ah yes... an other 'foolproof' answer.
of course, being hooked in ain't gonna help when your pip pins aren't in or your legloops.
01. In the under five month interval between the time when your asshole buddy Steve Wendt sent his student Bill Priday to his unhooked launch death at Whitwell and the time you tried to kill your passenger in the course of your unhooked launch event at Coronet Peak there were forum discussions and items in the magazine in which people, including Steve Kinsley and Rob Kells, advised lift and tug - which catches leg loops and is the most effective of all hook-in checks.
02. You totally ignored those advisories.
03. You have also totally ignored the advisories here as well.
04. Following your typical pattern of not responding after you've painted yourself into a corner.
05. But we're gonna substitute something sane for the crap with which Joe Greblo indoctrinates his victims and take the leg loops issue off the table.
06. Yeah, we should not do a proper hook-in check 'cause that would open one up to a structural failure due to a missing pip pin.
07. However, if one does an idiot hang check, which...
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/19 18:30:03 UTC
The first thing you learn, if you live, is that your precious hang check isn't going to save you.
...even a brain dead piece 'o shit like you can be able to eventually figure out (given just the right severity of impact) won't work to do the job it's touted to, and excludes anything resembling a hook-in check then installation of all pip pins is not only guaranteed, but one maintains the ability to preflight the glider anyway to make sure.
08. So how come you're not saying that we shouldn't be forced to fly standard aerotow weak links 'cause - even though there's NEVER a significant problem precipitated by a standard aerotow weak link blow - it's not ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it will blow in a lockout...
Dynamic Flight
On aerotow a weak link will limit the duration of a lockout because the short rope and lack of direct tension control gives less scope for the glider to diverge from the appropriate flight path - of course you could still hit the ground before the weak link breaks.
...in time to keep you from slamming into the runway?
09. So how come even though it's BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that...
Gil Dodgen - 1995/01
All of this reminds me of a comment Mike Meier made when he was learning to fly sailplanes. He mentioned how easy it was to land a sailplane (with spoilers for glide-path control and wheels), and then said, "If other aircraft were as difficult to land as hang gliders no one would fly them."
As a result, most hang glider pilots land badly.
Sorry guys, but you do.
Will this change?
I doubt it.
It's this way everywhere I've seen, so I have no reason to believe it won't continue.
...will NEVER be a working reality we've gotta listen to you for thousands of pages babbling on about how to execute consistently safe standup landings?
10. How come when somebody's pushing an unhooked launch prevention strategy that you don't use it's not only gotta have a 100.00 percent success rate but pick up all your pip pins as well - but towing equipment that you're pushing...
Oh it happens.
I have, all the guys I work with have.
(Our average is 1 in 1,000 tows)
Oh yeah... an other fun fact for ya... ya know when it's far more likely to happen? During a lockout. When we're doing lockout training, the odds go from 1 in 1,000 to over 50/50.
...is just fine not even making it up to the halfway mark?
11. Asshole.
And nobody on that thread even comments on that astounding level of lunacy.
The Oz Report forum is not a campfire. It is not a place to hang out with your bud and have a beer while slurring your words. It is a serious forum for pilots who wish to write cogently and engage the intellect of others.
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.
Ok, here's something to chew on, while we're on the topic.
It's not going to taste nice, but it's the god's honest truth.
He's missing GOD'S HONEST TRUTH - as exclusively revealed by His special envoy to hang gliding.
these failures may seem simple at first... the 'solutions' may seem just as simple... but reality isn't.
Fuck you. Always assume you're not hooked in, check within five seconds of launch to make sure that you are, gamble that your pip pins are installed.
extremely experienced pilots land gear up (f86 airshow plane, pilot had thousands of hours). others crash without power because they're thottling up the engine they shut down, not the good one. (c5 in deleware)
Yeah, but isn't it wonderful that we fly in a flavor of aviation in which...
Jim Rooney - 2011/06/12 13:57:58 UTC
Most common HG injury... spiral fracture of the humerus.
...it's virtually impossible to forget to put our "gear" down - and, due to the hardwiring which begins on Day One, Flight One, think of wheels, which are permanently "down", as gear - and...
Jim Rooney - 2011/09/02 19:41:27 UTC
Please note that the weaklink *saved* her ass. She still piled into the earth despite the weaklink helping her... for the same reason it had to help... lack of towing ability. She sat on the cart, like so many people insist on doing, and took to the air at Mach 5.
...any loss of power...
Jim Rooney - 2011/08/26 02:44:10 UTC
The "purpose" of a weaklink is to increase the safety of the towing operation. PERIOD.
...is an unmitigated benefit to the pilot.
ask yourself why such experienced pilots make such 'simple' mistakes. time and time again, the root of the problem isn't proceedural or being 'sloppy' or plain 'forgetting'. these are 'errors of omission'. it's not the same as 'forgetting', it has to do with how our brains handle proceedures (lists if youu will).
OUR brains - asshole?
Not all brains are created equal. Mine functions well enough to be able to hit a shift key every now and then and spell "procedural", "procedures", and "you".
But you go right on ahead preaching to your adoring Davis Show zombies, Jim. The dregs who respect and listen to you deserve every bit of what happens to them - and the more of them you and Davis get killed... http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25129
Ridgerodent gone?
Sam Kellner - 2011/09/10 02:24:50 UTC
I was working up some harmony for Rooney Tunes.
...the easier - and more enjoyable - my job gets.
put anything on the list that you like... write it all down if you like...
the problem isn't the list. even though the list may have merrit, it's still a list, and thus sucepible to errors of omission.
Sorry, I missed the part where Christian said anything about a list.
tell yourself anything you like about your proceedure or 'routine', but without a third party check, you're still vulnerable. you're doubly so if you believe you're not.
I get what you're saying here, Jim. You should never make the slightest effort to establish a hook-in check procedure because it probably won't work. I'll do what I can to extinguish mine.
Christian Williams - 2006/09/25 04:24:43 UTC
This is all much simpler than you're making it.
C'mon, Christian.
Jim Rooney - 2011/08/25 04:55:25 UTC
It always amazes to hear know it all pilots arguing with the professional pilots.
This is a PROFESSIONAL PILOT you're arguing with, here.
Kinsley Sykes - 2011/08/31 11:35:36 UTC
But if you don't want to listen to the folks that actually know what they are talking about, go ahead.
Feel free to go the the tow park that Tad runs...
Do you want to listen to the folks who actually know what they're talking about? Or do you want to go to the mountain Christian runs?
Jim's launched unhooked. You haven't. So who do ya think we should listen to?
JBBenson - 2006/09/25 04:45:16 UTC
Jim probably feels he has special insight.
Yeah. The motherfucker has never had the slightest doubt that he walks on water and shits lavender scented gold ingots. And the more pooches he screws the more he feels he has the special insight to make his pronouncements superior to the counsel of people who've never screwed any.
He may or may not be right.
Oh PLEEEASE. Cite me a single example of him ever being wrong about anything.
Jaco Herbst - 2006/09/25 05:01:49 UTC
simple actually...just hook up
I agree with Christian, Jim.
Ban him, Davis.
People fall asleep behind the wheel of a car.
Nobody's ever fallen asleep on a launch ramp.
Scuba divers forget to breathe out in an emergency ascent.
I doubt that ever happens to anyone after the level of training comparable to a hang glider pilot getting wired to pull in in response to a stall. People DO, however, kill themselves by making emergency ascents too fast (nitrogen).
Paraglider pilots forget to fasten their legstraps.
Hang glider pilots forget to hook up.
REAL hang glider pilots DO forget to hook up - but they NEVER forget to verify as the beginnings of their launch sequences.
The penalty for any of the mistakes above is severe. Statistically, there will always be these accidents.
1. These aren't accidents.
2. Statistically, these INCIDENTS *ONLY* happen to people who rely on preflight procedures ensure and reassure themselves that they're hooked in at the moment of launch - hang checkers, turn and lookers, and Aussie Methodists.
No matter what you do.
Bullshit. This guy - who could be Steve Kinsley, Rob Kells, Nobody, or Yours Truly:
will NEVER launch unhooked. Zero possibility. You can take that to the bank.
And proper and universal hook-in check training could knock unhooked launches down so close to zero that the difference wouldn't be worth talking about.
Fortunately the chances of this (four points above) ever happening to me is very little to none. That is a fact.
Out of thousands of launches every year, only a few unhook accident. I'm not overly concerned.
You're rolling dice. You're rolling dice with really good odds but you're still rolling dice.
Just follow Christain's advice and walk through the A frame. If I then fail to hook up correctly or I fail to forget to do this (walk through the control frame... and of course this is possible) then maybe I'm willing to believe that I'm a fatalist and it was my turn to go.
Yeah. You are not confident in this strategy and the evidence coming out of Joe's students tells us you shouldn't be.
Also the harness gets hooked up (like I'm sure most pilots do nowadays) before the time and is part of my 360 preflight check.
If you use your assembly and preflight procedures to ensure proper connections your odds of plummeting go down.
If you use your assembly and preflight procedures to boost your confidence that you won't plummet your odds of plummeting go up.
Let's keep it simple... just hook up! If you forget, you are going to die (well good chance).
This helps anyone how?
I'm really actually more concerned about legstraps than hooking up!
Both oversights have gotten people equally dead.
Has anyone on this board ever launched with legstraps undone? I almost did ...ONCE.
I'm always surprised how few ramps have a large sign printed on them saying "are you hooked in?"
I'm always surprised that no one's ever put up a large sign stating:
YOU ARE ABOUT TO DIE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT HOOKED IN - ASSHOLE!
We've got the drop-off in front of the ramp. If you can get people to stop ASSUMING that they'll be flying straight out or out and up from the ramp and get a proper appreciation of the potential danger of that situation then the drop-off is all the sign they're EVER gonna need.
I thoroughly agree with the points about how easy it is to forget "routine" checks.
If, five seconds from launch, you think about the check that's gonna keep from happening to you what happened to Bill Priday as "routine" - on par with making sure all your battens are tensioned and your goddam helmet is buckled - yeah, it's easy to forget.
If, however, you have a proper perspective on what's going on...
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.
...you've already won a good percentage of the battle.
I went through the British military parachute course on one of the last groups to use the balloon for their first jump. This contraption took a group of parachutist up to 800 feet and you jumped straight out. With a large round canopy and zero airspeed it took a bloody long time for your parachute to open - meaning that your reserve was little more than a psychological comfort.
Like the hook knife the Flight Park Mafia insists we carry for towing.
Generally you went up with a couple of instructors who hooked up the static lines of all the soldiers and then hooked their own up. Often one or both of the instructors would jump themselves.
Just before I was due to parachute the chief instructor in the basket was on his 10,000th parachute jump and was stoked about making the jump. Everyone apart from the instructors had jumped, and the chief instructor was waiting to last. As the more junior instructor left the basket he just mentioned to the other instructor "you know you are not hooked up?".
When the chief instructor finally reached us on the ground he was white as a sheet. This guy had made 10,000 jumps without a serious mistake but had been within seconds of jumping without hooking up.
Do you think a sign at the exit stating:
IS YOUR STATIC LINE HOOKED IN?"
a sign that's always there, that he's seen for all of his previous 99,999 jumps and the couple hundred thousand that he's supervised, would have made the slightest difference?
What if there were a procedure whereby if you EVER failed to put your hand on your static line near its connection and pull it within five seconds of leaving the door you'd be doing guard duty for the next four weeks?
I am absolutely convinced that we will all make one of these mistakes if we fly long enough, it's just most of us never do that much flying or are lucky enough to get away with a scare like this guy.
Look at the mindset, strategy, and record of Rob Kells. It blows what you're saying out of the water.
I used that package myself for a couple of decades and am absolutely convinced that NO ONE who employs it will ever make that mistake?
Think of how many times you heard of someone almost launching unhooked.
Think of who it is, who his "instructors" were, what he was trained to do, and what he does. I one hundred percent guarantee you that he will not be a last two seconds lift and tugger.
Sorry for the lateness. I don't do internet on weekends.
Tad wrote: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?
Maybe a few of your quotes would help you figure this one out:
Tad wrote:If you're smart enough to realize you're dumb enough to make the mistake you'll always be scared enough to not make the mistake.
Tad wrote: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
Memory is one of those things that does NOT improve with age.
I had my helmet blow off my head on an approach. The helmet was tight fitting full face helmet. The thermal breakaway stopped the glider cold in the air. The sound and sensation of the helmet removal was very disorienting. I had sense enough to fly the glider and land it. I forgot to latch the strap on the helmet.
I got away without leg loops once as it was the old style CG that you wiggle into. Once I figured out that I would not fall out when upright, I flew around for a while before landing uneventfully. Yep, I forgot to fasten the leg straps.
I fly over water so that harness got retired and I could probably fall out of my present harness.
Turn and learn includes a check for helmet and leg loops.
Turn and learn works for me and I do not care who is behind me when I do this.
Starting to make sense?
Tad wrote: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?
Following this kind of logic, the lift and tug is both useless and redundant.
I will continue with the turn and learn, you can do it all during the setup.
If someone offers a hang check, I will take it.
Tad wrote: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?
I have flown with loops/knots etc in the hang strap. Those are always worth an extra look and examination.
Tad wrote:
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.
This test provides false security. 75 lbs is less than 1/10 of the supposed ultimate strength of the wire. Visible damage to the wire should have been visible to inspection long before it fails at 75 lbs.
I once flew with just a bolt in the corner bracket. I did not discover it until disassembly.
Tad wrote: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.
Might have but then friction could have held it together for your miniscule 75 lb test.
Tad wrote:5. I blew a top sidewire at the kingpost doing a load test in my front yard.
I watched a top sidewire fail during a landing. Postfailure inspection revealed old frayed wire along with the fresh breaks.
Tad wrote: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.
I have made 2 complete wire sets for 2 different gliders. I know the failure modes of flying wires. I have watched a nico/wire assembly taken to failure on an Instron. The nicos did not fail. The wire itself failed. I do inspect bottom wires and kingpost wires seriously before every flight.
Tad wrote:
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.
Wrong! Wires DO stretch a small amount over time. Take an old set of wires and compare them to a new factory set of wires. Old wires will be a tad longer.
Tad wrote:
...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.
I would bet that the life of the wire would be appreciably shortened with that kind of regular treatment. The nicer you are to the wires, the longer they last. I do not believe the change your wires every year mantra.
Tad wrote: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 do not think you will get many sales.
Tad wrote: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've got a proper grasp of the logic.
I do not do preflights based on time frames. Setup takes as long as it takes. Turn and learn on all launches takes about 15 secs. Your life has a value set by you. Take as long or as little according to the value you have set for your life.
Do I get a kewpie doll for completing the questionnaire?
No rush. This discussion isn't particularly time critical (ironically).
Memory is one of those things that does NOT improve with age.
Those two quotes were of comments made with respect to unhooked launch issue - which is what, and only what, the hook-in check, at the beginning of the launch sequence, is designed to prevent.
The need for the hook-in check at launch position has been demonstrated at the cost of lives of people who were and had verified that they were hooked in behind the ramp and at launch position a short time before.
There are no incidents I know of in which someone who did a preflight check of his harness and suspension behind the ramp five minutes before arrival at launch position found himself at launch position minus leg loops, partially hooked in, or with twisted suspension.
Using procedures to guard against risks that don't exist always carry costs and can sometimes increase overall risk.
skips the fucking hang check he has a much more comfortable flight.
- If this guy:
Luen Miller - 1994/11
After a short flight the pilot carried his glider back up a slope to relaunch. The wind was "about ten mph or so, blowing straight in." Just before launch he reached back to make sure his carabiner was locked. A "crosswind" blew through, his right wing lifted, and before he was able to react he was gusted sixty feet to the left side of launch into a pile of "nasty-looking rocks." He suffered a compound fracture (bone sticking out through the skin) of his upper right leg. "Rookie mistake cost me my job and my summer. I have a lot of medical bills and will be on crutches for about five months."
doesn't reach back to make sure his fucking locking carabiner is locked (à la Steve Pearson) - or, better yet, uses a nonlocking carabiner - he has a nice afternoon.
Forgot his helmet, unhooked to get it. Launched without hooking up again. Hung onto control bar for several minutes, fell four hundred feet. Body found four days later.
leaves his fucking helmet in the car he's gonna live three times as long as he actually managed.
I had sense enough to fly the glider and land it.
Good job. You demonstrated that you're not a total moron in desperate need of pruning from the gene pool.
I forgot to latch the strap on the helmet.
So do I all the time. Interesting anecdote but, in a discussion about unhooked launches, the issue of chin straps still has way less than zero justification for inclusion. It's a dangerous distraction.
Turn and learn includes a check for helmet...
Not interested.
...and leg loops.
1. That's what people say about hang checks. Yet people who do hang checks have fallen out of their harnesses and died. A hang check also checks for undersurface batten insertion if you care to define it that way (kinda the way Davis defines splitting the tow force between pilot and glider as three point) - but in reality these are separate checks one CHOOSES to do in the course of another.
2. And being turned does NOTHING to facilitate checking the helmet and leg loops - quite the contrary in fact.
3. If you've checked your leg loops once you generally hafta get out of your harness and put it back on - missing BOTH of them - before you can get into trouble. People can and do forget their statuses after unhooking. I know of NO ONE who's forgotten getting out of and back into a harness in the last five minutes.
Turn and learn works for me...
A person who skips preflight and hook-in checks entirely but has sung "On the Good Ship Lollipop" on the ramp within five minutes of launch every time can claim that works for him if he hasn't once plummeted from his glider in a thousand launches.
Tommy.
First, I sent Steve a bunch of info offline. Hopefully it clears things up a bit for him.
Unfortunately, he's stumbled onto some of Tad's old rantings and got suckered in. So most of this was just the same old story of debunking Tad's lunacy... again .
See, the thing is... "we", the people that work at and run aerotow parks, have a long track record.
This stuff isn't new, and has been slowly refined over decades.
We have done quite literally hundreds of thousands of tows.
We know what we're doing.
Sure "there's always room for improvement", but you have to realize the depth of experience you're dealing with here.
There isn't going to be some "oh gee, why didn't I think of that?" moment. The obvious answers have already been explored... at length.
Anyway...
Weaklink material... exactly what Davis said.
It's no mystery.
It's only a mystery why people choose to reinvent the wheel when we've got a proven system that works.
...proven 130 pound Greenspot standard aerotow weak links "WORK" for everyone at Flight Park Mafia controlled runways - regardless of how many thousands of crashes they precipitate.
...and I do not care who is behind me when I do this.
Yeah. I'm well familiar with the phenomenon in hang gliding of people not caring about the next guy.
Starting to make sense?
Fer sure.
Following this kind of logic, the lift and tug is both useless and redundant.
1. Meaning:
- you've never learned anything in the course of that 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; and
- aside from the pilot unhooking himself - which is a problem positively and easily identified by lift and tug - there has never 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.
2. No. You're not following any kind of logic.
- The combination of preflight procedures completed behind the ramp and a bare bones minimal hook-in check as the beginning of the launch sequence is the most efficient and effective means of keeping one safely connected to his glider and has been so documented thousands of times over.
- Turning and learning on the ramp is a third rate way of doing business which solves imaginary problems and won't pick up a lethal real one that lifting, tugging, and not turning does.
I will continue with the turn and learn...
I haven't heard you - or anybody else - tell me about anything that was ever learned by turning on the ramp which couldn't and shouldn't have been learned - responsibly - behind it.
A hang check is part of preflighting your equipment. You do it in the setup area - not on the launch or the ramp. When you get in line you are hooked in and ready to go. No going down for a hang check cum hook in check.
That's how a real pilot operates.
...you can do it all during the setup.
I do all that can and should be done during the setup and preflight - and on the ramp do what needs to be done while minimizing the bullshit, inconvenience, and time costs to others.
If someone offers a hang check, I will take it.
If twenty people line up in front of you to offer a hang check how far through do you get before you're confident enough in your clearance to allow the launch line to start moving forward again?
I have flown with loops/knots etc in the hang strap. Those are always worth an extra look and examination.
1. How many extra looks and examinations?
2. Assuming it isn't one of those insane configurations like the ones that killed Leonard Rabbitz and Tom Sapienza, what have you ever found and what are you thinking you might find?
3. Wouldn't one good look and examination in the setup or staging area be better than half a dozen half assed ones wherever?
4. People have missed suspension issues on preflight and at the ramp which didn't kill them until the flight had been underway for a while. So why stop the checks just before getting airborne? Why not continue turning and learning at your loops, knots, etc. in the hang strap every five minutes or so during the flight? That would give you a chance to climb up into the control frame that you wouldn't have otherwise.
5. Is there a possibility that one or more of those extra looks and examinations would distract someone from catching an issue that actually matters?
If you fail to maintain the correct tow position (centered, with the wheels of the tug on the horizon), the weak link will break before you can get into too much trouble.
The "purpose" of a weaklink is to increase the safety of the towing operation. PERIOD.
Matt Taber - 2009/07/11
If properly used, there is a minimum of three ways to release from the towline. Do not depend on any of these ways by themselves and fly with a back up. The first release is the primary release which under certain situations may fail, second, is the secondary release that works most of the time, if all is set up correctly, and third, the weak link which will break under the right load. You should also fly with a hook knife that will allow you to cut the line if need be.
I have never had a lockout situation happen so quickly and dramatically and had no chance to release as I have always thought I could do.
2. If some fuckin' idiot wants to gain a false sense of security from a check, test, or particular piece of equipment he can and will do it.
75 lbs is less than 1/10 of the supposed ultimate strength of the wire.
1. You're pushing down with 75 pounds of force on the middle of a wire secured to a control frame corner and leading edge / cross spar junction.
- What math are you using to predict that the wire will be tensioned to 75 pounds?
- I measured the tension. I got 116.
2. The breaking strength of the 3/32 inch Type 304 stainless steel 7x19 aircraft cable is 920 pounds. The test is 12.6 percent.
3. The working load limit for that cable is 189. The test is 61.4 percent of that.
Visible damage to the wire should have been visible to inspection long before it fails at 75 lbs.
1. At what point should invisible damage to the wire become visible?
2. Yes. A defect SHOULD be visible before failure.
3. And Rooney Links SHOULD increase the safety of the towing operation. PERIOD.
4. 116 pounds.
I once flew with just a bolt in the corner bracket.
You mean minus the nut?
I did not discover it until disassembly.
At what altitude?
Might have but then friction could have held it together for your miniscule 75 lb test.
01. This is not MY miniscule 75 pound test. This is THE MANUFACTURER'S 75 pound test in the fuckin' owner's manual.
02. On the phone Mike Meier advised me that this test simulates something in the ballpark of a two G in flight loading.
03. The reason I didn't put the pin in was 'cause the temperature was a bit marginal for bar mitts and I was gonna delay the decision on installing them until the end of setup.
04. The reason I'm still alive may be that I only inserted the plug into the tube about halfway. The test would've DEFINITELY blown the connection.
05. Just fuckin' LOOKING AT at the connection would also have revealed the problem but I was an idiot. (I was NEVER AGAIN anything close to being an idiot on that issue.)
06. Just conducting the test would've probably caused me to look at the connection and pick up the problem.
07. Back in those days I wasn't doing the test for pretty much the same idiot reasons (minus the totally insane crap about the sharp rocks) you're still not doing the test - the idea of DELIBERATELY stressing my wires and glider gave me the willies.
08. Then one day (long after the pin incident) I said to myself, "Hey asshole, do you think there's some small possibility that the glider manufacturer guys may know what they're talking about more than YOU know what you're talking about?"
09. Doing it the first time made my skin crawl. But then I said, "Hey asshole, that wasn't so bad after all!" And I got a really good feeling about it.
10. Then about 45 minutes later one of my flying buddies said, "Hey asshole, were you planning on flying sometime today? Or are you gonna spend the rest of the afternoon walking back and forth and stomping on those wires?"
11. Then I said, "Fuck off! This is kinda fun and I've got a lot of years to make up for."
12. And always after that I had a lot better feeling about the integrity of my wing whenever I was in the air.
13. But let's say that there's only a thirty percent probability of this test identifying a potential lethal issue. What's the insane "thinking" behind not doing the test and because there's a seventy percent chance of missing a potentially lethal problem and thus ensuring a HUNDRED percent chance of missing the problem?
Postfailure inspection revealed old frayed wire along with the fresh breaks.
Yep.
The wire itself failed.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Wrong! Wires DO stretch a small amount over time. Take an old set of wires and compare them to a new factory set of wires. Old wires will be a tad longer.
So is it age or...
miguel - 2012/07/06 22:56:06 UTC
The flying wires are never loaded the way stepping on the wire loads the wire.
...stepping on it?
When Wills Wing takes a glider off of the truck after a positive loading test for HGMA certification are the wires a tad longer than they were before and does the glider thus have a tad more positive dihedral?
If the positive dihedral increases as a consequence of high wire loading wouldn't that somewhat delegitimize the validity of the roll response performance certification figures?
I would bet that the life of the wire would be appreciably shortened with that kind of regular treatment.
1. Gee, a little while ago it was my miniscule test that wasn't even gonna pull a totally unsecured downtube / basetube junction apart. Now it's this insane level of abuse that's gonna destroy my 920 pound wire by the time the summer's half gone.
2. So then we really shouldn't be doing sixty degree banked coordinated turns 'cause that also loads the wires up to two Gs.
The nicer you are to the wires, the longer they last.
1. You be nice to your wires by not sharply bending them during setup and breakdown and not crashing real hard.
2. Nobody's ever shortened the life of a 3/32 inch sidewire five seconds by blowing up a glider in aerobatics.
3. And pulling the three Gs it takes to do a loop, based on the assumption that 116 pounds tension translates to two Gs, stresses the wire to 174 pounds - which is still fifteen short of 189 working load limit.
4. It's absurd to talk about shortening the life of a wire by subjecting it once or twice per flight on the ground to what it's gonna be seeing plenty of times in the air during normal, sane, thermal flying.
I do not believe the change your wires every year mantra.
This:
Every Year
3. Replace bottom side wires and hang loops.
is CYA bullshit written by a lawyer. It has absolutely no basis in reality. If you:
- have a twenty year old wire that's never been abused, then keep preflighting it and flying it
- kinked the wire on your brand new glider during breakdown after your maiden flight, then replace it before next weekend
I do not think you will get many sales.
Yeah I will.
- Terry Mason thought Sam and Bob were really wonderful people people and I was a malignant threat that needed to be silenced, locked down, deleted, banned.
- He got it precisely backwards.
- Kite Strings ratings SOARED right after he demonstrated just how backwards he got it.
I do not do preflights based on time frames.
Just location then. The preflight of the suspension system that you completed on the ramp fifteen minutes ago before you started waiting for a cycle is still valid but the identical preflight you completed one minute ago fifteen yards behind the ramp must be repeated.
Turn and learn on all launches takes about 15 secs.
1. Lift and tug on all launches for someone who launches with tight suspension anyway takes zero seconds. Otherwise it might take one.
2. Lift and tug automatically guarantees leg loops. In turn and learn that's a separate action.
3. Oftentimes we're poised on launch, holding our breath, waiting for thermal cycles, and trying to hit them at they're very beginnings.
- There is no way in hell you're gonna see the ribbons straighten up down the slope, put the glider down, turn and learn, verify your leg loops, pick the glider back up, and hit the beginning of the cycle. You're gonna run off the ramp trusting in your memory of the last preflight checks you did five minutes ago.
- I'm gonna run of the ramp POSITIVE that I've got my hang and leg loops NOW.
- It would scare me shitless to run off a ramp based on my memory of a connection check from over five seconds ago.
Your life has a value set by you.
Everybody on a ramp values his life exactly the same. If he were suicidally depressed he wouldn't be standing on a launch ramp. He'd be sitting in his car in the garage with the door closed and the engine running.
Take as long or as little according to the value you have set for your life.
So the quality of preflight inspections, procedures, actions is directly proportional to the time they consume?
I can go off a ramp with my harness and helmet buckles flopping, a couple of bolts missing safety rings, my VG tight and a cross spars safety cable hooked on a bolt through the keel, a couple of battens untensioned, my port outboard luff line caught under a batten tip, and a top sidewire one load test away from blowing at the kingpost and have a lot better day than some hang checking asshole who spends 45 minutes behind launch checking every square inch of his brand new wing with a magnifying glass, arrives on the ramp glowing with perfection, and then realizes he forgot to adjust his wing camera.
And be sure to stop by Ridgely sometime and watch 2004-2009 USHGA Accident Review Committee Chairman and 2008 NAA Safety Award Winner Joe Gregor carefully preflighting his Fusion with its Wallaby and Bailey releases and standard aerotow weak link. (Doesn't matter if you use stuff that works or not or how many people it's killed in the past few years - the important thing is that it's carefully preflighted.)
When ANYONE moves his foot on the ramp he MUST do it based upon being one hundred percent confident in a set of memories and assumptions.
Both of us must be certain that the carabiner is fully engaging a loop of webbing that hasn't been exploited by a mouse for nesting material and that we have the skills and conditions to be able to hit a field without clipping a tree turning onto final or overshooting the other end.
Two seconds before I move my foot I'm not hooked in. When the glider comes up I KNOW...
- I'm hooked in and have my leg loops.
- If I'm hooked in I'm properly - not partially - hooked in because that's one pooch I NEVER screw.
- My suspension system is solid - from the bolt through the kingpost down to my back 'cause I preflighted it twenty minutes ago.
I'm as one hundred percent positive on this stuff as I am that my sidewires won't fail and I'm qualified to safely put the glider down a couple of hours later using no more than twenty percent of the available runway.
The only thing on which I don't trust my memory AT ALL is my on/off connection status and leg loops because there is ZERO advantage to assuming that I'm good and ZERO cost in time, effort, inconvenience, distraction involved in verification.
I've never once come anywhere close to having NEEDED lift and tug which I did - without fail - for every foot launch flight of my career since the fall of 1980. For me the fear was all I ever needed. But the cost of those checks was microscopic.
You won't ever launch unhooked either but I'm operating a lot more efficiently. And if we both train five thousand students based on our models one of your guys is gonna get killed sometime within the next five years.
Do I get a kewpie doll for completing the questionnaire?
Sure. I'm out of stock at the moment but I'll get one off to you right away after the next shipment comes in.
In respect of hook in failures I should have added that:
1. The rationale for adding a verification system into our NZ tandems was that an extra layer of checking over and above the hang check vastly improved reliability (in theory).
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.
Good thinking.
For example, if the chance that someone who consistently practised a hang check was vulnerable to omission one time in a thousand, and a further verification with 99% success rate were added, the chance of both failing would be one in one hundred thousand.
And it would be totally ABSURD to feel insecure about your status at the moment of commitment with odds like that going for you.
Of course it all falls down when variables come in, which as Jim emphasises, catch us through our weaknesses, making human factors such a significant and poorly understood / applied part of the safety mix.
It all falls down if you bother to look at the way these things happen. Distractions occur, people's memories fail, and they make the wrong assumption at the moment of launch. This was well understood - with no help whatsoever from Rooney (despite what he'll tell you he figured out in utero) not too long after the first person got seriously fucked up and there was a strategy to deal with it not long after that. Great job learning something from the history of this sport.
But hey, why bother looking at the archives when you've got the fucking O'Hare Report to play with?
When looking at all the mistakes possible in flight it seems absurd that such a simple task as hooking in is so regularly overlooked.
1. Not by the people who know what the fuck they're doing.
2. Yeah. It's such a simple task. Simple to to hook in, simple to unhook, not much impact on the memory for either operation, lotsa reasons to hook in and unhook at launch, lotsa stress, distraction, and sensory overload at launch.
- Elimination of the hazard by design is certainly a superb goal and looking at how few incorrect set-up accidents there are it seems hazard elimination by design plays a large part in managing this potential threat.
1. Any ideas on how to do it?
2. Trust me. There are dozens of reasons why we REALLY don't want to do ANYTHING along these lines. Despite what you always hear from Aussie Methodist shitheads the wing and the pilot in his harness are and need to be the two intact components of the unit and, in many circumstances, instantly connectable and detachable.
2. Crash Test Dummy's parachuting story (and it has to be accepted that the senior instructor was not just putting on a show)...
Why would you even suggest that? To what kind of idiot would a thought like that even occur?
...highlights the human factor side; Distractions, over confidence...
...desire to impress, running late / out of time, fear, anxiety...
Fear and anxiety about WHAT? If you properly gear the fear and anxiety to the one thing that's most likely to get you killed the fear and anxiety is gonna be the biggest factor in keeping you from getting killed.
...anger, - they all can lead to lethal distractions, particularly combined together.
That's why Sterling and Ed are trying to advise you of a distraction proof strategy. But you're too busy listening to and generating rot to be listening to them.
3. I agree with Jim that involving another human being is a good process but also vulnerable as they may incorrectly assume you know everything, or have checked everything (such as the leg-loop example highlights) and I'm sure a group-think mind set arises.
It's already arisen - thanks to the fucking hang check, turn and look, and Aussie method. The mindset is to assume anybody on a ramp is hooked in at the moment of launch.
You could help to change that - but you won't.
Often the eye sees what the mind expects it to. My regular launch assistant got much more interested in verification after I found during my own checking an omission he had failed to notice.
Unbuckled chin strap? I'm assuming it was a potential disaster of that magnitude 'cause you're not telling us what it was.
Presumably up until then he wrongly believed that I was invincible.
Only when everybody starts assuming the precise opposite of himself and everyone else on the ramp will people cease watching empty gliders climb back up in front of launch.
4. On the hazard elimination by design theme, I can imagine an alarm going off when it shouldn't really pissing people off, eg hooking in and an alarm going off, necessitating unclipping, getting out, finding a rock to bash crap out if it.
Yes.
Even worse with a passenger attached and if it happened in mid-air I can imagine them wanting a refund. That said most fly with varios and other electronic devices we are no longer able to do without.
How 'bout a strategy of verification just prior to every launch? Just kidding.
There has been an offer to develop such a device by a local university.
Eastern Michigan University? No, wait - wrong hemisphere. And those guys are all busy with fins anyway.
Not wishing to redirect this well established line of discussion but I wonder how such a project should be approached, its potential for failure and parameters necessary to ensure its success?
Perish the thought. You certainly wouldn't wanna start going off topic from one of these endless Davis Show reruns and discuss something you think might work.
The closest I've come to a good new idea so far is to make the A frame inaccessible until verification is completed, by attachment/removal of the previously mentioned loop with karabiner on a bungee chord. It does not however, come into place on its own and must be attached perhaps after pre-flight. Your own thoughts and feedback on this approach to hazard elimination will be greatly appreciated.
OK. The fucking verification process doesn't start until five seconds before commitment to launch and doesn't end until it's too late do do anything about anything.
It was long ago (15-17 years) when I got HG licence, but I still remember a 5 safety checkpoints before each start that we use:
- did you hook your harness to the glider (I usually go down on my knees and test if I hang on the glider, and if both straps around my legs are firmly attached)
When?
- check lenght of harness over the speed bar (go in flying position of the body, and check the height (clearance) over the speed bar..horizontal tube of controll frame. Ono must hold your glider into proper attitude)
That's not a safety check. Nobody's ever been scratched because his bar clearance was off one way or the other. If it's really screwed up the pilot can fly upright (the way all the asshole instructors force students to keep them "safer" than they themselves would tolerate being) or climb up into the control frame (the way Joe Greblo teaches his students as his preferred alternative to a hook-in check).
- check the wind (check the windsock, check the textile ribbon on my front wire, to get info about wind strenght and direction)
- check the airspace (look if the area infront of the startplace is clear of other flying objects, in order not to colide with them)
- check the angle of attack (using proper angle of attack for the given wind and slope conditions)
And then, based upon your memory of having checked your connection to the glider and leg loops before checking (and, possibly, adjusting) your bar clearance, the windsock ond ribbon on your nose wire to get info about wind strength and direction (and waiting for the wind to lighten and straighten up), and the airspace out front (and waiting for traffic to clear and noting where the best lift seems to be), run off the ramp.
I like it!
Jim Rooney - 2006/09/25 11:37:18 UTC
i've been preaching this stuff for a long time... that's the irony... i was one of those 'hang checks will save you' guys.
Yeah, you're a really good preacher, Jim. I'm pretty sure you'd have no problem whatsoever getting a full scholarship at Liberty University.
i did all the stuff you guys are saying will save you
BULLSHIT.
You NEVER ONCE did turn and look 'cause that causes your pip pins to fall out and you NEVER ONCE did lift and tug 'cause if that were something that really worked we'd all be doing it already.
guess what?
Don't have to...
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.
So what happened to the video, Jim?
Got any videos of you doing anything remotely resembling a hook-in check?
all that stuff is good stuff to do... it helps with other problems. but it helps with other problems.
Get fucked.
if you think that you're immune to omissions because you this, or you do that, then god help you.
God has absolutely no intention of helping me - any more than he helped Bill Priday. He couldn't even be bothered to tune one of Bill's crew members into what was going on. And in the Chattanooga area God's so popular that he can do whatever the fuck he feels like.
I'm immune because I know that failing to hook in is a mistake that a chronic super fuckup like myself is so likely to make that I'm scared so shitless every time a launch that I've never come anywhere within a mile of neglecting to verify at the only time it matters.
Only launch with a tight hangstrap and this should never happen.
Yeah Diev, every now and then even you...
st1lgar - 2012/07/12 21:08:49 UTC
Oak Ridges, Ontario
I have awesome instructors!
We winch tow so the sequence for foot launching is:
- Ready for tension!
# Here you put a leg in front of the other, glider picked-up and wait for the tension in the line to be what you feel comfortable with
- Tension is good
Pressure. But otherwise - so far, so good.
# Now you have enough tension. The winch operator no longer pulls you but the line is still under tension. While you wait for a cycle you do another visual glider check. You actually raise the glider up until you feel you're hooked-in and they you say:
- Hooked In!
# Now you're ready
- Clear and Launch!
# Oh yeah!
I guess you do at least a "Clear!" before launch...
Try to add a "Hooked-in!" and check for tension in your harness when you move your hands lower on the downtubes and raise the glider up to actually feel you're hooked in.
This isn't something you TRY to ADD. This is something you DO - over and above EVERYTHING ELSE.
I must admit...this has happened to us three times this year. We've just started scooter towing and it's surprisingly easy to do. We're all dolly-launched aero-tow pilots so hooking in is something we take for granted. I was the scooter operator each time and recognized it right away as soon as the glider started rising up (but the pilot didn't). Luckily we were only planning on doing low-and-slow tows and thus no swift full-tension tow.
Each time it happened, the pilot's priority was always hooking up the tow-line as they step into the control frame. I wonder why that is...? I mean, we always hook in to the glider first when dolly-launching, and then worry about the tow line.
Lesson learned (all without incident).
Tad Eareckson - 2009/11/15 05:03:00 UTC
Hi Mark,
You probably didn't get to see this in the span of however many seconds it took the psychopath who runs the forum to delete it but this is what briefly appeared on the thread yesterday afternoon:
Tad Eareckson - 2009/11/14 21:29:09 UTC
If I had been the throttle jockey sitting on the scooter right next to the student - I wouldn't have given him any gas until IMMEDIATELY after he'd have lifted the glider until it tensioned his leg loops - as I would have had taught him the first time he had gotten within fifteen feet of a tensioned kite.
If so, you - and he - are welcome.
Dennis Wood - 2012/07/12 21:19:56 UTC
kinda helps also when we take care of our bros.
Fuck you.
Brian Horgan - 2012/07/12 22:47:51 UTC
Aussie method is 100 percent idiot proof
Good thing too - seeing as how it's 100 percent total idiots who employ it.
zamuro - 2012/07/12 23:00:35 UTC
New York
works for me too
Well that's all that matters then, isn't it?
Matt Christensen - 2012/07/12 23:14:55 UTC
Vienna, Virginia
I have switched to the Aussie method when foot launching.
Yeah, it's a real bitch doing that verification.
Craig Stanley (FlyLikeARock) - 2012/07/13 00:18:48 UTC
Campbell, California
What is the Aussie method?
A cult ritual.
Don't they have it easier down under since the hang glider hangs from them?
No, they have it easier down there since every time a practitioner has a catastrophic failure they say that it doesn't tarnish their track record 'cause the victim wasn't true Aussie Methodist.
Jim Gaar - 2012/07/13 00:30:59 UTC
Never unhook your harness from the wing...
Makes it kinda hard to zip up the bag, don't it?
...OR always hook-in first and then put your harness on.
NMERider - 2012/07/13 00:35:36 UTC
It's a good method but it's still possible to launch with the leg loops or chest strap unbuckled. I have friends who have done just this.
1. Tell me me how it matters if you launch with the chest strap unbuckled.
2. It's also still possible to launch without the fuckin' glider 'cause you're conditioning yourself to assume you're hooked in at any time you're in a harness and underneath one.
Even the Aussies will confirm this.
But a TRUE Aussie Methodist will ALWAYS check his leg loops and chest buckle in the setup area.
At Sylmar, we don't use this method in part because we don't get to strut around all cool like penguins or cross-bred human-cucarachas but I suspect it's mainly because our launch and setup areas are very dusty and dirty and it damages our zippers and abrades our harness shells. I'd like to hear more from other Sylmar pilots.
I don't see as many pilots doing hang checks as I used to and I don't get it.
I do. After three or four hundred of them they start to realize that their clearances tend not to change all that much.
I do a walk-through in the setup area and a reach-back and grab on the ramp.
1. What have you ever discovered doing that?
2. And that verifies your leg loops.
I cannot lift the glider until the straps are tight unless I want to get blown over backwards and injure my back.
Bullshit.
I'm happy for those who can.
You should be. They're all remarkable athletes who can stand in one place with tight suspension...
...without getting blown over backwards and injuring their backs.
If we all had Astroturf mats that we stored on the trucks and our drivers were kind enough to stow them away after we launched then I suppose there'd be more Aussie methods in use but we both know it ain't gonna happen. This failure to hook-in discussion is as old as the sport and has been bashed around since the Seventies.
But it's always the morons who tend to win the day through force of shear numbers.
I still remember those "Hook-Up" signs that were being passed around in 1974/5.
For those incapable of looking at the cliff itself and having the potential hazard register.
Unless we all switch to direct-connect harnesses, I doubt it will ever end.
Direct-connect harnesses may help a bit in some circumstances but won't put an end to it, are not appropriate in lotsa environments, and will cause some problems of their own.
Look at the number of automobile fatalities each year from people who were ejected from vehicles because they didn't hook in either. I really don't see how it's much different.
I do.
- If your seat belt isn't connected when you pull out of your driveway the chances of you getting killed within the following ten seconds aren't all that high.
- The vast majority of people can and do drive their entire lives and never need a seat belt.
- In lotsa states they've got guys with guns who pull over people not hooked up and hand them twenty-five dollar tickets.
- In hang gliding we've got a regulation requiring that a verification be made IMMEDIATELY prior to EVERY launch but nobody teaches it or enforces it and we've got untold thousands of assholes who refuse to make any effort whatsoever 'cause they're dead certain that they'll be blown over backwards and injure their backs - even when there's not enough air to float the glider.
People will ignore the red seat-belt lights and buzzers until the cows come home. Others will disable the sensors.
And yet they'll still be a few thousand times as safe as they would riding a bicycle and using a helmet legally on the side of the same 35 mile per hour road.
Use what works for you...
1. Yeah just forget the regulations and use what works for you.
2. And if you've gotten away with a couple of hundred launches with what works for you working for you then don't bother looking at the people who've been smashed on the rocks below launch who were using what works for you until it suddenly stopped working for them.
3. DON'T USE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU, JONATHAN. USE WHAT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO NEVER LAUNCH UNHOOKED AND IS BACKED BY BULLETPROOF LOGIC.
...and try not to wretch when you learn about a peer who failed.
I don't even give a fuck any more. Everybody's had a shot at listening to the JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH message. If people wanna ignore it - fine. They can generate data.
I am friends with the pilot who made this error and it takes a huge set of nads to come out and put it on the club forum.
Why? Who have you got left in the Greblo sphere of influence who's without sin enough to cast a stone?
My guess is there are many more hook-in failures that we will never know about.
Goddam right there are. Tip of the iceberg. But you show me videos of people launching...
It's a good method but it's still possible to launch with the leg loops or chest strap unbuckled.
It is also possible to forget to put a baton in or forget to pull back your tension, or any number of other things before you walk up to launch... what has that to do with launching un-hooked?
Nothing. But you can fall from your glider and get killed just as dead missing your leg loops as you can missing your hang strap - and Aussie Methodism doesn't automatically catch them.
This failure to hook-in discussion is as old as the sport and has been bashed around since the Seventies. I still remember those "Hook-Up" signs that were being passed around in 1974/5.
This is the really sad part, think of everyone who has died or were severely injured because of failing to hook in.
They didn't die or get severely injured because of failing to hook in ONCE. They died or got severely injured because of failing to ALWAYS VERIFY that they were hooked in.
While ever the US teaches a flawed method people will continue to die.
- People launch unhooked in Australia.
- The US ignores the rating requirements and teaches whatever the fuck it feels like.
- The HGFA has nothing at all on its books.
- If the Aussie Method is the greatest thing since sliced bread get it on your books.
- Or will that not fly 'cause there actually ARE circumstances in which it's a really bad idea and the hang gliding population won't tolerate it?
I have had a number of new pilots here on the org asking "What is the Aussie method?"
And yet they're all so sure what a standard aerotow weak link is.
All I say is at least give them the information of the Aussie method, then if they want to strut around like a Penguin at least they do so knowingly they risk their life on their memory to do a hang check EVERY time WITHOUT fail for the next twenty to thirty years at the most stressful part of their launch.
- There is NOTHING in the US regulations even MENTIONING a hang check.
- To someone with a functional brain the most stressful part of his launch is the instant before commitment because he understands what his biggest threat is.
- And having a functional enough brain to understand what the biggest threat is for EVERY LAUNCH is the biggest factor in being able to eliminate it.
Jack Axaopoulos - 2012/07/13 01:34:50 UTC
That can fail as well. I know a guy who lifted his wing on launch, felt the tug on his harness and launched.
Flew around a bit, and realized he was hanging from his pod's limiter line, and thats it. Wasnt really hooked in. Came in and landed quickly.
Very lucky.
It didn't fail. It did EXACTLY what it was supposed to. It told him that he was connected to the glider and he was.
I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:
HANG CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.
HOOK-IN CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.
They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.
If one want's to also ensure that one is SAFELY connected to his glider - and that the glider is worth being connected to - one must accept the burden of a couple of preflight checks.
Brian Horgan - 2012/07/13 02:24:37 UTC
dust? Really?
John you make it sound like you have been flying since 1974 when we all know thats not the case.You have been lucky up until now.I would much rather take off with my leg loops unattached than my harness unhooked.The aussie method is the most survivable method out there and anybody that says other wise is a idiot.Go ahead and keep lying to yourself.All of you new people to the sport hook your harness to the glider as a part of your assembly of the glider and pre flight check your glider and harness as one.DO NOT unhook your harness from the glider until your flying day is done and you will live a long time.
- Yeah. He's been LUCKY. Funny how lucky people who have enough fear of launching unhooked to do checks at launch position tend to be.
- I'd much rather you take off with your leg loops unattached too.
- What's your data on the Aussie Method being the most survivable method out there?
I went to Chelan for the Nationals in '95 as a free flyer. They were requiring everyone to use the Australian method, and you were also not allowed to carry a glider without being hooked in. This was different for me, I hook in and do a full hang check just behind launch right before I go. I was also taught to do a hooked in check right before starting my run, lifting or letting the wind lift the glider to feel the tug of the leg loops.
So I used their method and I'm hooked in, carrying my glider to launch and someone yells "Dust devil!" Everyone around runs for their gliders (most of which are tied down) and I'm left standing alone in the middle of the butte with a huge monster wandering around. I heard later that it was well over three hundred feet tall, and some saw lightning at the top. After that it was clear that no one is going to decide for me or deride me for my own safety methods, someone else's could have easily got me killed.
- How much stock should we place in the idiot identification capabilities of someone as incapable of achieving third grade level writing skills as you are?
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 and the tandem process of involving a launch assistant in my checks.
- Name some lift and tuggers who've launched unhooked.
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.
- Name ANYONE who's established ANY kind of last instant check protocol who's launched unhooked.
- No, don't EVER lie to yourself. If you honestly believe - to the very best of your knowledge - that you're hooked in two seconds before launch then TELL yourself that you're hooked in. Honest Bob Kuczewski will be very proud of you - and remember you fondly.
- Yeah, all you people new to the sport hook your harness to the glider as a part of your assembly of the glider and preflight check your glider and harness as one for each of your dozen flights on the training hill. You really don't get much of an appreciation for how much fun that is until you've actually done it.
- And as long as you DO NOT unhook your harness from the glider until your flying day is done, you will live a long time - just as long as you don't start your flying day on 2012/06/16 with Sam Kellner. Then if you're gonna live a long time you'd better have done it already.
Robert Seckold - 2012/07/13 02:48:36 UTC
AUSSIE METHOD (31 times)
You had to know you asked for that.
Gee Robert, you couldn't have swapped in a "HOOK-IN CHECK" for just one of those?
NMERider - 2012/07/13 03:06:13 UTC
John you make it sound like you have been flying since 1974 when we all know thats not the case...
You are correct. That isn't the case. I have been flying since 1973 with thousands of flights and about 1200 hours. So I was gone for 25 years? Little has changed during the intervening years other than the equipment and the loss of sites. I'm reading the same old arguments here I read 35 years ago and see nothing new.
Goddam right about just about all of that. 'Cept for one thing. Nobody heard "Always assume you are NOT hooked in." till Yours Truly came up with it.
Why don't you ask pilots why they don't pre-attach their harnesses and find out what's actually stopping them? Maybe there is some way to motivate pilots to change?
Don't waste your time with me. I will ALWAYS pre-attach my harness when it's safe and convenient to do so. But I will NEVER use that assembly procedure as a guarantee or reassurance that I'm connected at launch.
I've already given you one reason - Dust, dirt, sharp rocks, grit and generally things that will damage your harness and zipper are everywhere at my local club's site where we set up our gliders. The only clean spot to place your harness is behind the setup area.
What do you suggest? How can we work around this in a way that will get more pilots to change their ways?
How 'bout instead...
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.
More important, I think, is a change in mindset: that you constantly assume that you are NOT hooked in.
...we get pilots to change their mindsets.
My racing harness weighs fifty pounds fully loaded with my oxygen system. I can't even lift it to hook it in unless I'm wearing the damn thing. Maybe I should get inside the harness then stand up and hook in then step out of it? Have you thought about this as a way to avoid both an injured back and a damaged harness? Maybe what we should do is advise pilots to step out of their harnesses to verify hook-in?
Yeah. That'll go over just great. Lemme know how you do with that.
I have yet to see where yelling at pilots and thumping one's bible preaching Hellfire and Damnation has ever done anything other than piss them off and make them even more stubborn in their ways.
I've made one good sales pitch. How about we find out why pilots don't pre-attach their harnesses and help them come up with something they look forward to using. Your turn...
Paul Hurless - 2012/07/13 03:09:42 UTC
Reno
What ever method you use to ensure you are hooked in, the most important thing is to do it that same way every time. Good habit patterns are very important. Just like preflighting your wing if you are interrupted start over again to make sure you didn't miss anything.
Bullshit. That's the very best way to get yourself killed when a disruption/distraction makes it into the equation.
JJ Coté - 2012/07/13 03:24:16 UTC
Lunenburg, Massachusetts
This part can't be emphasized enough. Do not unhook a harness from a glider if you are wearing it, unless you are in a place where you could not conceivably launch (e.g an LZ). Doing so is asking for trouble.
(I am just about the only pilot in my area who hooks in prior to putting on the harness. I have yet to hear any valid rationale for doing it the other way around.)
You're also a moron, JJ. So there's not a whole helluva lot of point to talking to you.
David Boggs - 2012/07/13 03:44:26 UTC
Brian Horgan - 2012/07/12 22:47:51 UTC
Aussie method is 100 percent idiot proof
Yeah what he said
and on cocoons keeps the lines under control.
Perhaps we should institute a world wide program ?
I propose if you dont want to use aussie method fine.
But we stand at launch with baseball bats and if you attempt to lunch unhooked we beat the crap out of you . At least you wont die from plummeting it will be from pummeling .
Perhaps this will solve the problem .
Read the sylmar post,
The guy evidently is routinely wearing his harness and moving the glider.
Tired of this crap ,if you want to do it this way bring your own babysitter to make sure you don't hurt yourself.
Sympathy is for your survivors when I have to make up some BS story so I dont have to say the truth.
Here's another safe guard ,
when you put your harness on and dont immediatly clip it to the glider hold the binner in your hand , dont let it dangle and dont clip it to the harness.
There I feel so much better
Fuck the Aussie Method...
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
...and anything else that doesn't comply with that regulation.
Paul Hurless - 2012/07/13 04:06:00 UTC
I cannot lift the glider until the straps are tight unless I want to get blown over backwards and injure my back. I'm happy for those who can.
I'm puzzled by this. What unusual way would you be holding your glider that would require you to lose control of it like that?
Red Howard - 2012/07/13 04:07:34 UTC
Utah
Robert,
If I were you, I would take the direct approach. Forget what is or is not being taught, anywhere. Write up what needs to be said, keep it on target, make it real, and post it in the WIKI. It's easy to do, but just ask, if you hit a snag with the WIKI.
Yeah Robert, just write it up. Then people will stop operating the way they were programmed to at Lookout, Blue Sky, and Windsports and switch over.
NMERider - 2012/07/13 04:21:46 UTC
I'm puzzled by this. What unusual way would you be holding your glider that would require you to lose control of it like that?
Either I have to stand the glider on the keel in which case it will blow over backwards or I have to grab the uprights and force it up in a way that will injure my back.
- That's not what you said before.
- Standing it on its keel is useless. You still hafta pick up the glider and probably move it to launch position. It's crap compared to a walk-through.
- If there's enough wind to blow it over there's probably also enough wind to float it to the stops.
I've tried and it's dangerous for me either way.
It's not dangerous for you to lift the glider when there's a fair breeze - it'll lift itself.
It is possible and safe to do a walk-through until the bridle goes tight while balancing the glider on the control bar and holding the nose wires to keep it balanced. When and where I fly, I usually launch alone.
Here's another idea I seem to recall from watching another pilot once upon a time. Place the harness on the ground in a clean spot and walk the glider over to it. Set the glider on its tail and pull the bridle up to engage the carabiner. This avoids damage to the harness shell and zipper.
Robert Seckold - 2012/07/13 04:33:39 UTC
As per usual stupid white herring excuses, excuses, excuses.
Harness gets all scratched up walking to launch. How do you think I keep my harness out of the sand walking the sixty metres back to the pack-up area.
Spaghetti harness makes it impossible to climb into when attached to the glider. Tell that to at least one tandem operator at Stanwell who does this day in day out.
I have a rigid and it is impossible to climb into when harness is attached to the glider.
etc, etc, etc.
I have heard them all over the last eight years
I'm out of the conversation until the next person launches unhooked or dies being stubborn and not prepared to try something different.
You're also out of the conversation whenever someone suggests that you try something different by amending what you're doing with a last instant verification.
Manta_Dreaming - 2012/07/13 04:34:47 UTC
But we stand at launch with baseball bats and if you attempt to lunch unhooked we beat the crap out of you
Personally I prefer to lunch unhooked. But if you plan on attacking starving pilots, ok, then time to start packing a 9 mm in my lunch box.
