The pdf rambles and looses focus.
That's...
http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=3638
FTHI
Mike Blankenhorn - 2012/10/26 02:39:07 UTC
Wow, I never saw it put quite like that before. Great write up!
...your take.
You know what magazine writing calls for.
A REAL magazine designed to enlighten, inform, educate? Or the crap USHGA puts out designed to do the precise opposite?
Write the article like it is going to be sent to a magazine.
Yeah, maybe I should get some tips from Dr. Trisa Tilletti.
The LAST thing USHGA wants...
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25321
Stop the Stupids at the USHPA BOD meeting
Mark G. Forbes - 2011/09/29 02:26:23 UTC
We can establish rules which we think will improve pilot safety, but our attorney is right. USHPA is not in the business of keeping pilots "safe" and it can't be. Stepping into that morass is a recipe for extinction of our association. I wish it were not so, but it is. We don't sell equipment, we don't offer instruction, and we don't assure pilots that they'll be safe. Even so, we get sued periodically by people who say we "shoulda, coulda, woulda" done something that would have averted their accident.
...is a definitive rational article geared for keeping pilots safe. The safety morass is recipe for the extinction of their association.
They want:
- to keep throwing enough shit in people's faces to keep them perpetually clueless and confused and so that the critical mass of competence which would result in them being called to account never materializes;
- people to believe that hang gliding has virtually nothing in common with conventional aviation and can't be understood and regulated on that foundation, will only become fathomable after another ten or twenty years of experience and experimentation, and in the meantime needs to be conducted based upon the opinions of people with long track records.
Besides, how could any individual POSSIBLY have an idea for fixing a problem when the organization has already, over the course of the past several decades, ALREADY done such a stellar job of making the sport as safe as possible for everyone age five and up - and earned a waiver from the FAA?
Ever notice that, while there are almost always RAGING flame wars about shit aerotow releases, standard aerotow weak links, and unhooked launches on the forums, the magazine has never heard of these issues? It will tolerate NO discussion critical of Industry Standard aerotow equipment, standard aerotow weak links, or the hang check or any mention of any strategy other than the hang check - including the idiot Aussie method - for preventing unhooked launches.
Target it to the H0s to H3s.
Here's a reaction from a Hang Three:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hhpa/
Houston Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association
Zack C - 2010/10/15 13:25:50 UTC
Speaking of which, while I can fault Tad's approach, I can't fault his logic, nor have I seen anyone here try to refute it.
But I can only get through to people with functional brains. And that wipes out all but a fraction of a percent of the people who need to get the message.
And Mike Blankenhorn's a Hang Two with only a Foot Launch signoff.
H4s know everything about everything so no point in writing to them.
Hang Fours are the assholes instructing and controlling the training programs, mountain launches, airports, clubs, forums, "accident" reports, magazine, committees, boards of directors, and policy.
Refer back to the picture. I believe that one of the Wright brothers posted the original pic. Would you not agree that he was very lucky in that the loop stayed put and did not "unhook".
If it had unhooked he'd have just reconnected it and held it back up for his brother to take another picture. It's a very obviously staged shot.
It's also been taken down. Here's the original link:
(Never hurts to archive these things to one's hard drive.)
String a few facts together to burnish semi fiction into truth.
I don't do that - and there's a pretty good record here of me not doing that.
Semantically true, BUT, a partially hooked launch CAN result in an unhooked launch.
No, it can't. It CAN, however, result in a separation after launch and a fatal plummet. But that plummet isn't any more fatal than a bunch of other assembly and preflight failures that have bitten people over the decades.
And someone who puts a glider on a launch dolly with a factory fresh Quallaby, Bailey, Lookout "release" which meets no standards and would fail any sane preflight inspection is a lot more likely to die than someone who hooks in and NEVER looks back to make sure he got it right.
Red Herring Alert
Bullshit. I'm not saying it's not an issue. I'm saying that it's an overrated issue which distracts from the biggie.
However, the result of a partially hooked CAN be the same as an unhooked launch.
Yeah, that's why we hafta preflight our equipment before we get into launch position, do our hook-in checks, and commit aviation.
So are the odds of winning at Russian Roulette.
IF you start the clock when the partial hook-in is made the risk is something in the ballpark of Russian roulette.
If you start the clock before a connection is made - include the odds of committing the error in the equation - we're talking microscopic.
Or you can turn around, stretch the rigging and assure yourself that you are completely hooked in.
If that floats your boat, fine.
I've got a single strap harness suspension and no idiot backup loop. I'm run my hand up from the base of the harness suspension to the carabiner when I clip in (from outside of the harness when convenient) very carefully and make DAMN SURE the carabiner's fully engaged when I make the connection. Making the connection and preflighting the connection are virtually the same action.
That's a critical and simple enough procedure that even a chronic and major fuckup such as myself can handle it. *IF* the harness is connected it's properly and securely connected. It's near the bottom of my list of concerns and if I'm incapable of getting that much right I don't want or deserve to live anyway. I don't need to recheck it any more than I need to check that I installed all of my battens curved end fore and right side up.
One more scenario...
1. Quote me ever saying you shouldn't do a hang check for a new/different glider/harness combo.
2. Cite an incident of someone being fucked up 'cause:
- his clearance was off
- of wraps or knots used to shorten suspension
I'm saying:
- Follow the fucking regulation which mandates a hook-in check JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH - rather than just prior to picking up the glider.
- I don't give rat's ass what you do before you pick up the glider - preferably prior to getting on the ramp - as long as you don't use it to reassure yourself that you're hooked in.
You seem to be laboring under the delusions that:
- Turning and learning nothing you didn't know before prior to picking up the glider satisfies the requirement of and/or precludes you from doing a hook-in JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH.
- I'm advocating that people use lift and tug as an excuse to skip appropriate preflight checks.
http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13132
Unhooked Death Again - Change our Methods Now?
Jesse Benson - 2009/01/25 16:27:19 UTC
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.
And that's absolute rubbish.