavor of our sports he will one day need to land safely in a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place. And teaching students how to execute perfectly timed landing flares is infinitely easier than teaching them how not to land in narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place.

She also understands the basics of glider setup and breakdown.

Yeah. SHE. The vast majority of the participants in these sports are female. (Suck my dick, Mark.)

H-2/P-2 Novice Pilot

A novice has learned about turns, maneuvering...

ABOUT turns and maneuvering. Certainly not how to actually EXECUTE anything along these lines. 'Cause it's near certain death to bank a hang glider more than three degrees under two hundred feet

...and how to estimate where he'll land.

- Oh. So she's a he now. How'd that happen so fast?

- Well for a hang glider in a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place - obviously. Why else would anyone be so focused on and dedicated to perfecting his stunt landings? And perish the thought that we teach him to DETERMINE where he'll land. That would necessitate him learning TO turn and maneuver. And u$hPa instruction has zero tolerance for that flavor of lunacy - at any level.

He has flown from higher ground under supervision and demonstrated confident handling of the glider in flight...

All the skills necessary to keep it straight and level while flying in an upright-only training harness with his hands on the control tubes at shoulder or ear height.

...as well as operation in stronger winds.

Ten, twelve miles per hour. Anything over that and he starts drifting backwards.

He's had some training about meteorology, air movement, clouds and other environmental factors...

...learned to refer to any air movement in the lee of any obstruction as a "rotor"...

...and the legal "rules of the road" that govern our flying.

Except, of course, for any legal requirements regarding tow bridles, release capacities, weak link strengths.

He may be approved to go out and fly with more experienced local pilots at easier sites...

Like Mission Soaring Center's Tres Pinos facility.

...but has not yet gained the level of experience needed to operate independently.

And never will if it's at an aerotow facility - where he's permanently a passenger under the control of the Pilot In Command douchebag on the Dragonfly.

H-3/P-3 Intermediate Pilot

The intermediate pilot has gained further experience and training in flight skills and decision-making.

Got any evidence to support that claim?

With the basic mechanics of flight fairly well worked out...

- Yeah. FAIRLY well worked out...

Donnell Hewett - 1982/09

In addition to the above mentioned roll and yaw tendancies, there is some sideways force on the pilot due to the body line. This is illustrated below:

As can be seen, this sideways force tends to pull the pilot over to the correct side to make the glider turn naturally in the proper direction.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9230
Departing the launch cart

Jim Rooney - 2007/08/24 12:20:06 UTC

In pro towing, you're it.
The tug will "want" to pull you through the bar.
If you let it, you're essentially pulling in.

All result in leaving the cart at too high a speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvhzoVC1UqM
Simple Progression for Teaching Hang Gliding

Ryan Voight - 2015/02/22

If you teach them how to pull the glider with the harness they'll learn to steer the glider through weight shift simply by running toward their target.

069-25104
http://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1572/26142964830_289bc3f2cb_o.png

We don't hafta actually know whether the glider will nose up/down, roll left/right in response to an input - just that it will do SOMETHING.

- So, motherfucker, tell me why an actual STUDENT shouldn't know EXACTLY what a glider will do and why before he ever clips into one on Day One, Flight One.

...an intermediate pilot's focus...

...is on refining her...

I see we switched genders again. Any chance we can recognize that there's a 97 percent dominance in this sport and use our pronouns in accordance with reality?

...ability to make good decisions and correctly interpret the site and conditions for flying.

What should we be using for a weak link and why?

She...

...has received more training about weather forecasting, micrometeorology, airspace regulations and our internal rules that govern our sport.

You mean the ones you gut and ignore such that anyone can do whatever the fuck he feels like? Besides, of course, getting any that make sense enforced?

She's now skilled enough to make her own decisions, and (we hope) wise enough to consult local pilots when venturing to a new site.

Yep. Nothing as reliable as the opinions of a local pilot. Unless, of course, he's flying somewhere else - in which case his opinions become instantly and totally useless (at best).

Though she may be able to make independent decisions, she wisely flies with a friend for safety and greater fun.

The more cooks the better the broth. Hard to go wrong with group intelligence.

H-4/P-4 Advanced Pilot

Pilots at this level have accumulated the flying experience and judgment necessary to handle conditions at a wide range of flying sites.

Craig Pirazzi comes to immediate mind.

This doesn't mean that they can fly every site! A part of "judgment" is knowing when a site or conditions are beyond the pilot's ability to handle them safely. Advanced pilots know when and where to fly, as well as when and where not to fly. They often serve as mentors and role models to less-experienced fliers. At some sites, advanced pilots are empowered to close the site or limit flying if they feel conditions are unsafe for lower-rated pilots.

Or hell, close the site to particular individuals they feel are problematic for reasons having NOTHING to do with endangering safe operations without having to publicly state a reason - even if the site is as public facility.

Some may also obtain instructor training and go on to teach the next generation of new fliers.

- Teach them all the stuff their not allowed to access on u$hPa's website.
- Wow! The sport should just be getting better and better all the time then. Any thoughts on why it's going extinct?

H-5/P-5 Master Pilot

A pilot with a Master rating has, in addition to all of the flight experience and knowledge, demonstrated outstanding skill in flying over a long period.

Really? Show me ONE ELEMENT involved in the Five rating that necessitates anything more than solid Two level stuff.

She's...

Suck my dick.

...flown many different sites...

And flying many different sites is SO enriching because the circumstances of each are so indescribably unique.

...in varying conditions, on a broad range of different wings.

Oh really? You CAN score five points per glider for up to thirty wings but show me where a Master rating is unattainable by somebody who's just flown a single Falcon his entire career.

He's practiced different launch methods (towing, for example)...

Well then, I guess we have no excuse for not being all on the same pages regarding all towing issues. Weak links come to mind.

...and has acquired specialized skill signoffs.

Like Restricted Landing Field. Funny that the signoff is so universal while videos of the actual executions are virtually nonexistent.

She's flown safely for a long time and has the endorsement of other pilots for her rating.

- She's sucked a lot of the right dicks. At least one area in which there may be a significant advantage to being female - or at least outwardly appearing to be.

- Zack Marzec flew "safely" for a long time and probably had a lot of Five points under his belt on his last effort when he tumbled to his death from 150 feet as a consequence of an inconvenience issue. And nobody had a negative syllable to utter about him when he bought it. Any thoughts on how he fits into this equation?

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/03/16 14:39:24 UTC

http://www.ushpa.org/page/ratings-and-skills-introduction
Ratings and skills introduction

Ratings and skills introduction

Where Do Ratings Come From?

Pilot ratings are issued by appointed USHPA officials, who can be instructors or observers. Instructors issue the entry-level ratings and do the basic flight training. Once a pilot has earned at least the Novice rating, then he may continue his training with an instructor, and he may also refine his skills with the support of his peers in the flying community. Some pilots may be appointed as Observers, and they can administer higher-level written tests and observe the required flight tasks needed for a more advanced rating. They may also supervise the tests needed for special skill signoffs, such as for Turbulence, Cross-Country or Restricted Landing Field. Observers can rate any skill or rating level that they hold themselves. Basic Instructors can rate any skills they hold, as well as pilot ratings up to H-2/P-2. Advanced Instructors can rate all pilot levels as well as all special skills they hold themselves.

Master ratings are awarded upon application by the pilot, accompanied by supporting documentation and letters of recommendation. A regional director reviews the application and issues the approval.

Why Get a Rating?

Your rating is much more than just a "merit badge." It shows that you have demonstrated a level of flying skill that has been objectively measured, and you've completed a test of your knowledge about the rules of flight and how our wings operate. When you travel outside your local area, your rating card tells pilots at other sites that you have shown a level of competence in your flying. Your instructor's name is on the card too, along with any special skill signoffs you may have. All of these things give other pilots a reference point to estimate your ability. Together with your flight logbook, your rating card establishes your credibility as a responsible, skilled pilot.

At locations covered by USHPA site insurance, the local club is responsible for setting the minimum rating level needed to fly at the site, along with any site-specific rules that may apply. At these places, you'll need to have your current membership/rating card to show to the site monitor, as part of your orientation before flying there. Most sites require a H-3/P-3 for independent flying, though H-2/P-2 pilots may fly with supervision from a local pilot or instructor. A few sites (Yosemite, for example) require an Advanced pilot rating to fly, and may also have restrictions on wing type or when flights may begin and end. Some sites may require only a H-2/P-2 minimum to fly, but it just depends on the individual site. A H-2/P-2 requirement is no guarantee that the site truly is flyable by a Novice pilot; it's just a guideline to give pilots a feel for the skill level needed. In the wrong conditions, a Novice-minimum site can demand skills beyond those of even an Advanced pilot (though an Advanced pilot probably wouldn't be in the air, having recognized the bad conditions).

Even at sites where there is no club regulation requirement, the local pilots will usually have an informal "site rating" in place to guide visitors. A site's skill requirement can vary widely depending on the weather conditions. For instance, a mountain might be an easy P-2/H-2 launch before noon, but beyond the skills of many Advanced pilots by mid-afternoon as thermals rip up the face. That same site might be back to Novice again by evening as the sun drops low and the ground cools. Wind from a slightly wrong direction can turn a site from easy to difficult, and conditions can change from benign to lethal in a matter of minutes at some places. Flying with the local experts at a site can clue you in to these details, and expand your base of experience so you can make better judgments in the future.

Ratings aren't "static," and good pilots recognize this. It may say "Advanced" on your rating card, but if you haven't flown in a year, it's time to mentally down-check yourself to "Novice." Head out to the training hill for some refresher practice before going off to Mount Whiteknuckle.

Some pilots may "test well" but demonstrate lousy judgment in real flying. A rating official can always revoke a rating he's issued previously, at any time and for any reason. In addition, any two other rating officials can jointly issue a rating revocation or suspension for reasonable cause. USHPA has a procedure for handling such situations, outlined in SOP 12-7 Policy on Revocation and Reinstatement of Ratings, Certifications, and Appointments .

To summarize, your rating establishes your credibility as a pilot, to other pilots or landowners that you will meet during your flying career. It gives you a measurable goal to aim for as you develop your skills, and tells others what sort of sites and conditions you're ready for.

So...what's your rating?

Where Do Ratings Come From?

Pilot ratings are issued by appointed USHPA officials, who can be instructors or observers.

People with highly respected and valued opinions. The best of the best. Top quality individuals all.

Instructors issue the entry-level ratings and do the basic flight training.

The stuff in which the glider does all the flying and the "student" just goes along for the ride.

Once a pilot has earned at least the Novice rating, then he may continue his training with an instructor, and he may also refine his skills with the support of his peers in the flying community.

Wow. Five consecutive masculine pronouns. Great job, Mark!

Some pilots may be appointed as Observers...

Just the ones who really have their shit together, of course.

...and they can administer higher-level written tests...

Which is really amazing given how few of them are functionally literate.

...and observe the required flight tasks needed for a more advanced rating.

Mostly the spot landings they can't do themselves.

They may also supervise the tests needed for special skill signoffs, such as for Turbulence, Cross-Country or Restricted Landing Field.

The last one they just sign off for anybody they like who asks for it. And if anybody actually demonstrates a solid RLF approach he gets his rating revoked for recklessness.

Observers can rate any skill or rating level that they hold themselves.

How reassuring. (That would certainly explain the RLF phenomenon.)

Basic Instructors can rate any skills they hold, as well as pilot ratings up to H-2/P-2.

And they can also administer CPR when things don't go so well - 'cause they're all required to be certified and current. So Mark... In the entire world history of hang gliding instruction at any level you wanna name - do we have one single instance of successful CPR administration? And I'll open that up to situations which have absolutely nothing to do with the actual flying activities.

Advanced Instructors can rate all pilot levels as well as all special skills they hold themselves.

Can they take eleven year old students up for tandem discovery flights?

Master ratings are awarded upon application by the pilot, accompanied by supporting documentation and letters of recommendation. A regional director reviews the application and issues the approval.

And makes sure that they're all supremely skilled. And who better to approve a Master hang gliding rating than some paraglider jockey who won a regional popularity contest.

Why Get a Rating?

'Specially one that can be taken away or rendered useless by any u$hPa commercial operating dickhead in good standing who's gained control of local resources.

Your rating is much more than just a "merit badge." It shows that you have demonstrated a level of flying skill that has been objectively measured, and you've completed a test of your knowledge about the rules of flight and how our wings operate. When you travel outside your local area, your rating card tells pilots at other sites that you have shown a level of competence in your flying.

- And that would differ from a merit badge HOW?

- Yeah, if you have that card you are GOOD TO GO. It's not like we've ever had any problems with incompetent u$hPa officials signing off incompetent students or corrupt u$hPa officials selling ratings.

Your instructor's name is on the card too, along with any special skill signoffs you may have.

But if/when you buy the farm u$hPa will erase all records of your existence at the first possible nanosecond.

John Kelly Harrison - 55 - Nevada - 53375 - H5 - 1996/10/23 - Joe Greblo - PL TFL TPL AWCL CL FSL RLF TUR XC - ADV INST, TAND INST - Exp: 2015/06/30

And if you take an eleven year old thirty day member with you on a tandem discovery flight he won't even be identified by name.

And no. The name of the official who signed you off on your LAST RATING is on the card but we don't get to see who signed you off for AeroTow or Restricted Landing Field. And one of those may well be the issue that got you demolished or killed.

All of these things give other pilots a reference point to estimate your ability.

Oh. So it's just an ESTIMATE. It's not like you're likely to be able to competently and reliably perform in accordance with what's on your card. So I guess you're right about it being so much more than so much more than just a "merit badge".

Together with your flight logbook, your rating card establishes your credibility as a responsible, skilled pilot.

Fuck yeah. Sure can't see any hints of weaknesses in the system you just outlined. 'Specially with all the high quality individuals you have at the apex of the organization.

At locations covered by USHPA site insurance, the local club is responsible for setting the minimum rating level needed to fly at the site, along with any site-specific rules that may apply.

You mean local clubs like the "Fellow Feathers of Fort Funston" that permanently banned Steve Davy for "Posting inflammatory information not relevant to the club." which was a link to the Kite Strings "Incident Reports" Index largely referencing u$hPa magazine report archives?

At these places, you'll need to have your current membership/rating card to show to the site monitor...

Even if it's public land on or a public facility at which there should be zero u$hPa monopoly control or influence.

...as part of your orientation before flying there.

Fuck you, Mark.

Most sites require a H-3/P-3 for independent flying, though H-2/P-2 pilots may fly with supervision from a local pilot or instructor.

Ever done any kind of casual study to find out of any of this bullshit makes any actual difference? POSITIVE - I mean?

A few sites (Yosemite, for example) require an Advanced pilot rating to fly...

Great. A US National Park mandates a rating from a corrupt incompetent private organization which has openly stated that it's not and can't be in the safety business 'cause it's primary mission is covering its own ass.

...and may also have restrictions on wing type or when flights may begin and end.

Guess that'll exclude that PVC glider that the guy was building in California somewhere. The one that only Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney seems to know about.

Some sites may require only a H-2/P-2 minimum to fly, but it just depends on the individual site. A H-2/P-2 requirement is no guarantee that the site truly is flyable by a Novice pilot; it's just a guideline to give pilots a feel for the skill level needed.

A H2 site is anything that can be safely flown fully upright from launch to LZ in any reasonable conditions.

In the wrong conditions, a Novice-minimum site can demand skills beyond those of even an Advanced pilot (though an Advanced pilot probably wouldn't be in the air, having recognized the bad conditions).

No shit, Mark. Blizzards, hurricanes, derechos... Probably not good ideas. But you'd probably need to have a u$hPa Advanced rating to be able to tell for sure.

Even at sites where there is no club regulation requirement, the local pilots will usually have an informal "site rating" in place to guide visitors. A site's skill requirement can vary widely depending on the weather conditions. For instance, a mountain might be an easy P-2/H-2 launch before noon, but beyond the skills of many Advanced pilots by mid-afternoon as thermals rip up the face.

SOME, to be sure, but certainly not ALL - 'specially when you're considering paragliders.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54907
Lost Site?

Mark G. Forbes - 2018/02/01 05:26:59 UTC

I fly my PG in morning and evening air, relatively light winds or at coastal sites with consistent, smooth air. If it's getting thermic, or particularly, thermic with wind, then I don't want to be up there. Mid-day, I pretty much don't fly in summer; I do this for fun, and I prefer the milder morning and evening conditions. Others have a higher tolerance for turbulence and risk, and skills beyond mine.

As long as you're a highly skilled H/P-4 and have developed a high tolerance for turbulence and risk there really isn't any risk. Hang and Para gliders aren't like conventional aircraft which have conditions operating limits and can be overwhelmed and lethally compromised if those limits are exceeded. In the u$hPa stuff we're limited only by personal issues - like risk tolerance and skills levels. And hell, the sky's the limit in those departments. Mid-afternoon as thermals rip up the face at a paraglider launch? Backing off is really only for girls and fags. It's for those types that we developed the game of checkers.

This:

http://recreationrrg.com/rrrg-governance
Board and Governance | Recreation Risk Retention Group

Timothy Herr
Secretary and Risk Management Officer
Tim Herr is a practicing attorney in California and serves as corporate counsel for USHPA.

Fuckin' ridiculous. Why manage risk when all we really need to do is increase our tolerance for it...

09-20
http://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5315/29962431842_1b260f7a81_o.png

Along with becoming more skilled, of course. (And if you're a tandem student don't hesitate to ask around and make sure that you get the most risk tolerant instructor available.)

That same site might be back to Novice again by evening as the sun drops low and the ground cools.

And the flow goes katabatic. Just make sure to run extra fast.

Wind from a slightly wrong direction can turn a site from easy to difficult, and conditions can change from benign to lethal in a matter of minutes at some places.

- Like Quest with a pro toad bridle and Rooney Link pitch and lockout protector? 'Cept it was SECONDS. And funny that both the tug driver and dope on the rope were totally aware of what was going on yet elected to continue the tow - dontchya think, Mark? (Pity nobody had told them to be careful out there.)

- Hey Mark... Why don't we just switch to a more favorable runway or launch direction? Oh, sorry. For some reason in this discussion of ratings no form of towing is the slightest possibility for any participant anywhere. Just as well - towing's so much more complex and thus dangerous.

Flying with the local experts at a site can clue you in to these details, and expand your base of experience so you can make better judgments in the future.

- Yeah, just can't emphasize enough how site specific these issues are and the value of the local experts in clueing you in to the details. And you'll notice that when somebody buys it at a mountain site it's NEVER a local expert - always some visitor asshole who failed to utilize the expertise and advice of the local experts.

- Yeah, you had the skill and risk tolerance to get away with launching and landing your paraglider in thermal conditions so obviously next time you'll have even better skill and risk tolerance and will get away with it even better. How could things possibly be any more straightforward and logical than that?

Ratings aren't "static," and good pilots recognize this.

Right. They know they need to prevent any three year lapses in u$hPa membership dues or all their ratings get scrapped. (Whereas if they never clip into anything for two decades yet maintain dues payments they're constantly good to go. (In u$hPa aviation you don't MAINTAIN currency - you BUY it. (With currency.))

It may say "Advanced" on your rating card, but if you haven't flown in a year, it's time to mentally down-check yourself to "Novice." Head out to the training hill for some refresher practice before going off to Mount Whiteknuckle.

Get that flare timing perfected - for those frequent and inevitable occasions when your not-landing-in-narrow-dry-riverbeds-with-large-rocks-strewn-all-over-the-place skills fail you. And of course don't even think about heading to a tow operation where you could get some actual airtime and altitude and practice a few tight approaches.

Some pilots may "test well" but demonstrate lousy judgment in real flying.

You mean like when they respond perfectly to a simulated weak link increase in the safety of the towing operation on a tandem training flight in smooth air at two thousand feet but whipstall, tail-slide, and tumble to their deaths when the actual shit hits the fan at a hundred feet? Possibly the test isn't all it could be and the lousy judgment was all about going up with tried and true Industry Standard equipment.

A rating official can always revoke a rating he's issued previously, at any time and for any reason.

How 'bout somebody revoking the rating of the rating official in recognition of his shit judgment?

In addition, any two other rating officials can jointly issue a rating revocation or suspension for reasonable cause.

- See above.
- Or for whatever bullshit cause they feel like - "acting in a manner contrary to the interests of the corporation" for example.

USHPA has a procedure for handling such situations, outlined in SOP 12-7 Policy on Revocation and Reinstatement of Ratings, Certifications, and Appointments .

We, your target audience, will take your word for it - seeing as how we're no longer allowed access to the document.

To summarize, your rating establishes your credibility as a pilot, to other pilots or landowners that you will meet during your flying career.

Yeah, a u$hPa pilot proficiency rating. The gold standard. With a non pilot corporate lawyer running everything from the apex down.

It gives you a measurable goal to aim for as you develop your skills, and tells others what sort of sites and conditions you're ready for.

And nobody with a u$hPa pilot rating - hang or para - has ever needed to be medevaced from a slope or field for so much as a moderately scraped knee.

So...what's your rating?

Convicted paedophile. So what's yours, Mark? What qualifications do you have to write this article with ZERO references to towing and ONE reference to thermals?

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54907
Lost Site?

Mark G. Forbes - 2018/02/01 05:26:59 UTC

I fly my PG in morning and evening air, relatively light winds or at coastal sites with consistent, smooth air. If it's getting thermic, or particularly, thermic with wind, then I don't want to be up there. Mid-day, I pretty much don't fly in summer; I do this for fun, and I prefer the milder morning and evening conditions. Others have a higher tolerance for turbulence and risk, and skills beyond mine.

YOU refuse to even ever fly in the conditions your bullshit organization MANDATES for rating and qualifications advancements. So either you're a max Intermediate PG or Advanced who's fulfilled the thermal requirements and found those circumstances so potentially lethal that you've refused to put yourself in any remotely similar situation ever again. So you're either lying to us, misrepresenting your qualifications, both.

I'd like to hear from these guys with the superior skills and greater tolerances for turbulence and risk. Why are they so conspicuously absent from the discussion? Tend not to live long enough to get a good article composed and proofread?

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/03/17 13:11:52 UTC

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=35916
I can not keep quiet any longer.

Mike Bomstad - 2018/03/17 05:45:12 UTC

How about we look at the root cause: LAWSUITS
Thats the main issue here.

Literacy might also figure into the equation at some level.

Reduce the ease at which a person can sue. Make it tough, make it a challenge. Weed out the BS.

- Sure Mike. Overhaul all US legislation such that hang gliding is exempt from everything covering everyone else. Wish I'd thought of that.

- And perish the thought that anyone would ever have a LEGITIMATE reason...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting

Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC

We can establish rules which we think will improve pilot safety, but our attorney is right. USHPA is not in the business of keeping pilots "safe" and it can't be. Stepping into that morass is a recipe for extinction of our association. I wish it were not so, but it is. We don't sell equipment, we don't offer instruction, and we don't assure pilots that they'll be safe. Even so, we get sued periodically by people who say we "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done something that would have averted their accident.

It's not just concern for meet directors and policy makers...it's about our continued existence as an association. It's about minimizing the chance of our getting sued out of existence. We're one lawsuit away from that, all the time, and we think hard about it. I would LOVE to not have to think that way, but every time a legal threat arises, it reminds me that we have a very dysfunctional legal system in this country (note: not a "justice" system...there's little justice involved) and we have to recognize that reality and deal with it.

...to sue you sleazy, incompetent, serial killing motherfuckers out of existence.

Not everyone deserves a trophy, life isn't fair. You fell down, its no ones fault but your own.

Yeah...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8709/16768958827_82f8237179_o.png

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7597/16975005972_c450d2cdda_o.png

http://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5788/23461251751_e98b9c7500_o.png

It's not like the commercial interests that have been tightening their grips on the sport since Day Two have ever done anything to set anybody up for a less than stellar experience.

But the above isn't the case, it was back in the day . With minimal lawsuits and insurance wasn't required.

How much were the families of Jeremiah Thompson, Lenami Godinez-Avila, Arys Moorhead, Nancy Tachibana awarded? I can think of ONE lawsuit persued in response to a hang gliding participant disaster - Bill Priday, 2005/10/01. Steve Wendt should've been sued out of existence for never once in the course of his long sleazy career teaching anybody what a hook-in check was.

Not the case anymore. Let's not blame the tool, rather the person holding it.

Suck my dick, Mike.

http://docs.google.com/document/d/1BpkigEBbHcW78fp0mkFU5sy0Lmyki3wKwvZUnPf1o50/mobilebasic
Spring 2018 USHPA BOD Meeting Notes

Calef Letorney - 2018/03/10

National trends- We continue to see HG on a sharp decline. A group of concerned folks from across all ends of Hang Gliding met on 8AM Thursday to discuss the problem. [Unfortunately I was not able to attend, as I was busy with a special review board for an instructor revocation.] With a large number of HG pilots set to “age out” in the next 10 years and few young pilots coming in, the situation appears to be only getting more dire. It is noteworthy that the USA is one of the last holdouts for Hang gliding, with other parts of the world having already seen the HG population collapse; we are facing a global trend. This is troubling, as organisms that do not replicate will die. We must work together to create new HG pilots. I am keen to hear ideas, especially if folks want to help make them a reality... Like college HG clubs?! Who wants to start a HG (or PG!) college club? If there are aeronautical engineering programs or college flight clubs, there are potential future HG pilots. This is the kind of project you might be able to get a FFF grant to help fund.

The sport's getting EXACTLY what it deserves. Fuck any culture that tolerates an asshole such as yourself as a participant.

Steve Davy · Post by **Steve Davy** » 2018/03/18 03:23:44 UTC

The sport's getting EXACTLY what it deserves.

Indeed. And I am thoroughly enjoying the show.

Tad Eareckson · Post by **Tad Eareckson** » 2018/03/18 05:25:55 UTC

I'm enjoying it. Not thoroughly though, but I recognize that it's the best we can do.

I was happiest when it looked like we'd be able to get a few things fixed on a significant scale. Understanding the big picture as I do now though I could go back in time and predict what would happen, how, why.

So let's sit back and enjoy the implosion. Watch what happened to Highland Aerosports a couple years back happen on the national scale. And there WILL BE major shock waves radiating out globally.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=35916
I can not keep quiet any longer.

Steve Baran - 2018/03/17 17:47:46 UTC

On Tandem flights ..... every person that knows more about our sports (hang or para or both) is better for the sports.

Our sport is SOLO. We do this because we want to fly - to the maximum extent possible - like birds. And there's no such thing as a tandem bird and there's never been a bird that needed tandem instruction to get and stay safely airborne. We wanna start doing things the same way we'll be doing things five years down the road.

PR, at least good PR, always reaps benefits (from immediate to years down the road). In gaining new sites my #1 workload involves educating the people I deal with about our sports. The more tandem flights that are done the better IMHO.

Fuck that. Tandem is just another tool for gouging legitimate students and making money of totally useless bucket listers.

Steve Baran - 2018/03/17 20:38:12 UTC

When I mention tandem flying I'm considering that it is done for purposes of instruction - legally.

It's not.

The more people who avail themselves of legal instructional flights the better.

Agreed. Solo.

Michael Grisham - 2018/03/18 00:30:13 UTC

ChattaroyMan,

Tandem Instruction

Are you going to define that, because under Part 103 licenses and instruction are not required.

To fly tandem requires an exemption to Part 103 for instruction, sport, or recreation. To fly under the rules of Part 103, the flight cannot accomplish some task, cannot be equipped with attachments or modifications for the accomplishment of some task, the pilot cannot receive any form of compensation for services to perform any task, and cannot advertise for services using an ultralight. Unless, of course, you have an exemption.

I have yet to see any document or interpretation from the FAA that allows compensation for flying under Part 103 including being compensated for giving instruction under Part 103 (including an exemption). If you believe the FAA allows compensation for flight instruction show me the document or legal basis. All the documents from the FAA I have read say no compensation.

So are we to conclude, you do not advertise and you do not receive any compensation for these tandem flights or do you have an exemption of authorization from the FAA?

What is the true value of Tandem Instruction?

Let me start with the positive: Tandem Instruction is beneficial in demonstrating stalls, turns, approach patterns.

What's your data on that?

...and landing points...

Neither we nor anyone else NEEDS landing POINTS.

....position relative to the tug in aerotowing...

Gotta stay inside that Cone of Safety. Otherwise you can lock out.

....teaching tandem pilots how to fly tandem...

Which differs from flying solo HOW?

...and that is about it.

The negative Tandem training is the big one: Foot launched takeoff and landings.

We can practice foot launching on flat ground and nobody needs to learn foot landings - which is a good thing seeing as how nobody can do them safely.

First, the Tandem Hang Glider control bar is so gigantic to accommodate two people the pilot needs an arm span of a NBA basketball player to have any flare authority on landing...

Why do we need flare authority on landing? No other aircraft need or use it.

...and to hold the down tubes on takeoff.

The glider can't be flown safely from the downtubes and damn near all tandem flights are tow launched - just like ALL sailplane flights.

Next, trying to land or takeoff with another person next to you (or behind you) is so different from solo flight, the poor student has to dump all the muscle memory of the tandem training to solo.

Bullshit.

This is negative training.

It is but because it kills the enthusiasm of the legitimate student.

So to solve these issues most tandem training is done with a glider with landing gear.

You mean like all other fixed wing aircraft? And it sounds to me like you're pushing for flying minus wheels or skids. (Which you are. "Perfect that flare timing or die - faggot.")

Great for teaching beginning students to land on gear...

Thus increasing their prospects for long safe careers by a factor of about a hundred.

...and then the rest of their flying experience they cannot figure out why they cannot land on their own two feet.

You mean the way both Niki Longshore and Emma Martin can't/couldn't?

Great Training!

That's ok if all your flying is going to be done at a sea level Florida Flight Park under aerotowing, launching off a cart and landing on your wheels...

It is, actually. And I'm a goddam FIVE for all intents and purposes.

...or your goal is to be a tandem pilot.

Like Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney? Who never flew solo 'cause he would always be at risk of getting his butt thoroughly kicked by a convicted paedophile? So just flew tandem chicks to give himself shots at one night stands?

Sounds a lot like sailplane operations. Sailplane operations are a whole lot safer with a rudder on tow. So do you teach lockouts with your tandem flights?

Tell me how you TEACH anything about a...

Bill Bryden - 2000/02

Dennis Pagen informed me several years ago about an aerotow lockout that he experienced. One moment he was correcting a bit of alignment with the tug and the next moment he was nearly upside down. He was stunned at the rapidity. I have heard similar stories from two other aerotow pilots.

...lockout. A lockout - by definition - is a total overwhelming of the pilot's control authority and he's pretty much a passenger until well after he blows himself off tow with the type of release that's there for something better than show or otherwise a bit later when his weak link kicks in - assuming he has adequate altitude.

So you get your H4 at the Florida Flight Park, sign up for the Dinosaur U.S. Nationals and your feelings get crushed when you cannot stick your landings in the high density altitude.

Nobody can. That's one of many reasons they don't hold US Nationals at Dinosaur.

Oh God, the ground is moving so fast underneath me. What is going on? Where are my wheels?

On my BASETUBE - fortunately. Idiot.

Where is my instructor?

- Where's that perfectly timed whipstall flare when there won't be any turbulence to seriously fuck you over?
- Who the hell cares? Your instructor is gonna be just as fucked as you are.

If you what namby-pamby tied to your mother's apron strings pilots, Tandem is for you.

I'm a namby-pamby pilot - motherfucker. I'm not tied to my mother's apron strings but I like my safety margins WIDE.

While I total despise tandem the fact of the matter is that in today's rapidly crumbling environment there's a very sizeable chunk of the flying population that's been subjected to it. Note two things:
- There is ZERO anecdotal evidence to support any of this bullshit.
- Nobody on The Jack Show has commented on this bullshit one way or the other.

P.S. The thought occurs to me that a tandem product may merit a bit more consideration than the solo-onlies of my generation. They stayed committed to the sport through a process of degradation that was totally unknown to us at the time.

Kite Strings

instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends

Re: instructors and other qualified pilot fiends