You are NEVER hooked in.

General discussion about the sport of hang gliding
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/20 03:04:54 UTC

read the artical.
checklists are only good for what they are intended for... not what we use them forr.
they do absolutely nothing for 'errors of omissions', yet we rely on them to save us from this problem.
Not "WE". You and the other fuckups who don't have freakin' clues about threat assessment and response.
'false sense of security'
Sums up your career in this sport damn nicely. False a lot of other shit about you as well.
Michael Grisham - 2006/09/20 05:36:40 UTC

Check Lists, Warnings, and Your Buddies?

So much for check lists, so much for the tower asking you if your gear is down, so much for the green/red gear lights, so much for all the electronic aural warnings.

We are all vulnerable.

If you are tired, fatigued, or just in the wrong state of mind, you are really vulnerable.
If you are tired, fatigued, or just in the wrong state of mind, and scared and have established a solid hook-in check procedure you're in a million times better shape than some idiot hang checker who's well rested, bubbling with energy and enthusiasm, and so bursting with confidence about his preflight procedures that the mere suggestion of a hook-in check has him doubled over laughing.
Mr. Rooney is 100% correct.
Has anybody ever believed otherwise?
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/20 16:08:07 UTC

Re: Check Lists, Warnings, and Your Buddies?

If you are tired, fatigued, or just in the wrong state of mind and getting ready to launch, you're not just "really vulnerable", you're as dumb as a box of dirt for trying to launch that day.
There went most of my flying opportunities. But I watched a lot of perky people leave the sport in body bags over the course of my career.
Jaco Herbst - 2006/09/20 16:43:17 UTC

hangover

You make a good point...

I am (and I would think many other pilots are) guilty of launching on more than occasion with an acute Hangover with a capital H. I am then tired, fatigued and in the wrong state of mind. Most of the times the flight will be unpleasant as well.

My first 100 km was in this condition...

Seriously, it is dumb (or not so wise sounds better) to launch with a hangover. If ever there is a time to make a mistake...
This has zilch to do with the issue.
Brian McMahon - 2006/09/20 17:06:54 UTC
Mr. Rooney is 100% correct, we are all vulnerable (period).
True; the last time I checked nobody is immune to cancer, being run over by a truck, or struck by lightining. WE are all vulnerable.
Says the guy who can't spell "lightning" correctly and be bothered to run spellchecks.
Tony (Love2Glide) - 2006/09/20 20:27:26 UTC

Checklists can be reliable, but the nature of HG limits that reliability. When operations are critical, one person reads the checklist while another performs the operation. The person reading the checklist actually checks off each step as the other person completes an item. This process is probably about as reliable as it gets, but not infallible - there is still room for stupid and possibly fatal mistakes (like Challenger space shuttle)...I doubt any hang glider pilots would follow such a strict procedure, so I agree with Jim that HG checklists are good, but don't entirely cover your ass.

Most failures using checklists as described above arise when the process is not followed... i.e. doing each task on the checklist from memory, only one person, not performing a task well or correctly, when people are just stupid, or the checklist itself is flawed.

Having your buddies looking over your shoulder and doing the same for them is probably as safe as it is going to get.
WE ARE DISCUSSING AN INCIDENT IN WHICH A GUY LAUNCHED WITH HIS CARABINER DANGLING BEHIND HIS KNEES. WE DON'T NEED ANY FUCKING CHECKLISTS TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
Recently a fellow pilot turned down a hang check from me.
Rob Kells? Mike Meier? Steve Pearson? All three of them would've turned down a hang check from you.
He probably did one himself, but I don't know.
And that would've made him good to go, right?
That was the end of it, I didn't even give his equipment a second look.
1. If his carabiner was connected to his suspension on the first look what useful information did you think you were gonna derive from a fucking hang check?

2. So because he declined a hang check from you, you decided not to follow your usual routine of scrutinizing his equipment. Fuck you.

3. And you haven't given your rating requirements even a first look.
He launched and flew away safely...
Obviously after skipping the hook-in check - just like you always do.;
miguel
Posts: 289
Joined: 2011/05/27 16:21:08 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by miguel »

Tad wrote:7. You (as usual) didn't answer my questions
I must have missed it. Please run it by me again.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

So where do YOU turn and look, how many times do you turn and look, and what's the maximum time you allow to elapse between turn and look and launch?

Extra credit...

All of the above with respect to the sidewire load test (seeing as how a failure in that department can kill you just as dead as an unhooked launch).
miguel
Posts: 289
Joined: 2011/05/27 16:21:08 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by miguel »

Tad wrote:So where do YOU turn and look, how many times do you turn and look, and what's the maximum time you allow to elapse between turn and look and launch?
As soon as I set my glider down on the actual launch. Turn and learn. If someone offers a hang check, I will take it.
Tad wrote:Extra credit...

All of the above with respect to the sidewire load test (seeing as how a failure in that department can kill you just as dead as an unhooked launch).
My wires get a visual/digital inspection during the setup. I look/feel for kinks and frays. I look at entry/exit of the wires into the nico and also around the ball on the tang. I am careful with the wires on disassembly.

Stepping on the wires sounds like something a lawyer would suggest. Stretching a wire out of normal column with the nico is not a good idea. The flying wires are never loaded the way stepping on the wire loads the wire.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

As soon as I set my glider down on the actual launch.
What's the advantage to doing this preflight check on the actual launch over just behind the actual launch (and the glider on it) or in the setup area?
Turn and learn.
What have you ever learned in the course of this procedure that you wouldn't have learned by doing the walk-through in the setup area and a lift and tug two seconds prior to launch?

Aside from the pilot unhooking himself - which is a problem positively and easily identified by lift and tug - has there ever once in the history of hang gliding been a suspension problem which developed in the course of walking the glider from the setup area to launch?
If someone offers a hang check, I will take it.
Assuming the same glider/harness combo, what have you ever found amiss in the course of a hang check that you wouldn't have found amiss with a walk-through and lift and tug?
My wires get a visual/digital inspection during the setup. I look/feel for kinks and frays. I look at entry/exit of the wires into the nico and also around the ball on the tang. I am careful with the wires on disassembly.
1. So while there's a reasonably good chance that your basetube clearance has undergone a serious enough positive or negative shift to make a hang check advisable, there's not enough concern about the integrity of a sidewire to load it up to a fraction of the tension it sees during certification testing.

2. Yeah, with what you're doing the chances that you'll ever blow a sidewire are REAL close to zero. But there are people who've been killed who almost certainly wouldn't have been had they done the load test.

3. Sidewire integrity...
While pushing up on the leading edge between the nose and the crossbar junction, step on the bottom side wire with about 75 lbs. of force. This is a rough field test of the structural security of the side wire loop, the control bar and the crossbar, and may reveal a major structural defect that could cause an in-flight failure in normal operation.
...isn't the ONLY problem the load test can identify.

4. I once had the control frame of my HPAT 158 fall apart about five yards short of the Woodstock ramp because the starboard down-/basetube junction pin was in my pocket. A load test would've identified that problem.

5. I blew a top sidewire at the kingpost doing a load test in my front yard.

6. Yes, I definitely could've identified the pin problem and almost certainly could've identified the wire problem with responsible preflight checks were I not an irresponsible jerk, but if we crippled and killed all the irresponsible jerks in this sport who had it coming we wouldn't have many people available to do site maintenance and support tow operations.
Stepping on the wires sounds like something a lawyer would suggest.
Bullshit.

This crap:
Note: The Sport 2 has been designed for foot launched soaring flight. It has not been designed to be motorized, tethered, or towed. It can be towed successfully using proper procedures. Pilots wishing to tow should be USHGA skill rated for towing, and should avail themselves of all available information on the most current proper and safe towing procedures. Suggested sources for towing information include the United States Hang Gliding Association and the manufacturer of the towing winch / or equipment being used. Wills Wing makes no warranty of the suitability of the glider for towing.
was written by a lawyer. They're manufacturing sailplanes, selling them to people in Florida, and telling them they're not designed to be towed.

Probably the same asshole who wrote this crap:
GT Manufacturing Inc. (GT) and Lookout Mountain Flight Park Inc. (LMFP) make no claim of serviceability of this tow equipment. There is no product liability insurance covering this gear and we do not warrant this gear as suitable for towing anything. We make no claim of serviceability in any way and recommend that you do not use this aerotow gear if you are not absolutely sure how to use it and or if you are unwilling to assume the risk. Towing and flying hang gliders is inherently dangerous.
for their Chattanooga dealership.

The load test is legitimate, Rob used it for all of his flights, I used it for all of mine, it can and has identified potentially lethal problems, and - in stark contrast to the idiot hang check - it's never caused any problems, lethal or otherwise. It's stupid not to use it.
Stretching a wire...
Airworthy sidewires don't do anything that can be remotely described as stretching before a cross spar buckles or a leading edge snaps.
...out of normal column with the nico is not a good idea.
Correct. That's why they're installed on tangs which allow them to articulate and align themselves with the direction of the pull.
The flying wires are never loaded the way stepping on the wire loads the wire.
Except when someone on your launch crew needs to hold 75 pounds to keep things from getting ugly fast. Then it's loaded EXACTLY the way stepping on it loads it.

Some day I think I'll write a book on all the amusing ways hang glider people have killed themselves opening up and exposing themselves to actual threats as a sole consequence of trying to protect themselves from totally imaginary ones.

I didn't get an answer to my question about the maximum allowable time between a preflight suspension inspection and launch. I'm getting the impression that it's totally unacceptable to spend fifteen seconds moving a glider five yards from behind the ramp to launch position without ensuring that bar clearance hasn't changed it's perfectly OK to spend twenty minutes at launch position waiting for a cycle without ever once reconfirming connection status with a hook-in check. And I'm not sure I have a proper grasp of the logic.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Kevin Rooke - 2006/09/22 00:05:32 UTC

I see this thread winding down.
Nah. You're at about the halfway point. And the quality of this conversation will guarantee that there will be plenty more just like it.
Having had the first word I'd like to also make some concluding comments to what feel has become a very informative discussion.
Yeah. ONE fucking mention of a hook-in check without a definition of what it is and without a single word of response. Right.
The first word was something like ****, and happened seconds after coming to my feet after a tumble, to see my pretty glider, like model gliders of my youth, sailing into the distance, before disappearing on a mysterious and private journey.

Certain reported details are incorrect and quotes using my name have been have been fraudulently posted but I am indeed relatively lucky - as Jim Rooney points out - to have egg on my face rather than the alternative.
THE alternative? There's lots of them ranging from nothing more than oops to we don't even wanna talk about it.
My clip in omission was demoralising but not physically traumatic.
THAT omission wasn't the problem. It's what you omit from ALL of your launches that's the problem.
Contrary to "eye witness accounts", I sustained no personal injury and people nearby were low key and light-hearted about the whole thing, calling me up on the radio complimenting me on the best flying they'd ever seen of my glider, etc.
Did anyone say anything about hook-in checks? Just kidding.
Claims I created a threat of colliding with a gaggle of gliders was incorrect as only one or two gliders were in the area at the time.
And if there had been flocks of gliders nearby? People would've been too stupid to yield right of way to one with no one driving it?
I was particularly 'preoccupied' on takeoff.
Irrelevant.
Conditions offered X/C potential so I'd packed a lot of gear into my harness in case I landed out of contact and spent the night outdoors.
Irrelevant.
It was warm on takeoff but cold aloft and this was my first time on a new earth ramp, which I had concerns about and spent time clearing of long grass.
Irrelevant.
After separately carrying clothing, equipment, harness & glider close to takeoff I prepared to launch. Because all the other pilots were flying PGs and were preoccupied with their own plans, I determined very early on to do my own walk through hang check.
Irrelevant.

And there's no such thing as a walk through hang check.
However, I never pre visualised this step or thought of alternatives, and when this time arrived my focus skipped ahead instead, to the upcoming need to do a good balanced run on an unfamiliar and challenging takeoff (light, changeable, thermal conditions), in a harness that restricted my run due to the extra stuff packed in anticipation of XC flying - something I'd done little of in the last thirteen years.
You also skipped a hook-in check for every single flight you'd taken in the course of the past thirteen years and before and this time there's gonna be a somewhat expensive consequence.
On takeoff the wind was changeable and though I had a moment of hesitation, I over-rode this feeling to focus on conditions and my run.
Irrelevant.
When the wind straightened I ran hard, the glider was nicely balanced and lifted well, giving me confidence that all was good but before my third step...
Don't ya just LOVE people who have CONFIDENCE that all is good before their third step?
...the glider was clearly too high.
No shit.
At that time I recognised my oversight.
Can you think of anything you could've done to recognize your oversight five seconds prior?
I think I pushed the glider away, and went with the tumble, in which fortunately I encountered no rocks and felt pretty good about.
I'm thrilled that you're so easily pleased.
It probably was not possible to pull myself into the control frame as I was wearing gloves and leaned through the control frame to maximise running speed, allowing the glider to float upwards with only moderate downwards pressure on down tubes, so as to transfer weight to the harness as soon as possible.
Yeah? I can think of a way to transfer weight to the glider a lot sooner than that. Well, in light air, the suspension anyway.
The rest of the matter involved watching my glider fly around nicely by itself, the mentioned ribbing from another pilot over the radio, and an awful lot of time spent locating and extracting the glider from hundred foot high trees, which I did not find until the next day and then only because of its previous sighting by a PG pilot, made difficult because it was suspended vertically with only a wing tip showing above the tree canopy, in dense forest, on an expansive mountainside with difficult access.

It is difficult to tell whether any damage occurred when the glider 'landed' and how much occurred getting it down from twenty to thirty feet up in adjacent trees I had to climb in order to throw and attach a rope from. Due to the terrain it took three person / trips to recover everything.
Compare/Contrast to the cost of doing a a couple thousand or whatever lift and tugs for your solo flights over the course of the previous years of your career.
Reflections:

I am now mainly a tandem pilot these days and in this intended 'solo' flight I neglected to follow both my previous solo practise of prior attachment to glider of harness...
Hey Robert... Don't ya just LOVE the way Aussie Methodists condition themselves to believe that any time they're in a harness while standing under a glider they're connected to it? I know, if he had been a TRUE Aussie Methodist he would NEVER have gotten into his harness unless it was connected to his glider. So we really don't need to count this as a failure of that strategy.
...and the tandem process of involving a launch assistant in my checks.
WHAT checks?
For solo flying I must resume my former practise...
Fer sure, Kevin. Keep up that conditioning. It'll do wonders for your confidence and self-esteem.
...and/or devise an improved verification system.
1. "OR"?!?! There is no "OR" in Aussie Methodism. You must be TOTALLY DEVOTED to it and ignore all entreaties of heretics and blasphemers.
2. Hook-in check maybe? Just kidding.
My current thought is to adapt my tandem verification system (an extra hang loop that is threaded through all karabiners and hang loops and secured).
Unless you're distracted.
This hang loop would have its own karabiner and be tied via a bungee cord to the keel at the A Frame apex. After pre flight checks, this loop would be pulled down and attached around the base bar, making it difficult to move the glider or attempt takeoff due to its obvious visibility and obstruction.
Which you disconnect when you need to move the glider and reconnect afterwards - unless you're distracted.
Then, as part of my pre takeoff check I would secure this loop through the karabiner, a separate harness loop, the hang loops and back onto itself, thus providing a back up in case of karabiner or hang loop failure, as well as verification of clip in.
Yeah, hang loop and karabiner failure. We could save so many lives if only more people would do something like this.
Whilst this mistake is disappointing to me and perhaps others too...
I'm NEVER disappointed by one of these, Kevin. The Davis Show would be SO BORING without them.
...there are several useful conclusions over and above reinforcement of the fundamental principal...
Oh good. FINALLY an unhooked launch incident from which we can learn something useful.
...that no matter how clever I/we sometimes believe myself/ourselves to occasionally be, I/we can (and shall) continue to overlook the obvious from time to time.
1. I think that what we can learn is that...

- The more clever someone is the more confident he is that he's gotten his shit together by the time he's in launch position.

- A total idiot has no confidence whatsoever that he's gotten his shit together by the time he's in launch position and is thus a lot more likely to make damn sure he has.

- There's an appallingly high percentage of clever people participating in this sport and gearing it for themselves without accommodation for the concerns of the minority of total idiots.

2. This is NOT - IN ANY MANNER SHAPE OR FORM - *OBVIOUS*. The fucking carabiner, engaged or not, is BEHIND YOU. That's why we've killed so many people this way.

Same with firearms. It's very seldom OBVIOUS whether they're loaded or not. The ONLY safe solution is to always assume that they ARE and treat them as such.

Same deal with the fucking glider. You MUST assume at all times that you're not connected and ONLY commit to launch right after you've tensioned the suspension to briefly make it OBVIOUS that you ARE connected.
The David O'Hare report into human factors associated with the tandem fatality where the passenger was not attached, highlights the need to better understand human factors associated with poor decision-making and errors of omission.
What a load of crap - by a clever person intended for clever people.
With tandem clip in failures to date in NZ we have gone from a pilot omission (around 1995), to a passenger omission (2003)...
Steve Parson / Eleni Zeri.
...back to your pilot omission (2006).
Rooney. And that total asshole never has been or will be a pilot.
One wonders whether there is a subconscious over-compensation for known and recent accidents that might predispose a pilot to committing the other type of oversight.
Do the fuckin' hook-in check. Do the fuckin' hook-in check every third flight if that's the best you can manage. It'll be a lot more useful to you and everybody else than spouting off all this useless bullshit.

It doesn't matter HOW or WHY this oversight occurs. We can bet the farm that it WILL occur and the only solid strategy for dealing with it is to ASSUME that it is about to EVERY TIME.
The most constructive part for me has been to successfully apply the early recognition and response to clip in failure;
Yeah Kevin, let's discuss the first couple of seconds AFTER you've committed to an unhooked launch.
- things we do in developing clip in verification systems for the greater good!
Except for hook-in checks!
Walking around trying to find the glider there were moments of regret about not attempting to hold on but contemplating that prospect becomes increasingly horrific with time.
The odds are pretty good that you'd have ended up as in a lifeless heap on the slope and the glider would've ended up pretty much as it did as things were.
The pilot has little time to make a rational decision about their response, and the pre-programming of a suitable response and early recognition of the warning signs may save a great deal of physical harm.
REAL pilots never EVER move a foot without having verified the connection a couple of seconds prior. Time is never a critical issue for them.

You, on the other hand ALWAYS commit to launch based upon some assembly and/or preflight ritual you (think you) remember having done five or ten minutes ago. You get away with it a few thousand times in a row and then you pay a big price and we all get to listen to all this lunatic crap about the best thing to do when one is trotting along and finds the basetube up at his chest.
I'm sure holding on even for two seconds makes the decision to hold or drop difficult, often wrong and sometimes fatal. Knowing that I was capable of committing that omission, and also knowing that I'd been in circumstances accentuating probability of this scenario, made it easier to recognise and respond to the error without hesitation.
Good job, Kevin. Totally righteous stuff.
Whilst I accept criticism for my oversight, I can indeed consider myself fortunate for a successful post incident response, for which I'm indebted to the contribution of knowledge of those who went before me, and the good analysis, critique and development of knowledge about human factors and post incident procedures by my peers, CAA and most importantly, Associate Professor, David O'Hare Dept of Psychology, Otago University, NZ.
Idiot.
It has been satisfying to read the postings and several interesting points strike a chord with me.
Pay extra attention to Rooney. I always find his comments solid. They're based on hundreds of hours and tows worth of experience and backed up by a keen intellect and knowledge of the issues when it comes to most things in general and hang gliding and aerotowing in particular. Wanted to go on record in case anyone reading wanted to know the one person to whose comments they should give the most weight.
Checks are not guarantees: I like this one and the constructive doubt this instils. Certainly we are able to convince ourselves of having done checks when we haven't, particularly if flying more than once in a day, or distracted for any reason, particularly in relation to omission errors. We easily switch off and fail to properly go through the checks even if talking them out loud, so clarity of mind, consistent sequence and external feedback are important factors in the quality of our checks.
Make the fucking check the beginning of your fucking launch sequence - EVERY TIME.
Hazard Elimination: Ultimately as David O'Hare states, being unable to proceed until the threat is removed is ideal (eg a car that cannot be started if already 'in gear'), hence the idea of a hang loop fastened to the base bar with a bungee chord between it and keel might may prevent takeoff and remind the pilot that checks are incomplete. On the negative, it makes moving the glider around takeoff difficult, and once attached, makes detachment on landing / takeoff more complicated and potentially dangerous in strong winds.
Yes.
'Flying When not in Peak Awareness is Dangerous': I'm paraphrasing the comments of others here and relate it back to previous comments about human behaviour and human factors. "If you are tired, fatigued, or just in the wrong state of mind, you are really vulnerable". It's often our lack of recognition (or denial) of vulnerability that leads us to omit a critical step. We cannot easily step outside ourselves and see ourselves as others do, or into our areas of ignorance. This is where we benefit from experience, constructive feedback, shared perceptions and knowledge.
We're NEVER flying or launching in states of peak awareness. It's a REALLY BAD IDEA to be engaging in activities which require peak awareness to have reasonably good expectations of survival. That's one of the big reasons I went into hang gliding instead of Grizzly cub kicking.
Fatigue &/or distraction &/or narrowing of focus are common factors in omission errors. Although it has been suggested that we shouldn't fly if fatigued, unwell, confused or emotionally disturbed we are likely to never be 100% free of such influences...
PRECISELY. I'm always shooting for twenty-five percent myself.
...and perhaps when at our worst, least likely to see our increased vulnerability.
Irrelevant. People who do hook-in checks don't launch unhooked, people who don't - DO.
Pilot Attitudes: People who are less methodical and conscientious about checks are more likely to commit errors.
And always make sure to stuff your battens in the precise same order. I just can't emphasize that enough.
Whilst thorough, safety conscious pilots still make mistakes; they are less likely to do so than those without checking systems or an awareness of their human fallibility.
Give me someone with a good doses of common sense, threat assessment capabilities, and muscle memory conditioning who knows he's an idiot any day over some anal retentive asshole who spends 45 minutes prior to every flight checking safety rings, backup loop condition, bar clearance, and chinstrap buckles.
Thinking about options if indeed something goes wrong...
If, indeed, "something" GOES wrong?
...might help to control the 'hurry up' impulse and put feelings of impetuousness into perspective.
I don't waste time thinking about options if, indeed, "something" GOES wrong - especially when they all totally suck. I assume I'm gonna die and that substantially decreases the probability of "something" GOING wrong.
- Thinking about previous accidents in similar situations has often worked for me.
If thinking about previous "ACCIDENTS" in similar situations OFTEN works for you then think about them just prior to EVERY launch. If you find something that WORKS and there are no downsides to it then MAXIMIZE its implementation ferchrisake.
Post Incident Response: It really helped in my situation to have thought through what to do in this situation. Certain factors were still outside my control but there are generic responses that apply in most cases e.g. letting go. It is probably better still to contemplate the best response in a variety of scenarios before each takeoff, integrating them into the flight plan. Inevitably things don't always go as expected or come in a 'one size fits all' box. Mental preparation for the unexpected vastly improves likelihood of appropriate response.
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? My mind started wandering at "Post Incident".
I shall look at publishing the O'Hare report in full to this or an alternative site and anyone wishing to do so on another or obtain it in full is welcome to contact me, provided the author is acknowledged and his work used constructively to promote awareness of human factors in aviation.
Great idea! And perhaps you could post a copy of the seminal work on aerotow weak links by Drs. Lisa Colletti and Tracy S. Tillman. It would be really wonderful if we could reference all of the best works on hang gliding topics at one place.
Happy & sustainable flying,
Kevin Rooke.
Idiot.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
JBBenson - 2006/09/22 03:42:25 UTC

Thanks for the report, very well written. Glad you are OK.
Yeah, thanks for the very well written report, Kevin. Really looking forward to the next one - and hoping that you'll be the one writing it.
Sterling - 2006/09/22 03:46:24 UTC

Kevin what I do to ensure I am hooked in is after i have done a hang check and everything else, I pick the glider up until I feel it tighten on my leg loops. This also puts the glider in a good position to take off. There was one time when I had a lot on my mind... my brother had been making moves on my wife and this was consuming my mind quite a lot. I had just threatened to kill him so wasn't really focused on the takeoff at hand. I went to the launch site and thought I had clipped in...
Tell me when it's EVER a good idea to think you're clipped in?
...but then I thought I better just check one more time by lifting the glider as high as I could and wouldn't you know I wasn't clipped in.
1. And the reason you weren't doing that for EVERY launch before was...?

2. Sorry, there is no procedure or strategy REMOTELY similar to that in the O'Hare Report - you're not allowed to use it. Now be a good lad, go back to that launch, and run off the ramp without your glider.
Ed Batakis - 2006/09/22 04:43:34 UTC

I agree with Sterling. I lift the glider till the straps are tight before I launch. This not only verifies that you are hooked in but also puts the glider where you want it to end up. You might save a step or two in your launch run this way depending on wind velocity. Why waste precious steps letting the glider lift itself to this position? If I set the glider down to wait for a better cycle, I lift it ALL THE WAY back up before starting my run. Sure, there is no foolproof check, but I think this is as close as you can get.
When combined with two or three seconds worth of preflight check, it's fuckin' bulletproof.
Robert Seckold - 2006/09/22 06:21:46 UTC

I agree to lift the glider up to test the leg loops and hang straps, although I have tried lifting my glider all of the way up to launch and have found it too hard to control the glider. I don't know if it is just the way my Sonic is made but I find the glider much easier to handle with it resting on my shoulders as I start my run or moving closer to the edge of the hill getting ready for a base bar take off. The extra leverage using my shoulders makes it easier for me to keep the nose down.
Fine, Robert. Then just lift it up to check two seconds before you're planning on launching - then do whatever the fuck you want.
Jaco Herbst - 2006/09/22 13:18:16 UTC

I can't

Ed, you recently bought a U2 right? Have you tried it with the U2?

Don't you have trouble lifting it up all the way?
I find it very difficult (almost impossible) to lift it up high (tight straps) I let it rest on my shoulders. Like relate2 described sort of.
With my Atlas I do not have a problem lifting it up high till the strap is tight.
I find it very difficult (almost impossible) to fly a glider while dangling from the basetube to get a good enough glide to make it to the LZ. So were I in your shoes I'd probably eat a few seconds of difficulty JUST PRIOR TO EVERY LAUNCH.

Suggestion: Stitch some velcro to your leg loops so's you can take up the slack and won't hafta lift as high. The instant you get airborne the velcro will blow and you'll have the slack you desire for flying and landing.
Michael Bradford - 2006/09/22 14:25:24 UTC

Interesting passage: (emphasis mine)

Professor David O'Hare:
The omission of a necessary action is a relatively common type of error in aviation and other activities. The necessary conditions for its occurrence are that the operator is skilled and that a well-practiced activity is carried out in familiar surroundings.
And this helps us deal with the problem how?
Christian Williams - 2006/09/22 14:43:48 UTC
...I find the glider much easier to handle with it resting on my shoulders as I start my run...
Sure. If no wind this is the only way. But as you run the glider flies (don't hold it down on your shoulders). As the glider flies, just before lift-off, you should feel the leg straps tugging. If not, you're unhooked.
And, on a lot of ramps which account for a huge percentage of the foot launched flying that we do, you're dead.
Some people develop the habit of holding the glider down on their shoulders during the run, perhaps because they feel they are controlling the angle of attack better. As they launch they release the downtubes and the hang strap tensions suddenly and it can feel quite smooth.

One recommendation of the recent clinic I attended...
Greblo.
...was to not do this. Always let the glider fly as soon as it will during the takeoff run.

Looking back at Kevin's report, it appears that letting the glider fly and being able to recognize early that something was wrong is what saved him from injury.
This is pure, unadulterated, moronic lunacy, Christian.

You were smart enough to figure out, on your own, what Steve Kinsley did about the fucking hang check - that attaching significance to checks made prior to getting to launch position is likely to get you killed.

But now you're talking about monitoring glider level / suspension tension AFTER commencing launch? Are there ANY students of Joe's resistant to getting forty points knocked off their IQs?

Figure out the difference between:

- a hook-in check and the preflight bullshit that Joe teaches; and
- a minute and a second.
Robert Seckold - 2006/09/22 22:41:51 UTC

Hi Christian,

Just to clarify my comment about holding the glider on my shoulders. I do this only as I am standing on the hill getting ready for my launch, especially if the wind is switching around and I am getting a sense of the best place to launch.
The best place for you to launch is on a long shallow slope with lots of bushes over the lower stretch.
In certain wind directions at Stanwell you have to move ten feet one way or the other to get a smooth airflow for launch. I always let the glider rise and rotate my hands around the uprights during my run.
Yeah. DURING your run. Can't see much of a problem with that.
David Williamson - 2006/09/22 22:59:06 UTC

At the takeoff at Laveno the locals tell you that, to keep the nose of the glider down and the wings level, "Glider heavy on the shoulders all the time - good, glider not heavy on the shoulders - bad!"
How do the locals at Laveno get of nose of the glider down and the wings level after they're proned out?
Mind you, if you realised that you weren't clipped in, I'm not sure you'd be able to do anything about it.
Why don't we start a new thread - no, a new forum - no, a new organization for people who refuse to check their suspension before launch and want to know the best ways of aborting unhooked launches after a few steps down the slope or ramp.
(I did see an Italian pilot get really agitated on the ramp once. He shouted a lot in Italian and climbed back down the steps, with his glider. He had been standing, ready to run, when he realised that he wasn't clipped in.
How? I thought all the people at the takeoff at Laveno were required to hold the glider down on their shoulders.
There then followed an awful lot of "Mamma mia!"ing.)
Kevin Rooke - 2006/09/23 21:32:51 UTC

Yes Christian, your comments fit well with my assessment of the situation and understanding of launch technique in these conditions.
Think about that new organization I'm recommending. It could really use guys like you.
I agree that in soarable conditions weight on sholders means the nose angle is not likely to lead to loss of control.
Yeah, I think that's almost certainly the best way to launch these things. But maybe after you get your glider back to airworthy condition you can try a few more like that and tell us for sure.
Sterling, thanks for your insights.
1. What insights? People have been doing and saying this since the Seventies.

2. "Thanks for your insights" - meaning you're gonna keep studying the O'Hare Report and doing things the same way you have before and expecting better results.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Andy - 2006/09/24 18:42:16 UTC

Sorry if others have addressed this after the second page but I don't have time right now to read the rest of the thread (working thirteen-hour days through the weekend sucks) and wanted to say something on this.
I will design a very simple electrical sensor system in the carabiner...
Relying on technology (I know, you said an "extra step") is not the answer here. Technology usually just adds many more failure points when you are supplementing or replacing what is essentially a very basic function. Keep it simple.
Personally I feel the only way of making sure that your harness is attached to your glider when you launch is to hook it up to your glider during your set up of the glider. As someone else mentioned though it does not take care of your leg loops etc.
I believe there was an article in the USHGA mag about a fellow who trusted this and inadvertenly hooked his caribiner to just his parachute (not his harness strap). It hung there just fine, felt like it was hooked in, was visually checked by several people before launch, but never experienced the weight of his body until launch, at which time, you guessed it, it was a pretty long risor and he was hurt pretty bad. So that has drawbacks too.

I'll read the rest of this thread tomorrow!
So that has drawbacks too.
THERE IS NO DRAWBACK TO ATTACHING YOUR HARNESS TO YOUR GLIDER AND INSPECTING IT.

There are HUGE drawbacks to:
- not:
-- connecting your harness to your carabiner
-- checking that your harness is connected to your carabiner
- omitting a hook-in check because of your confidence in your assembly and preflight procedures
- moving a glider to launch position while suited up and connected in many circumstances
- incorporating preflight inspections in a hook-in check
- EVER assuming:
-- you are hooked in
-- ANYONE is hooked in
...was visually checked by several people before launch...
Bullshit.

- If ANYONE had ACTUALLY visually checked the assembly the issue would've been identified. The "pilot" and his "friends" glanced at it and made an ASSUMPTION.

- And if the assumption was that the harness was connected to the carabiner everyone should have noted that parachute WASN'T. (Makes one wonder if Bo Hagewood was numbered amongst his "friends".)

Why is it that all the total morons in this sport think that one suspension related procedure precludes one or more others?

- Connecting the harness to the glider before getting into it does not make it impossible to do a walk-through or fucking hang check.

- Using the fucking moronic Aussie Method does not - despite what one hears from one hundred percent of its zombies in good standing - prevent one from doing a hook-in check.

- A lift and tug two seconds prior to launch does not prevent one from having visually checked his carabiner and leg loops five minutes prior.

And nobody in the thread even comments on this.
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/24 21:19:29 UTC

Ok, this thread's a million miles long already (and mostly my fault at that), so I'm not going to feel bad about making it a tad longer.
Hell Jim, you've never felt bad about a single goddam thing in your entire hundred miles south of useless life - including diving your passenger into the powerlines. Absolutely no need to start now.
A couple things to chew on here...

There isn't one sure-fire answer.
If there was, we'd all be doing it already.
Yeah, Jim, it's EXACTLY like aerotow equipment. It's beyond the scope of human engineering to design a release that works more than two thirds of the time 'cause if it were WE wouldn't ALL have been using Wallaby, Quest, Lookout, and bent pin releases, standard aerotow weak links, and hook knives for the past twenty years.
This thread I think makes this obvious... every single thing people have put forth as "the way", someone else has show how it can fail. Every single one.
Except for the hook-in check. But that can't possibly be of any value. If there were, we'd all be doing it already.
Argue about the details, but every single one fails.
Yep. For those of us who've been successfully employing lift and tug for decades - it's just a matter of time. We're all doomed.
Here's the real trick of it in my book (especially with new technology, but it applies to methods too)...
How many crayons come with your book?
Whatever you change only works on that glider/site/whatever.
Can you tell me on what glider/site/whatever lift and tug doesn't work? I'd really live to know so I can get my obligatory unhooked launch out of the way as soon as possible.
What happens when you're off flying somewhere else or flying someone else's gear?
Nothing.

What happens to you - and your victim - when you're flying a mind numbingly routine commercial tandem operation at the same fucking launch using the exact same fucking gear you've used hundreds of times before?
Someone suggested putting a red flag on the nose of the glider that gets removed after the hang check... this way, if you haven't hooked in, it's really obvious. Say this works for you and you get used to it. Then you borrow a glider or fly a different site on a rented glider. In your world, no red streamer means "good to go".

Take aussie vs clipin if you like... what happens when you're at a site that you can't use the aussie method with? (I can name you some cliff launches that you can't if you care). Now you're used to the security of the aussie method, and it's not there.
One of the foundations of Aussie Methodism is that there are no sites or circumstances in which climbing into your harness while connected to the glider is the slightest bit disadvantageous, let alone difficult or dangerous. But a long time adherent can still EASILY execute his obligatory unhooked launch just by getting into the harness without it being connected to the glider once. The conditioning to always assume one is hooked in when in a harness and under a glider kicks in REAL well. No brainer. It can even work...

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.
...two or three times a day.
You might say that the fear will help you, but your instincts will say otherwise (the fear is highlevel thought, and highlevel thought is the first thing that gets tossed out of your brain..
This is where your keen intellect gets you in trouble, Jim. Those of us with extremely dull intellects...
Steve Kinsley - 1998/02/02 01:59

I would like to second Judy's hook in post. I particularly like the emphasis on implementing the USHGA standard of verifying that you are hooked in just prior to launch. In practice, that means a visual check or a tug on the harness lines after ALL CHECKLIST ITEMS (including a hang check) have been completed.

I started doing that after my near launch unhooked from High Rock several years ago. It works. I think I have a reasonable claim to being the world's most scatterbrained living hang glider pilot. But I can say that I don't think I am going to get my lunch by failing to hook in.
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.
...have no high level thought capabilities or processes. So our fear circuitry is immeshed in our two plus two equals whatever and breathing center. And that never gets tossed.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/06 22:57:44 UTC

At High Rock Eddie Miller saved my sorry butt. Sure woke me up. Too bad Bill did not have a scare like that. I now have a nice DSL line through the tangle of Alzheimer plaque. That was at least ten years ago and there is still not a blade of grass on that neuron path. So that is not how I am going to die.
So we stay scared, never forget to do the hook-in check, and never launch unhooked.
The Press - 2006/03/15

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.
What a CURSE it must be to have a keen intellect. I really feel for ya sometimes, buddy. And your passengers.
...else we'd never launch unhooked in the first place).
Some of us haven't. And I've always wondered... What's it feel like?

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1238
NZ accident who was the pilot?
Lauren Tjaden - 2006/02/21

Yes, the Jim in the article is OUR Jim, Jim Rooney. It was a tandem hang gliding accident, and it involved a power line. I have no more information about the accident itself. The passenger apparently was burned and is hospitalized, but is not seriously injured. Jim sustained a brain injury.
Do you think your brain injury has put you at a reduced level of risk?

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25015
Zippy pounds in
Davis Straub - 2011/09/02 18:37:09 UTC

Concussions are in fact very serious and have life long effects. The last time I was knocked out what in 9th grade football. I have felt the effects of that ever since. It changes your wiring.
Image
Image

How 'bout Davis?
Argue if you will about the examples (whatever)...
With someone with as keen an intellect as yours and the stint in the ICU to prove it? No way, dude. Anything you say is golden.
...the trick of it isn't the method to me...
Oh, do tell us more, Jim. I so do value your opinion.
...it's how using new things doesn't work (and actually causes problems) in strange ways (like when going back to "normal" flying after getting used to the new method/device).

Enough about what doesn't work though... what does?
Nothing. If it did you'd already be using it. You're a professional pilot cursed with a keen intellect using the very best of procedures and excluding stuff - like hook-in checks which don't work (because if they did we'd all be using them) and you were half killed just seven months ago. It's inevitable for the rest of us. All we can hope for is some trees to break our falls.
Since we don't have a plug that only fits one way, we fall on lesser methods, but some are better than others...
Avoid hook-in checks at all costs. That strategy only APPEARS to work because there's not enough people using it to rack up the number of flights required to produce an unhooked launch. Stick with the hang check - it's got a much more extensive track record and is a proven strategy.
In particular... Third Party Verification.
But for the love of God, don't EVER clue your passenger in to what's going on and involve her. We don't want members of the general public, potential pilots, and students thinking there are risks and dangers involved in this sport or to undermine the decades worth of crash data suppression and buck passing on which we've worked so hard.
You won't save you, but your friends might.
Not always, but they're more reliable than you.
Not if they have keen intellects like all of YOUR friends.
Why do you think that airline checklists (yes our lovely checklists) are check-verified by pilot AND copilot?

That's all I got for ya.
Thank you for excluding any mention of any kind of hook-in check. I'll make a point of eliminating it from my procedures.
The other topics have been beat to death here.
Especially lift and tug.
If there was an answer, we'd all already be doing it.
Even the people with the keen intellects?
User avatar
Tad Eareckson
Posts: 9161
Joined: 2010/11/25 03:48:55 UTC

Re: You are NEVER hooked in.

Post by Tad Eareckson »

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4247
Hook in failure in New Zealand
Christian Williams - 2006/09/24 22:30:14 UTC

Every pilot should perform a hook-in check the instant before launch.
Yes. The INSTANT before launch.
Any procedure you use before that can fail. We all know that.
Correct. Last minute checks are disasters. But I've NEVER heard of a lift and tugger failing to do that check or launching unhooked.
A hook-in check is not a hang check. It is a specific, simple, action:
It's SUPPOSED to be.
Before picking up the glider to launch...
The regulation says:
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
NOT:
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior picking up the glider to launch.
...step through the control frame, turn and observe that the carabiner is properly connected.
1. Then turn back around, step back through the control frame, pick up the glider, move to launch position, trim the glider, and wait for a cycle.

2. You DON'T NEED to AND MUST NOT observe that the carabiner is properly connected.

- You did that already in your preflight inspection.

- Doing it again is a complex and labor and time intensive operation which you WILL NOT REPEAT if you've done it - or do if you THINK you've done it - within fifteen seconds of launch, as Joe Greblo's students Phill Bloom and Gregory Jones have so graphically demonstrated.
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC

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.
- Let's rewrite that passage:
Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC

When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of turn and look is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a lift and tug. I often do not see pilots doing a lift and tug. Why should they? They just did a turn and look and they are surrounded by friends who will make sure this box is checked.
It's EXACTLY the same issue.

- And IT DOESN'T CATCH YOUR LEG LOOPS. And, while partial hook-in and leg loops can both be and have both been deadly issues, the latter is BY FAR a more common and easily committed failure than the former.

- This is an absolute no brainer.
It is the last-second, final confirmation.
It isn't. It's a preflight check. It's the stupid negligent crap Joe Greblo and his Windsports crew are teaching everyone - with total contempt for the stated rating requirements and total disregard of the havoc it's wreaking.
Yes, my club has the same number of unhooked launches as anybody else--maybe more. At least one each summer. More than that, probably.
Goddam right. That sphere of influence is a total fucking disaster area.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that a hook-in check will prevent launching unhooked.
WHAT? Think about what you're saying here, Christian.

A HOOK-IN CHECK strategy WILL prevent unhooked launches. But...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25550
Failure to hook in.
Steve Davy - 2011/10/24 10:27:04 UTC

OK- how many times does he need confirm that he is hooked in? And when would be the best time to make that confirmation?
Brian McMahon - 2011/10/24 21:04:17 UTC

Once, just prior to launch.
Christian Williams - 2011/10/25 03:59:58 UTC

I agree with that statement.

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.
...a preflight check used in place / to the exclusion of a last INSTANT hook-in check WILL accelerate the rate of them.

"The last one before takeoff" can be one, five, ten minutes before commitment to flight and if it happens more than five or so SECONDS before launch it IS building "a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight."
So what check is most important?
A hook-in check. But that's a virtually unknown practice anywhere in the world - and especially in Southern California.
Post Reply