http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Hardmanmark - 2006/09/19 00:28:03 UTC
News has just come to hand that the new NZHGPA operations manager Kevin Rooke has sustained moderate injuries falling from his hang glider after failing to hook in at Inwoods lookout in Nelson.
Witnesses at the scene have stated it is a miracle the accident was not fatal.
The glider was said to fly rather well unpiloted. It actually went up in a thermal narrowly missing a gaggle of paragliders. It is yet to be found.
This is a real wake up call to all of us at the beginning of our season to always do a hang check.
It always is, Mark. We get a wake up call, wake up, go through our usual routines, go to back to sleep, and get another wake up call. I wonder when you assholes are gonna figure out that wake up calls are as totally useless as the hang check and all the other preflight bullshit you always babble about after one of these.
Sterling - 2006/09/19 01:02:26 UTC
Hey Mark,
I can't believe this has occurred. Kevin Rooke did the investigation into Jim Rooney's accident here for the CAA last year. He ascertained that there was a failure to complete a hook in procedure as well as some other irrelevant drivel.
So why can't you believe this has occurred?
Kevin currently is working on a new hook in procedure for commercial operators. If anyone has any suggestions for our Hang Gliding Operations Manager I am sure he would greatly appreciate any input.
Yeah, I've got a suggestion...
Make the commercial operations procedures the same as the amateur operation procedures - unless you attach different values to different lives and feel that some people deserve better levels of protection than others.
And things could get confusing for a commercial pilot when he flies recreationally. He might forget whether he's in a situation in which he's required to follow the good procedures or can get away with the crappy stuff.
Maybe Kevin has been trialling new hook in procedures. Good on you Kevin, I admire your dedication to the sport, keep working on it!
On a more serious note I wish you well in your recovery of yourself and the glider - wherever it is.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 17:15:45 UTC
The only suggestion I could think of would be to follow hook-in procedures next time.
Yeah, that'll help. Reminds me a lot of Steve "2004 Instructor of the Year" Wendt's...
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.
...approach to the issue.
What can you really say to someone that failed to do a hang check?
Tell him to stay with that - that he's halfway to the solution.
You either have a habit of doing a hang check or you are an accident waiting to happen.
Yeah.
Rob Kells - 2005/12
My partners (Steve Pearson and Mike Meier) and I have over 25,000 hang glider flights between us and have managed (so far) to have hooked in every time. I also spoke with test pilots Ken Howells and Peter Swanson about their methods (another 5000 flights). Not one of us regularly uses either of the two most popular methods outlined above.
Right.
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 18:30:03 UTC
Ah... I think I can speak with a little authority on this topic.
Yes indeed. Just as you can speak with a little authority on the topics of flying away from lockouts by increasing the roll and pushing out when you can't get your Industry Standard release to work to get your standard aerotow weak link to work and avoiding Mach 5 takeoffs and good soaring conditions to keep your standard aerotow weak link from working.
The first thing you learn, if you live, is that your precious hang check isn't going to save you.
The people who had their shit together on this issue knew that in the Seventies - asshole.
Your friend might save you...
You better hope it's a friend, Jim. 'Cause I sure as hell won't be saying anything.
...but even a religious obscession with hang checks won't.
1. Making it the odd man out in a culture of religious obsessions with Quallaby and bent pin releases, 130 pound Greenspot, and standup landings.
2. But let's keep teaching it, demanding it, and retaining it as the foundation of our unhooked launch prevention strategy 'cause hang gliding is all about religious obsessions and not stuff that actually gets the jobs done.
I dumped the fucking hang check in the fall of 1980 and never looked back. And I haven't launched unhooked as many times as you have. Dickhead.
It has to do with the way the mind works.
Who's mind? That twisted garbage you've got rattling around between your ears or something functional?
I'm digging up a very good paper on the topic... I can't seem to find it at the moment.
1. Lessee... You almost killed your passenger along with your own stupid useless ass seven months ago and that qualifies you to recommend reading material on the subject?
2. Don't bother. It's totally useless crap.
3. If you want something from the mainstream to read try the post Bill Priday article by Rob Kells in the 2005/12 issue of Hang Gliding. Focus on the stuff that makes sense and disregard the stupid bullshit he included so he could keep being a friend to every "pilot" he met.
See the trick of the matter is that you will think you did one. I'm not kidding... you'll swear on your life (litterally) that you did do a hang check. You will believe whole heartedly, not that you're hooked in, but that you DID a hang check. And then you find out that you didn't.
Thank you, Jim...
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC
I already see where the anger and grief take us. We need to do hang checks, double hang checks. And who was on Bill's wire crew? How could they let that happen?
When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check. I often do not see pilots doing a hook-in check. Why should they? They just did a hang check and they are surrounded by friends who will make sure this box is checked.
...for so graphically and irrefutably illustrating EXACTLY the point Steve was trying to get across to you fuckin' douchebags right after Bill was killed.
The Press - 2006/03/15
Rooney and the passenger fell about fifteen meters to the ground.
The passenger, believed to be a tourist in her twenties, suffered minor to moderate leg lacerations.
Maybe you could relay my thanks to your passenger as well.
Human behavior is the weakest link in the chain, yet we trust it above all other solutions. We use training and education as the primary means to fix problems when they are the least reliable of all options. (yes, checklists.. even written checklists fall into this category).
Try training them in accordance with the regulations for a change and see what happens - asshole.
Do not get lulled into the false sense of security of "it won't happen to me because I'm so meticulous".
I never thought that for a nanosecond - you arrogant stupid little shit. I thought the precise opposite.
The easy answer is to say "you can't launch unhooked if you do a hang check every single time". Saying it will make you feel good, but relying on it as your answer to hookin failure can be fatal.
I really wish it had been. (So fucking close.) And I haven't given up hope that it will be.
I'll see about digging up that article.
Spare no effort - it's a real gem.
Bill Jacques - 2006/09/19 18:42:23 UTC
Are you saying that it is not uncommon for some pilots to think that they have asked someone for and received a hang check when they really haven't asked anyone?
As a trainee, I am being taught to always ASK a fellow pilot for a "hang check".
As a trainee, have you read the requirements for your rating and made the slightest effort to understand and adhere to them? Just kidding.
They check the 1. primary 2. secondary. 3. leg loops, etc. etc., and verbally confirm all is okay.
EXACTLY. They check the 1. primary 2. secondary. 3. leg loops, etc. etc., and verbally confirm all is okay. And from that point on they're good to go. Great strategy.
If what you say happens...
Don't spend a lot of time reading incident reports from the non fatals, do ya?
...perhaps there should be a procedure for a "sign off" with the date and time on it by someone else before you take off?!
Yeah, I like that one.
Maybe the verbal "signoff" is not adequate.
No.
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
It's not.
Jeez.. that story scares me.
Maybe you should make a point of thinking about it two seconds before commitment to EVERY launch.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 19:31:12 UTC
Agreed, human behavior is the weakest link, and the pilot that doesn't follow a regular procedure and take the upcomming flight seriously every time is going to get nailed by statistics.
Forget about the goddam flight and taking it seriously. This has absolutely nothing to do with the flight and absolutely everything to do with the two seconds before commitment to it.
Maybe because it's because I'm a little paranoid about hooking in that I've never come close to not hooking in.
Why limit yourself to being just a little paranoid?
Maybe it's because I realize gravity can kill you. All I know is that I always say Hooked In, Leg Straps, Height Above The Bar, before every launch and so far that has worked.
1. How long before every launch?
2. What does height above the bar have to do with anything?
3. Does saying it make the relevant ones true?
4. Is there some action you could take to ensure that the relevant ones are true?
Kurt Jorgensen - 2006/09/19 19:35:33 UTC
One of the guys I fly with does not walk around in his harness--he hooks it in first before getting into it.
Can you conceive of any sets of circumstances in which that would be a really bad idea?
This way he can check more easily himself that all the cables are straight and in the right place. Of course this only solves the hook in...
Yeah. And there's absolutely no possibility whatsoever that he could unhook between then and launch.
...not the leg and arm loops...
How do you miss the arm loops?
...but most errors occur with the 'beaner.
Can you think of any method of confirming the 'biner two seconds before launch?
Recently a pilot that was just getting back into HG after a several year hiatus launched without his legs through the leg loops. We even did a hang check on him (shame on us)!
Oh. So hang checks don't verify leg loops. Interesting.
He wasn't even aware of a problem (he zipped up right after launch) until it came time to land. Fortunately he landed well.
If he had rolled in he wouldn't have been aware of the "problem" until he took the harness off.
Jim Gaar - 2006/09/19 19:36:59 UTC
I have a .doc of simple checklists (aerotow tandem-aerotow-platform-foot launch) that can be cut out and taped to your control bar/down tubes etc.
Thanks Jim, that'll be a big help.
Let me know if you want a copy.
That's OK, Jim. It's a lot easier for me to look at the rocks below the ramp than it is to read a list taped to my basetube which reminds me to buckle my helmet.
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 19:52:29 UTC
Yeah, it is scary.
But not quite scary enough to bother with a hook-in check, is it - asshole?
Finding out that you can't trust yourself sorta sucks.
Nah. I found out I couldn't trust yourself about the third time we had a conversation. (I'm often a bit slow on the uptake.) It's a really good feeling to be able to have identified the scumbags and shitheads in this sport.
Asking someone to check you is suseptable to the same "omission" problems as a checklist... YOU must do it. Having someone else demand it is a better process.
You know what's even better than that? Having somebody revoke your ratings and certifications for refusing to comply with the requirements and regulations pertaining to your ratings and certifications.
I found the article... I can't find it online anymore, so I put it up on my server.
It's about a fatal tandem hookin failure some years ago.
2003/03/29. Stephen Parson - Eleni Zeri.
The aussie method doesn't work tandem.
Totally sucks for solo:
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18695
How could this accident happen?
William Olive - 2010/01/28 04:50:53 UTC
Phil Beck did this twice (or was that three times?) in a day at Hexham (Victoria) one time while foot launch aerotow testing gliders. Of course, with a swag of gliders to test fly, Phil would unclip from the glider he'd just landed, then clip into the next one to be tested.
Except, at least twice, he didn't clip in.
as well.
I'm a bit partial to his "any inturruption should mean a 1 minute timeout".
Yeah, I think that's a WONDERFUL idea! We should all take one minute timeouts anytime anything that can possibly be considered an interruption occurs. Drop a down/basetube junction pin, pick it up and wait one minute before continuing with your setup procedure. That will really help us avoid launching unhooked 45 - make that 46 - minutes later. I can hardly wait until that starts catching on.
- "Hey Bill, you got the time?"
- "11:35. And fuck you, dude. Now I gotta wait a minute before I stuff my next batten. Don't you EVER do anything like that to me again!"
- "What?"
- "CRAP! Now I gotta wait TWO minutes! You inconsiderate BASTARD!!!"
But let's not EVER do anything to verify our connection two seconds prior to commitment to launch.
If there was a way to change the system so it wouldn't work if you aren't hooked it, I'd be for that (the aussie method is an attempt, but again, that doesn't work tandem).
Why don't you design something and get back to us?
3rd party challenge (not pilot initiated verification) and timeouts seem to be the only other real alternative.
And for the love of God don't EVER:
- verify the connections JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH;
- consider involving the passenger - or, as you know her, victim - in the process.
I know they've started using streamers (that must be removed) in Queenstown.
Of course they have. That way they won't ever hafta verify the connections just prior to launch.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 20:06:21 UTC
I'm a little paranoid about hooking in that I've never come close to not hooking in.
That's not the whole sentence. And it makes even less sense than the original effort.
Every single person I know that's launched unhooked and lived to tell about it (myself included) said that very same thing.
And with the kinds of dregs that can stand being around you for more than two or three seconds that should be a pretty good percentage and number.
Every single one of them!
No shit. Have you considered listening to what any of the people who've NEVER come anywhere close to launching unhooked are saying? Just kidding.
A little food for thought for ya...
So we can get our thinking up to something approaching your standards? I can hardly wait.
I was under MANDITORY hang checks... not optional, not "No thanks, I'm good.. clear". Manditory.
And in this country you were under MANDATORY hook-in checks... Not optional, not "No thanks, I'm good... Clear". Mandatory. But all you fuckin' halfwitted douchebags just choose to skip things and we don't have shit in the way of accountability.
My flights follow a strict proceedure every time.
Yeah.
The Press - 2006/03/15
The Civil Aviation Authority is urgently pushing for new hang-gliding industry standards after learning a hang-gliding pilot who suffered serious injuries in a crash three weeks ago had not clipped himself on to the glider.
Extreme Air tandem gliding pilot James (Jim) Rooney safely clipped his passenger into the glider before departing from the Coronet Peak launch site, near Queenstown, CAA sports and recreation manager Rex Kenny said yesterday.
In a video, he was seen to hold on to the glider for about fifty meters before hitting power lines.
Rooney and the passenger fell about fifteen meters to the ground.
Obviously.
I don't even stuff battons in a different order.
Yeah. I'd have no problem whatsoever sending someone up with some moron who never various the order in which he stuffs battens - whether or not he can spell them.
I hook up my camera every time wether a passenger wants pictures or not...
Oh! I want pictures! Any chance we can get a look at those pictures?
...because that's what I do...
Yeah. Where have I heard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TDHqsXRtl0
Aerotowing Weaklinks
David Glover - 2008/08/04
First we start off with Cortland Line Company Greenspot... This is what we use.
...something like that before?
...every time. When you do hundreds of flights a month, you develop a routine and you stick to it. I can quote you everything I say (what, when and why) for a good ten minute span of time. If you want to talk about meticulous, talk to a tandem pilot.
And still you plowed your passenger into the power lines. Go figure.
And yet...?
Yeah. You'd think that some brain dead asshole who ALWAYS stuffs his battens in the same order and NEVER verifies the connections within a couple of seconds of launch would be totally immune to that kind of pooch screw. I just can't understand why that wouldn't work.
Have you considered stuffing your battens in random order for a few flights to see if that helps you not launch unhooked?
Your checklists will not save you.
I wouldn't know. I've never used checklists.
Your fear of death will not save you.
I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of stuffing battens in the wrong order.
Your belief that they will puts you at risk.
But one's fear of launching unhooked...
Rob Kells - 2005/12
Each of us agrees that it is not a particular method, but rather the fear of launching unhooked that makes us diligent to be sure we are hooked in every time before starting the launch run.
...which you're too fucking stupid to have, cultivate, or mention - will virtually annihilate the risk.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/19 20:19:21 UTC
This is pretty funny when you read it.
I'd go with infuriating.
Basically it sounds like you are saying that all of us are doomed to launch unhooked and there is nothing that will save us from death short of a miracle.
Yeah, that's his strategy for tow equipment as well. Go up with any Industry Standard shitrigged release you feel like and hope your standard aerotow weak link will blow in time to keep you from hitting the runway. And if it doesn't break increase your roll and push out.
In my area...
San Diego.
...there is a guy that has launched unhooked twice and lived to talk about it...
Tad Hurst?
...and at least one that launched unhooked twice and died the second time. I know of no other pilots that launched unhooked, though I'm sure there are a few that have. If procedures, paranoia, and a healthy respect for gravity hasn't been what saved all the other pilots from launching unhooked, I wonder what you think it might be? Luck?
What's your explanation? If it's not attitude and/or behavior then it IS luck.
Michael Bradford - 2006/09/19 20:27:46 UTC
Human behavior is the weakest link in the chain, yet we trust it above all other solutions.
For my money, and in my experience Jim's correct on this.
Whenever you start making statements that Jim's correct on an issue you should have a few warning lights starting to flash.
Fewer things are true than we are certain of, and the more things we're certain of, the truer that is.
Think, Michael. What happens if you adopt a mindset of being certain at all times that you're not hooked in? What are the up- and downsides of doing that?
If one can get the mind around what Jim is saying, I believe it will advance personal safety.
Oh, no doubt whatsoever. I'm sure that Jim's postings on this topic will diminish the rate of fatal impacts below the ramp every bit as much as his postings on standup landing strategies will reduce the rate of spiral fractures of the humerus.
If one can get his mind around what Jim is saying, I believe having the affected areas of the brain surgically removed is the best option for personal safety.
I don't think Jim is saying you are doomed.
Nah. He's saying you're rolling dice. He's saying that if this can happen to somebody as wonderful as he is that nobody's really safe.
I think he's just saying if you don't think you're doomed, you're just a little more doomed than if you think you might be--that if you believe the checklist and habit are infallible, you should probably review that belief. If so, I agree.
What's your take on THIS:
ALWAYS ASSUME YOU ARE *NOT* HOOKED IN.
approach? Ever heard of anyone adopting it even coming close?
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 20:37:02 UTC
yes michael... that's exactly what i'm saying.
And we should listen to you because of your keen intellect and long track record.
