I asked that question after a lightbulb came on following phone conversation shortly before.Subj: hang checks
Date: 2011/06/10 22:47:24 UTC
From: Tad Eareckson
To--: Bob Kuczewski
Would you have blown a hole in the wall if you hadn't pulled the magazine and checked the chamber first?
It was one of scores in which I was wasting many cubic yards of precious breath trying to drive the concept of a hook-in check...
...through Bob's hopelessly thick skull.Steve Kinsley - 1998/05/01 01:16
"With EACH flight, demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in JUST PRIOR to launch." Emphasis in original.-- USHGA beginner through advanced requirement.
I know of only three people that actually do this. I am one of them. I am sure there are more but not a lot more. Instead we appear to favor ever more complex (and irrelevant) hang checks or schemes like Marc advocates that possibly increase rather than decrease the risk of hook in failure.
I was using my analogy that confidently running off a ramp with a glider because of a memory of a recent suspension check is identical to confidently pointing a loaded gun at one's head and pulling the trigger because of a memory of a recent safety mechanism check.
Bob then recalled an amusing little anecdote from his army days.
He and maybe a half dozen buddies straggled behind at the barracks before heading out for some weekend off duty activities. One of said buddies produced a contraband pistol from a locker.
Bob took it and pulled the clip and checked the chamber.
As conversations continued Bob was idly cocking the gun and pulling the trigger.
I interrupted the recounting and said something along the lines of "Yeah, and now you're training yourself to do what's about to precipitate a big surprise to you and your buddies."
Conversations were about wrapped up, people were about to roll, and Bob replaced the magazine.
And everybody and his dog knows what's gonna happen a few seconds later.
Nobody got hurt, everybody's heartbeats got back down to survivable levels, and nobody appeared to ask any embarrassing questions.
So, shortly after our conversation I thought - PERFECT!!! No way in hell Bob would've pulled the trigger if he hadn't...
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25550
Failure to hook in.
...previously unloaded and checked the gun. The prior checks built a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before pulling the trigger and only INCREASED the probability of something really ugly happening.Christian Williams - 2011/10/25 03:59:58 UTC
What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.
So I fire off the note and - big surprise - never get an answer.
So in the course of a later telephone conversation I press him on the issue. To the best of my recollection I didn't get anywhere substantive with him. And this documented crap:
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=646
Failure to Hook In
posted not long thereafter supports my recollection very nicely.Bob Kuczewski - 2011/07/22 21:30:23 UTC
I just talked with Joe, and he said that hang checks do have limited usefulness in protecting against hook-in failures, and that their value in that regard decreases with the time between the hang check and the launch (he's absolutely correct here). He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch was just as good as a hook-in check at launch, but that a hang check can catch things that a hook-in check might not (like a hang strap routed around a down tube, as just one example). So your claim that hang checks aren't needed by pilots who use the same glider/harness combination is invalidated right there.
Nevertheless I told Bob that his little unloaded gun incident would be pure gold for me to use as a teaching tool and begged him to write it up and post it.
His response - which shouldn't have surprised me at that point but did - was that he had a lot of enemies out there and didn't want to give them ammunition to use against him.
So, I let the matter drop - until now.
- Bob DOES have a lot of enemies that he DOESN'T deserve.
- But that number pales in comparison to the number of enemies he DOESN'T have but very richly DOES deserve.
- Blowing a hole in a wall - or your foot or your little brother's head - with an unloaded gun is as human a mistake as launching yourself or your passenger off a ramp minus a connection to the glider. If one hasn't had benefit of proper training and conditioning it's a forgivable mistake.
- However... The honorable thing to do - once the statute of limitations is up anyway - upon having made mistake like that in which someone on the other side of the wall coulda died but no one was scratched, is to fess up and try to reduce the likelihood of someone blowing his little brother's brains out.
- The dishonorable thing to do is cover up and pretend that you're better than the guy who just got convicted of negligent homicide.
- And it just occurred to me three sentences ago that there's no freakin' way Bob was in the army without training to treat the gun as loaded and armed at all times regardless of what he had done previously to ensure that it wasn't.
- And we're seeing the EXACT SAME MINDSET AND BEHAVIOR on the hook-in check issue.
Just prior to launch means whatever I, Joe, Rick, Sam, or anyone else feels like calling it. And if anybody gets killed as result of our examples attitudes. Tough, shoulda stuck to checkers.With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.