landing

[miguel]

I have gone upright in a hg right around stall speed and stalled the glider. It spun into a tree. I hit with a glancing blow on the wing tip and it spun the glider the other way. It spun into the wind and I landed it uneventfully.

Wouldn't the landing have been even more uneventful if you had stayed prone? Or were you landing in a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place in which bellying in would've been suicide?

In this case, a prone landing would have worked. The glider had wheels on it.

flew over the spot at about 20 feet and 35 mph.

1. How high did you fly over whatever it was that was obstructing your final approach to the field?

I made the normal approach that I would have made in my old Comet 2. Because the TRX was much cleaner, in terms of drag, it retained much more energy. Hence, high and fast over the spot.

2. Would it have been unduly difficult or dangerous to land prior to the spot?

http://g.co/maps/uxw98
37°42'23.70" N 120°14'32.44" W

Take a look at the map. At the right, where the two roads join, is at the bottom of an arroyo. The two roads go up a 4wd hill. Where the chemise comes out to meet the road is an uphill slope. You land at the top of the slope or slightly beyond, about parallel to blob of chemise, near the 132 sign. To land, you dip down into the arroyo, bleed off energy on the upslope, and land on the other side or slightly beyond. The edge of the arroyo slopes downward for about 75 yds before ending in brush. I had way to much energy to dip into the arroyo and the glide of the TRX was greater than the downhill slope.

3. What was the importance or significance of this particular spot?

See above

Once you get past the spot, the lz goes down hill for about 75 yard, ending in brush.

How good an idea is it to aim for a spot at a point on a field after which the terrain slopes down for about 75 yards to brush?

See above

I had no wheels.

1. Meaning the surface WAS suitable for wheel landing - one of those Happy Acres putting greens in which one comes down on only the rarest of occasions.

The wheels had been ordered. The glider was brand new.

2. How come?

See above

3. Did you have a helmet?

I had two motorcylce helmets and two hang gliding helmets. I had a hang gliding helmet on.

4. Two gliders - one has a helmet but no wheels, the other wheels but no helmet. Who's more likely to make it through the flying season?

The guy with the helmet and no wheels. During my training I used a motorcycle helmet. On a bad landing, I pranged my helmet on the keel very, very hard.
It was a lightbulb learning moment. Always wear a stout helmet.

The looks on the faces say they were salivating for a good crash.

Did one of those faces belong to the person who placed the traffic cone at the top of the slope and look anything like Jason Boehm's?

Nope. This took place on the upper lz.

WTF happened?

Jim Rooney - 2011/06/12 13:57:58

Most common HG injury... spiral fracture of the humerus.

Sing with me, you and Jim, in three part harmony,

"let go of the downtube"



I knew the both of you could.

1. You decided to fly without the equipment most likely to protect you from crashing, damage, and injury.

Partially true. A high speed wheel landing on a slope that is less that the glide slope of the glider. Exciting but maybe doable.

There was a large low stone in the field. A pilot doing a wheel landing hit this stone with ugly results. The pilot was rolling along. He stopped suddenly almost like in a cartoon. The stone has since been removed.

There is nothing more useless than runway behind you.

2. You ignored one of the most fundamental rules of aviation and elected to eliminate the first half of the runway as a landing option.

check the map again.

3. You prioritized a dangerous spot landing over a safe runway landing.

It was the only landing option available at the time.

4. You came in too high and fast to even hit the far end of the runway.

Very true. I give you credit on this astute observation.

5. You didn't consider the option of landing uphill - which is so brain dead easy that it's not worth the battery power to video record the event even when people without wheels are foot landing and shooting for a spot.

Again, this is the upper lz. Argument invalid!

6. You were flying with a bunch of testosterone poisoned douchebags who manage LZs and landing protocols to be as dangerous as possible 'cause they get their kicks by watching gliders crash.

That describes about 90% of the hang gliding pilots.

7. You had a crutch with which you were able to successfully compensate for a long list of bad decisions and shortcomings in execution and land at the same speed you would have if you had done one or two things right.

True

No rhetoric, personal pronouncements or bull. I would like accepted theory and accepted concepts.

How did I do?

Lots of fancy textual foot work!
I am giving you a D+ and that is only because you figured out that I was too high and too hot. You did not answer the question!

How did the glider come to an easy soft landing from 35 mph, in 35 yards? I do not think this was a case of good karma.

[Tad Eareckson]

In this case, a prone landing would have worked.

It might surprise you to know that I've got this theory that in damn near all real life cases a prone landing will work.

I made the normal approach that I would have made in my old Comet 2.

Which - correct me if I'm wrong - squandered a bit of runway length because it wasn't terribly critical with that glider.

Take a look at the map.

If you (or anybody else) could find me a video of somebody flying that approach (preferably from the glider) that would help a lot.

The wheels had been ordered. The glider was brand new.

Sometimes it's a lot better to have wheels and no glider than a glider and no wheels.

The guy with the helmet and no wheels.

Nah.
The only time I ever really needed a helmet was when I...

Mike Lake - 2011/03/02 01:11:45 UTC

In the early '80s we were given a demo of a fixed line tow system complete with spring gauge, spaghetti bridles, rings, string and chunks of metal at longbow tensions positioned in front of the pilot's face.

...blew one of those certifiably insane original Hewett Release systems under load.
I've been in a fair number of situations which would've been really ugly without wheels.
I've never flown without a helmet and have flown a lot without wheels (at the expense of a few extra downtubes) and I'd probably FEEL a lot more naked without the helmet BUT...
Two groups of a thousand pilots - one wheels-only, the other helmets-only. Fly them for five years. The helmets-only folk are gonna get creamed - arms, shoulders, and necks.
And the difference will be astronomical if the wheels-only people use them to land at all reasonable opportunities.

On a bad landing, I pranged my helmet on the keel very, very hard.

And we can safely assume that if you had come in prone on the wheels you'd have had a good landing, right?

It was a lightbulb learning moment. Always wear a stout helmet.

Yes. If you're gonna do dangerous stunt landings always wear a stout helmet - and pray you don't break an arm, dislocate a shoulder, or snap your neck.
How 'bout this lightbulb:
Standup landings are inherently dangerous.

"let go of the downtube"

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


How many people who've suffered spiral fractures do you think were not told to let go of the downtube?

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1166
Thoughts on responsibility...

Scott Wilkinson - 2005/10/05 14:10:56 UTC

We visited Steve Wendt yesterday, who was visibly choked up over Bill's death. For Steve, it all comes down to one thing: you've got to hook in. Period.

How many people who've run off a ramp without a glider do you think were not told by some total fucking moron to always hook in or always do a hang check?
We've been telling people to "let go of the downtube" - often in big red letters - for over three and a half decades and, strangely...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=22176
Paragliding Collapses

Jim Rooney - 2011/06/12 13:57:58 UTC

Most common HG injury... spiral fracture of the humerus.

...a spiral fracture of the humerus has always been the most common hang gliding injury.
You teach, require, condition, force everybody and his dog to execute the most dangerous phase of a hang glider flight with his hands (or paws) in the most dangerous position for the purpose of pulling off the most dangerous stunt landing every time you're gonna break a lot of arms - regardless of what you tell people. Period.

The stone has since been removed.

Wow! That's a novel approach in hang gliding! Prior to that, how many hundred dollar weekend clinics were held on how to miss the stone and the best way to crash into it if you couldn't?

That describes about 90% of the hang gliding pilots.

1. And that's just the chicks. The dudes are more like 98 percent.
2. This is precisely why we kill about one participant per thousand per year and never fix the problems. And I'm one hundred percent serious about that.

I am giving you a D+...

Cool! Thanks!!!

How did the glider come to an easy soft landing from 35 mph, in 35 yards?

Why should I care? I've already passed the fuckin' class.
Oh, what the hell...
You used the chute which increased your parasitic drag and degraded the hell out of your glide ratio such that the lay of the land was no longer an issue.
And you've got me thinking...
I can recall - without having to think real hard - a couple of situations into which I got myself in which it woulda been real nice to have had a drag chute.
One time I was coming into a field I should've logically approached from the opposite direction - away from the drainage - and it wasn't as flat as I had thought/hoped. I had very little margin left when I finally rolled and dragged to a stop. I felt my legs heating up from the friction. (Several years later another one the club guys got suckered the way I had been into that field and had an almost identical experience.)
Another the wind on the surface was doing the opposite of what it was up high and I had to do a dangerous pop over a fence.
I'm thinking now that - at least for someone who flies XC - it's stupid not to have a drag chute. Doesn't cost any weight or (until/unless you use it) drag. Definitely a lot more safety bang for the buck and a lot more likely to be needed and work in an emergency than a reserve.

[Zack C]

Sorry, been busy...

Please point out and post, Tad style, where I have implied that drag or going upright affects stall speed.

Well, for example...

Dive brakes or dive flaps are deployed to slow down an aircraft when in a dive.

Since the aircraft could be slowed to any speed above stall without a drag device, one could infer you meant that with a drag device a slower speed was possible.

But it really doesn't matter at this point as we're on the same page regarding this issue.

For a drag addition to a powered aircraft with elevator position fixed, some thrust must be added to maintain speed and altitude.

Altitude, yes, but why speed? Why would it be any different than for an unpowered aircraft? Are you saying that increasing drag changes the speed of a plane only if it's producing thrust? And that if the engine is cut the drag increase won't affect its speed?

Check the vector diagram below

For what? The diagram illustrates that increasing only drag will result in a decrease in pitch attitude so that thrust, lift, and drag continue to equal weight. It says nothing about speed.

I have a brand new, never been used, Mike Sandlin drogue chute out back. Nothing to loose, I pull the cord. I feel a force holding the glider back. I did a mellow flare and did a 2 step landing way before the brush. The peanut gallery had saucer eyes of astonishment.

Question for Tad and company.

WTF happened?

We're no longer talking about unaccelerated flight. As you skimmed the ground you were gradually decelerating to maintain altitude. On a low performance glider, flying fast means a high sink rate, so you have to let the bar out more quickly to maintain altitude and thus would decelerate faster with a shorter ground skim. When you deployed the drogue, you instantly turned your glider into a low performance wing, requiring you to let the bar out much faster to maintain altitude. You still flared at the same speed you would have had you not deployed the chute...you just got to that speed much faster.

Zack

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16983
Landing a Moyes Extralite 164

Jaco Herbst - 2009/08/16 13:42:28 UTC

We fly like that (hands on the control bar)... why not land like that?

George Stebbins - 2009/08/16 17:37:41 UTC

In no particular order, and not a complete list:

01) Because our heads hitting the ground can kill us.
02) Because crashing on our feet is unlikely to kill us.
03) Because we can run faster on our feet than on our ears. (To quote Greg DeWolf.)
04) Because crashing feet first a dozen times is better than crashing head first even one time.
05) Because doing all that stuff (getting upright, moving two hands, keeping pitch correct) all at the same time just before landing is asking for a mistake.
06) Because you should be going fast into your ground skimming, and going fast head-first near the ground is risky. Just ask Chris Muller. Oh wait, you can't: He hit head first. And he was way better than most of us.
07) Because it is inherently obvious to anyone not prejudiced against it that approaching with your landing gear down is better than putting it down at the last second, unless there is some hugely overriding reason not to do so (Space Shuttle is an example.)
08) Because your legs are the strongest bones in your body, and your neck is one of the most fragile.
09) Because I'd rather break my leg (or even arm) than my neck if things go wrong. (Wouldn't you?)
10) Because landing is the most difficult thing we typically do in a hang glider. Why increase the danger?
11) Because I have had too many friends die from head impacts, and a few become (partially) paralyzed. Your mileage may differ.
12) Because I think it is more important to be alive than to have my friends think I am cool.
13) Because dead people are no longer cool. And if in some way they still are, they can't enjoy it.
14) Because the only reason you are used to flying prone more is that you do it more. Fly upright some each flight, and you'll find you can do it quite nicely on landing too. Practice matters.
15) Because there are only three reasons we fly prone at altitude, and none of them should matter much during landing: 1) Streamlining, 2) Comfort, 3) we are used to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-36aQ3Hg33c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkfO52cjQg
Wheel Landing
Sparkozoid - 2012/04/30
dead

Idiot.

[miguel]

Nope, George is a wise man and will live to be an old pilot.

Here is an exciting landing where the pilot was prone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpv8Y3ury_A


Pilot was ok. Another prone pilot that impacted in that area was medivaced out.

[Tad Eareckson]

...George is a wise man...

A wise man does not write crap like:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9945
Launched unhooked

George Stebbins - 2007/10/26 16:05:20 UTC

The weak link is NOT there to prevent the glider from being overstressed on tow. OK, it serves that function too, but its main purpose is to release if you get too far off-line or some other issue causes the forces to become stronger than you, the pilot, can control. The forces become too strong for the pilot to overcome LONG BEFORE the glider gets overstressed. Does the weak link always do its job? Nope. On the other hand, making it too weak is a danger too. The key is to minimize risks. A reasonable weak link does that. It will seldom (but not never) break when it shouldn't. It will usually (but not always) break when it should. Different forms of towing use different strengths. And tandems need stronger ones regardless, because the tow forces are higher.

There are some folks who tow with very strong weak links. They are asking for trouble, IMO.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12512
Weak Links

George Stebbins - 2008/07/13 21:01:44 UTC

I've always been happy with the Quest Air links, and only once did one break when it annoyed me seriously, and for no apparent reason. (Just as I crossed the treeline. I had to whip a 180 before I ran out of altitude to do so. Then I had an interesting landing, not really having room to turn back into the wind...)

I've had enough links break when they should to think mine is ok...

...and will live to be an old pilot.

1. And you're also not a pilot if you write crap like that.
2. How long you live when you go up in the air without knowing what the hell you're talking about becomes more of a dice roll issue.

Here is an exciting landing where the pilot was prone...

Is it exciting because he:
- is prone; or
- doesn't know how to fly?
Give me the glider a tenth of a second after he clips the tree.
Duct tape my hands to the basetube.
I'll bet I can stop it on the grass with myself unscathed, nothing broken or bent on the glider, and the nose up.

Pilot was ok.

What pilot? That guy was along for the ride.

Another prone pilot that impacted in that area was medivaced out.

Nobody ever impacted in the area BECAUSE he was prone.
You mean this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ3zfGrWmJE


...guy?
Looks to me like he's rocked up early with his hands on the downtubes.
He stalls - badly.
It's a whole lot easier getting into and a whole lot harder recovering from a stall if you're upright than it is if you're prone.
When you hit the ground during a stall recovery, I don't care whether you were upright or prone BEFORE impact - you're gonna end up prone.
And you're almost certainly gonna end up absorbing less energy and do less damage if you come in prone.
This guy doesn't just stall once. He stalls TWICE. And it's the SECOND stall that does the massive damage and ends his career.
He recovers from the first stall and at that point can just mush it into the bushes and probably come out smelling like a rose with downtubes intact.
But he fixates on that very popular little area of bare ground - the only place in that patch of scrub where he can get really hurt - and pops the glider over the springy stuff to get there.

[miguel]

miguel...George is a wise man...

A wise man does not write crap like this:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9945
Launched unhooked

George Stebbins - 2007/10/26 16:05:20 UTC

The weak link is NOT there to prevent the glider from being overstressed on tow. OK, it serves that function too, but its main purpose is to release if you get too far off-line or some other issue causes the forces to become stronger than you, the pilot, can control. The forces become too strong for the pilot to overcome LONG BEFORE the glider gets overstressed. Does the weak link always do its job? Nope. On the other hand, making it too weak is a danger too. The key is to minimize risks. A reasonable weak link does that. It will seldom (but not never) break when it shouldn't. It will usually (but not always) break when it should. Different forms of towing use different strengths. And tandems need stronger ones regardless, because the tow forces are higher.

There are some folks who tow with very strong weak links. They are asking for trouble, IMO.

Nice general terms. Nothing really wrong.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12512
Weak Links

George Stebbins - 2008/07/13 21:01:44 UTC

I've always been happy with the Quest Air links, and only once did one break when it annoyed me seriously, and for no apparent reason. (Just as I crossed the treeline. I had to whip a 180 before I ran out of altitude to do so. Then I had an interesting landing, not really having room to turn back into the wind...)

I've had enough links break when they should to think mine is ok...

...and will live to be an old pilot.

1. And you're also not a pilot if you write crap like that.
2. How long you live when you go up in the air without knowing what the hell you're talking about becomes more of a dice roll issue.

George wrote in vague generalities. Nothing really wrong or controversial with what he wrote.

The essay on prone landing was spot on however. You should create a board catogory for good quotes and put that one in it. Maybe tape a copy to your bathroom mirror.

Here is an exciting landing where the pilot was prone...

Is it exciting because he:
- is prone; or
- doesn't know how to fly?

Actually - c) should have been upright and flying the glider.

just kidding, it was exciting for the 2 views of the flight. A+ for video production.

Give me the glider a tenth of a second after he clips the tree.

Duct tape my hands to the basetube.

I'll bet I can stop it on the grass with myself unscathed, nothing broken or bent on the glider, and the nose up.

Yeah and I can land a 767. would of, should of, could of.

Earlier on, there was another pilot who hit the trees in the same spot and did not come out. He was ok, do not know about the glider.

Pilot was ok.

What pilot? That guy was along for the ride.

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride!

Another prone pilot that impacted in that area was medivaced out.

Nobody ever impacted in the area BECAUSE he was prone.

You mean this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ3zfGrWmJE


...guy?

Looks to me like he's rocked up early with his hands on the downtubes.

He stalls - badly.

It's a whole lot easier getting into and a whole lot harder recovering from a stall if you're upright than it is if you're prone.

When you hit the ground during a stall recovery, I don't care whether you were upright or prone BEFORE impact - you're gonna end up prone.

And you're almost certainly gonna end up absorbing less energy and do less damage if you come in prone.

This guy doesn't just stall once. He stalls TWICE. And it's the SECOND stall that does the massive damage and ends his career.

He recovers from the first stall and at that point can just mush it into the bushes and probably come out smelling like a rose with downtubes intact.

But he fixates on that very popular little area of bare ground - the only place in that patch of scrub where he can get really hurt - and pops the glider over the springy stuff to get there.

The point is that he hit the ground prone with very serious consequences. I saw the raw video before it was put on youtube. It had enought resolution to where it could zoom up on the glider and pilot. I saw no pilot effort to fly or control the glider. The glider flew itself into the ground. That is very unlike the pilot.

The pilot was a mentor to me early on. He made sure I got a ride up the hill when I did not have a 4WD.

[Zack C]

George wrote in vague generalities. Nothing really wrong or controversial with what he wrote.

This'll be good...

Zack

[Tad Eareckson]

Nice general terms. Nothing really wrong.

BULLSHIT. It's absolute crap, anybody and everybody who says and/or repeats crap like that is a moron - AT BEST, it's gotten a lot of people killed, and assholes who don't know what the fuck they're talking about should shut the fuck up.

George wrote in vague generalities.

BULLSHIT.

Nothing really wrong or controversial with what he wrote.

Don't you DARE tell me there's nothing really wrong or controversial with what he wrote. I've gotten blackballed out of every flight park in the country and been banned from seven forums - most recently less than six days ago - in part or whole from fighting that crap and the assholes, shitheads, liars, and serial killers who propagate it.

The essay on prone landing was spot on however.

Yeah. Every bit as solid and saturated with pearls of wisdom as his little essays on Quest Air weak links.

Maybe tape a copy to your bathroom mirror.

Don't worry. I've GOT a copy in my bathroom - but it's on a roller.

A+ for video production.

Agreed.

Yeah and I can land a 767. would of, should of, could of.

Alright, lemme rephrase that...

Duct tape his hands to the basetube. If he gets his shit together immediately upon coming out of the tree he can stop it on the grass with himself unscathed, nothing broken or bent on the glider, and the nose up.

He's got seven seconds of airtime remaining as things progressed. He had enough energy left to get it pointed back in something resembling the original intended direction, level, and stopped but he needed to get everything he owned all the way to the left and stuff the bar immediately.

Any disagreement?

He actually didn't do all that bad as it was and I've personally witnessed much worse in a lot of LZs twenty times more forgiving than that one. And I'm willing to say that if his instruction had been better he'd coulda brought that glider down on that strip in the same conditions and done just fine.

Earlier on, there was another pilot who hit the trees in the same spot and did not come out. He was ok, do not know about the glider.

In more than one of these videos shot from the McClure breakdown area I'm hearing in the voices of the people near the camera anxiety when the glider is setting up for final and relief - sometimes premature - when it appears that the landing is in the bag. That tells me that the overall landing skills and procedures for this strip are inadequate.

The point is that he hit the ground prone with very serious consequences.

No.

The point is that he got EXTREMELY / DANGEROUSLY slow when very low on approach and stalled the crap out of the glider at thirty feet.

And for the purposes of this forum in general and this thread in particular there is NOTHING to be learned from this one.

I've told you repeatedly that I have virtually no interest in discussions about the best ways to crash a glider. They're distractions from valuable discussions about the best ways to NOT crash a glider.

And the best way to NOT crash a glider on landing is to stay prone and on the basetube for as long as possible for the given set of circumstances.

And the best way to NOT crash a glider on takeoff is to tell the Wallaby, Quest, Florida Ridge, Lookout, Currituck, Manquin, Ridgely, Cloud 9, Whitewater, Cowboy Up standard aerotow weak link shitheads to go fuck themselves.

It had enough resolution to where it could zoom up on the glider and pilot.

And that wasn't an important enough seventeen seconds in McClure history to merit the full rez upload?

I saw no pilot effort to fly or control the glider.

Bingo! THAT'S the point.

That is very unlike the pilot.

Try this...
1. He was tired, overheated, dehydrated, airsick, whatever and not clicking on all cylinders.
2. He drifted into the approach WAY low.
3. But his brain was hardwired for the usual touchdown area - in no small part due to this sport's pathological obsession with spots.

The pilot was a mentor to me early on.

Did he have a name? Or do we need to forever cloak his identity in secrecy because he reverted to being a little too human for a minute at the end of one of his flights?

He made sure I got a ride up the hill when I did not have a 4WD.

This sport has needlessly chewed up a lot of really good people in its very short history. I often think of the ones I've known and that saddens and depresses me (even more than usual).

Got any thoughts about how to turn anything around in the keeping-gliders-under-better-control department?

This'll be good...

Sorry Zack, we currently have 223 posts here on the "Weak links" thread and - given that none of that has sunk in at all yet - a short tantrum is all I have energy for at the moment. Maybe something better down the road a bit.

[Tad Eareckson]

OK, I did a hatchet job on George and will have it up at:

http://www.kitestrings.org/post2172.html#p2172

by the time anyone's read this. After getting it mostly put together I discovered that I had already done a hatchet job on this particular lunacy of George's:

http://www.kitestrings.org/post78.html#p78

but this one's more concise and has a more appropriate level of nastiness. If he's just gonna echo Quest/Rooney bullshit unencumbered by the thought process and with zero consideration for any of the sane explanations of weak links referenced hundreds of times on the web or the people who've labored to put them up he deserves the same treatment as Quest and Rooney.