Weak links

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Jim Rooney - 2013/02/13 19:09:33 UTC

Zack C - 2013/02/13 15:02:38 UTC

Can you explain, then, exactly how we arrived at the current 130 lb weak link standard?

It was already worked out by the time I arrived.

By a bunch of off the scale stupid pigfuckers of your caliber - you useless snot-nosed little punk.

The reason it sticks?

Ignorance, stupidity, brainwashing, intimidation, cowardice.

Trail and error.

Yeah? So what else was tried, by whom, where's the data, and where are the fatality reports on some of the less viable concepts?

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/26 08:24:31 UTC

Thought I already answered that one... instead of quoting myself (have a look back if you don't believe me), I'll just reiterate it.

I don't advocate anything.
I use what we use at the flight parks. It's time tested and proven... and works a hell of a lot better than all the other bullshit I've seen out there.

Cite ONE incident attributable to any of the other bullshit you've seen out there and tell us what that bullshit was and how it performed in bench tests in comparison to the Sacred Fishing Line and the glider model and flying weight.

Every now and then someone comes along with the "new" idea of a stronger weaklink.

Well gee, Jim. Since you've obviously got the PERFECT weak link for the AVERAGE glider I would think you'd get an equal number of little girl types coming along every now and then with the "new" idea of a WEAKER weak link.

So where are they?

How come whenever you read some crap like the rot Davis and Trisa excrete it's all about tying and hiding knots to make the weak link STRONGER - 260 pounds preferably - and to keep it from breaking by using polypro towlines and bridles?

Where are the grieving friends of the two hundred pounders writing posts and articles and making YouTube videos on how to get a loop of 130 pound Greenspot to blow at just 180 pounds?

Eventually, they scare themselves with it and wind up back with one that has a very proven track record.

Yeah, motherfucker? Name ONE person, give me ONE quote, and cite pounds, Gs, flying weight, roll attitude, altitude loss - you lying little shit - and show me how things would've been significantly different/better with...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3648
Oh no! more on weak links

Carlos Weill - 2008/11/30 19:24:09 UTC

On June of 2008 during a fast tow, I noticed I was getting out of alignment, but I was able to come back to it. The second time it happen I saw the tug line 45 deg off to the left and was not able to align the glider again I tried to release but my body was off centered and could not reach the release. I kept trying and was close to 90 deg. All these happen very quickly, as anyone that has experienced a lock out would tell you. I heard a snap, and then just like the sound of a WWII plane just shut down hurdling to the ground, only the ball of fire was missing. The tug weak link broke off at 1000ft, in less than a second the glider was at 500ft. At that point I realized I had the rope, so I drop it in the parking lot.

...a standard aerotow weak link.

I mean really... no exaggeration... hundreds of thousands of tows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTKIAvqd7GI

Say what you will, but if you want to argue with *that* much history, well, you better have one hell of an argument... which you don't.

4:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC1yrdDV4sI

It amuses me how many people want to be test pilots.

Yeah? It amuses me...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flyhg/message/17223
Pilot's Hotline winter flying

Mark Frutiger - 2013/02/03 13:41

Yesterday was a light and variable day with expected good lift. Zach was the second tow of the afternoon. We launched to the south into a nice straight in wind. A few seconds into the tow I hit strong lift.

Zach hit it and went high and to the right. The weak link broke at around 150 feet or so and Zach stalled and dropped a wing or did a wingover, I couldn't tell. The glider tumbled too low for a deployment.

...when your asshole friends fly with Rooney Links that clearly protect them from high angles of attack and take themselves out of the gene pool.

It amuses me even more that people...
A) Don't realize that "test pilot" is exactly what they're signing up for and B) actually testing something is a far more involved process than "I think I just try out my theory and see what happens".

Fuck you.

Allow me to repeat... hundreds of thousands of tows.

WOW! I'm REALLY impressed. What percentage of them went the way the flyers on both ends wanted them to and...

http://ozreport.com/12.080
No one makes it back - Santa Cruz Flats Race, day two

Davis Straub - 2008/04/22 06:02:32 UTC

I was not the only one breaking weaklinks as it seemed for a while every third pilot was having this problem. You've got to get the keel cradle set right.

...what percentage of them never got more than ten feet off the grounds because the keel cradles weren't set right?

Sure, there's other stuff out there too. Some of it even has a number of tows behind it... but hundreds of thousands is a very large number.

Exactly how large, Jim? I was never that good at math.

That's not "religion" my friend.
The shit works. It works in reality and it works consistently.

That's really amazing, Jim. Slap a loop of 130 pound Greenspot on a 180 pound Falcon 3 145 and it works just like it does on a 360 pound T2 154. I sure wish theory was relevant to hang glider aerotowing so I could see those graphs.

It's not perfect...

How could it be anything less? Quest has been perfecting aerotowing for twenty years.

...but Joe-Blow's pet theories have a very high bar to reach before they are given credence.

So how come Russell Brown told people to double up their Quest Links at Zapata two summers ago? How many test pilots were killed in the course of that exercise?

Antoine...

Now that Rooney's really blazing away at his feet, looking like the moronic little piece of shit that he's always been, and getting cut up a little bit do feel free to get back in there and start kicking him when he's down.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Marc Fink - 2013/02/13 19:34:38 UTC

Typically, if you're towing on a rock-n-roll day your mission is to keep that glider as reasonably in the sweet spot as you can.

Hell, anywhere inside the Cone of Safety and you're GOLDEN. Nothing bad can ever happen to you when you're inside of those margins.

For me, that's not necessarily directly behind the tug--it's the position where the tension on the line is "as consistently neutral" as I can keep it.

Well maybe you should submit an article to USHGA. We could compare your Cone of Safety to Trisa's and see which one people like best.

If it's a booming day with rippin thermals--or vertical sheers for whatever reason--than obviously the risks go up.

Yeah.

Paul Tjaden - 2013/02/07

The launch started on the main runway at the north end (2,000 feet long) and was normal until at approximately 50 feet in altitude when the tow plane hit extremely strong lift elevating it quickly and abruptly. Because of the length of the tow line, it was a few seconds later when Zach's glider entered the same strong lift and he was at an estimated 100 to 150 feet in altitude at this time.

When the lift/turbulence was encountered, the weak link on the tow line broke as the nose of the glider pitched up quickly to a very high angle of attack. Apparently, the glider stalled or possibly did a short tail slide and then stalled and then nosed down and tumbled.

Eye witnesses said the glider tumbled twice and then struck the ground with the base tube low. Due to the extremely low altitude, there was no time for the pilot to deploy his reserve parachute.

It's on days like that that you want a REALLY SAFE weak link.

My experience...

Fuck your EXPERIENCE, Marc. You're one little asshole out of tens of thousands.

...is that the line tension/pressure...

It's PRESSURE, Marc. It's measured in PSI.

...will oscillate as the glider and tug transition these areas, and typically it's a question of muscling the glider back into a "neutral tension" position. But once the glider gets past a certain AOP (angle of pull) there comes a point where there is no input from the pilot that will be able to overcome the rapidly accelerating pressure/tension and increasing angle relative to the tug.

It's called a LOCKOUT, Marc.

Therein lies the rub. Natural instinct is to fight it and recover if at all possible.

You JUST SAID:

...there comes a point where there is no input from the pilot that will be able to overcome the rapidly accelerating pressure/tension and increasing angle relative to the tug.

So, by definition, it's NOT POSSIBLE.

My feeling...

Oh good. We're done with the valuable information from your experiences and now we can start discussing your FEELINGS.

...is that there is very fine line between what is feasibly recoverable and what can become a potential disaster--and it happens so fast that I don't believe the average--or even above-average--pilot can react quickly enough to make the split-second decision whether to release or not...

Which, of course is why we should all use a single loop of 130 pound Greenspot on one end of our one or two point bridles. Because, as has been proven over the course of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of tows, this AMAZING piece of fishing line, with AMAZING consistency, CAN react quickly enough and ALWAYS with the correct go / no go decision.

...(assuming the release even works under those circumstances...

You're using bent pin Industry Standard crap, Marc. Do yourself a favor, read some of the reports, look at some of the videos and assume that it WON'T work under any but the most benign of circumstances - and then only after three or four tugs.

...it could be wrapped around your corner bracket or caught on a flying wire by that time).

- Bullshit. This doesn't happen in real life.



- It's all in front of and well clear of the wires and as the glider rolls it stays pretty well centered.

- But if it did happen in real life OF COURSE the weak link would anticipate that danger and blow you clear before you got that far out of whack. Just ask Lauren Eminently-Qualified-Tandem-Pilot Tjaden. She's down there at Quest - where Zack Marzec got killed a week and a half ago.

That's why stronger weaklinks as a "one-size-fits-all-situations" is not viable IMO.

- But we're totally cool with 130 pound Greenspot as a "one-size-fits-all" solution because it's got HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of tows on it and ALWAYS does EXACTLY the right thing to protect the pilot as best as possible.

- Lemme tell ya sumpin', shithead... When Karen's using the same weak link I am she IS using a MUCH stronger weak link than I am.

- Fuck your idiot opinion.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Jim Gaar - 2013/02/13 19:59:19 UTC

Why yes!

Can you elaborate more on how you personally arrived at this conclusion?

After 5 years as Safety and Launch Marshall for Adventure AirSports and towing (with a Dragonfly 582 BH) every type of wing class available on 3 different styles of carts and using Pro-tow and COM bridles and over 400 incident and accident free tows I feel it's pretty much the standard.

Listen asshole...

- THIS:

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=13689
eating dirt

Jim Gaar - 2009/09/18 19:23:44 UTC

Hell I've literally shoved the control frame out in front of me to avoid a whack when it got a little ahead of me in a light DW landing, similar to when I've had to slide it in on my belly (did that once after a weaklink brake coming off a launch cart.

is an INCIDENT. It's an indication of a dangerous incompetent operation because when you're using a weak link which blows when you're coming off the cart you know you've got something that WILL kill you in a Zack Marzec scenario.

- There's no such things as "pro-tows" and "center of mass" bridles.

- And you're using dangerous bent pin crap for releases.

I would not/did not hesitate to assess each and every tow along with the conditions, experience of the towing pilot and wing type in confirming it's use.

And none it had the least problem meeting YOUR standard for a WHOPPING four hundred tows. What a fuckin' statistical joke.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Bill Cummings - 2013/02/13 20:04:07 UTC

A lot of good points are being made here.

Along with some astronomically stupid and vile ones.

I last aerotowed using the standard 130 lb Greenspot.

What the fuck do you mean - "the standard"?

It's a goddam piece of fishing line that some shithead in Florida (probably Bobby) pulled out of his ass with no clue as to its actual breaking strength or concept that if you put it on a bridle end it's only seeing about half the towline tension in an attempt to comply with a one G figure that Donnell pulled out of his ass to work with an absolutely insane towing theory that he also pulled out of his ass.

THE FUCKING *STANDARD* is eighty to two hundred percent of max certified operating weight and if you've got any understanding of the purpose of a weak link and/or common sense you shoot for the middle of the range or better.

The word standard in our case is really a grasp toward middle ground.

Bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about - shut the fuck up.

Blindrodie and I personally find ourselves satisfied with not finding it too strong or too weak.

Then you're BOTH fucking morons. And I had thought/hoped you were a lot of notches up from that.

Heavier pilots with heavier/bigger gliders may find the standard to be too close to the weak side of optimal.

Optimal for WHAT, Bill? If it's supposed to blow before something on the glider gets bent. It can't be relied on for ANYTHING other than that.

I, like Miracle Pie Hole, seem to be on the same page that it is better to be closer to the weak side than the strong side of "standard."

That's some really great company you're racking up there, Bill. Maybe you could introduce them to your buddies Bob and Sam.

Lighter pilots with lighter gliders may worry that they may be pitched into a break stall with the breaking of the too strong of a "standard" in their case.

Yeah. And let's ship gliders with backup loops to pander to whatever paranoias these idiots conjure up.

Swift and Davis are, I think, on the same page when it comes to being able to release when the time comes. All good stuff.

As for Davis... BULL FUCKING SHIT. That motherfucker has done everything within his capability to squelch any effort at advancement which deviates from the deadly bent pin shit he and his cronies sell.

If the flight parks...

Fuck the flight parks. It was their incompetence, stupidity, and corruption that just got one of their favorite assholes killed.

...insist on the use of a standard...

Fuck what they insist on. Fly like sane legal sailplane operations do.

...each pilot still has the ability to blow the pilots weaklink with more tow force or less tow force just by increasing or decreasing the length of the shoulder to shoulder pro tow bridle.

What a load of horse shit.

- NOBODY wants LIGHTER weak links. That should be telling you that something is fundamentally wrong with this Ponzi scheme.

- Did you listen to what Zack just said about weak links on one point bridles? There's nothing you can do to change the weak link far enough from half towline enough to be worth talking about.

- One point towing is DANGEROUS 'cause you can't hold the nose down.

- Using long one point bridles makes one point towing MORE dangerous 'cause you're increasing the probability of a wrap.

The shorter the pro tow bridle the less tug force it will take to blow the standard weaklink.

If you got the ONE POINT bridle short enough to make any difference whatsoever the shoulder straps would be pulled together so tightly you'd strangle.

The longer the pro tow bridle the more tug force it will take to blow the standard weaklink.

Yeah. Another couple of pounds if you're lucky.

We need to TRIPLE the allowable towline tension.

For those of you that were not aware of this or would like to either confirm or refute this claim to your own satisfaction I can direct you to a website with a moving diagram that will explain why this works far better than I can explain it here.

Yeah, that'll bring a lot of brain cells in this Davis Show crowd out of their thirty year long states of dormancy.

Send me a personal message and I will send you the link.

I'm doing it this way since I do not wish to be banned from the OZ report.

Don't worry, Bill. I really don't see you taking a stand on anything useful enough to get you booted from anything.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Swift - 2013/02/13 20:59:29 UTC

Re: Why yes!

After 5 years as Safety and Launch Marshall...

What do all these listed parts of the tow operation have to do with why 130# greenspot is the best standard?

Nothing. It's the same bullshit Davis is pulling to distract people in hopes that they won't realize he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and never has and has mandated a piece of crap weak link which just killed somebody like those on the right side of this war predicted it would.

Is it because that is what was shown to you by your mentors?

Yeah, the blind leading the blindrodies.

Do you feel safer as a tug pilot knowing the towed hang glider stresses are limited?

- He's not a tug driver.

- Tug drivers drivers never give a rat's ass about dumping gliders. That only IMPROVES whatever situation they're in. If it kills the glider, fuckit. Plenty more where that one came from.

- BOY does 130 pound Greenspot limit the stresses on the towed glider - until they slam in anyway.

I would not/did not hesitate to assess each and every tow...

And each assessment always worked out to one size fits all?

Oh yeah. As a matter of fact if it were not for the existence of 130 pound Cortland Greenspot hang glider aerotowing would simply be too dangerous a form of aviation to practice in good conscience. We'd all have to resign ourselves to lives of playing checkers.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Freedomspyder - 2013/02/13 23:12:17 UTC

Sure. How would you word the poll?

I dunno, maybe we should poll for the questions... haha.

How 'bout we start some polls on glider design while we're at it?
Reynolds number, Aspect ratio, twist, VG range, tubing alloy, sail material, batten spacing, backup loop strength, roll reversal time...

Oh well I'll take a stab...

Poll 1, Do you believe taking off with a stronger weak link would be safer for your Aerotowing?
Answers:
(1)Yes it would be safer,
(2)No it would not be safer,
(3)I already fly with the correct strength,
(4)I'd launch with no weaklink at all, if they would let me.

Typically/Historically with the kinds of idiots who infest hang and paragliding...

- You have your total morons in the bottom layer of the gene pool who want something dangerously/illegally light because they immediately visualize a low level lockout situation in which their only hope of survival is a timely weak link blow and they're totally incapable of conceptualizing a release that's both accessible and capable of functioning.

- At the next level up you have your experienced flyers, flight park operators, competitors who know that even though their releases are total shit the chances that that issue will ever be a problem because low level lockouts are extremely rare and mostly avoidable - especially by skilled and careful flyers. They, however, are incapable of conceptualizing a weak link as anything other than a chintzy piece of fishing line that dumps them back on the runway for no reason, breaks their downtubes, ruins flying days, slows down business, prevents them from getting on task in the competition they've just traveled halfway around the world at great expense to attend so they will eliminate anything resembling a weak link from the system altogether.

- The top layer, which consists of about a dozen people worldwide, understands that the sole purpose of the weak link is to protect the aircraft from overloading and uses a weak link comparable to or a bit above the ratings used by sailplanes. They understand that, although they might hafta go a dozen lifetimes before they'd ever actually NEED a weak link and that if they ever did their chances of surviving the aftermath wouldn't be all that great, a midrange weak link will NEVER blow in any halfway normal situation and dump them unexpectedly and/or dangerously and that there's no sane reason NOT to use one. They don't weigh or cost anything.

But if a top layer person tries to explain the concept of using a midrange weak link to protect the aircraft from overloading the people in the other two groups will stare at him like he's just landed from Mars.

Poll 2, Do you have confidence in your current release method?
Answers:
(1)Yes, I believe in my release,

And the Easter Bunny.

(2)No, I am not confident in my release,

So I'll make sure my hook knife is extra sharp and put the release up on eBay - along with my old Attack Duck.

(3)My current release could be better,

But since it's been slowly perfected over the course of twenty years that's obviously the best we mere mortals are capable of and Tad's a total asshole and his Rube Goldberg contraptions will kill you in a heartbeat because they're complicated and have virtually no track record.

(4)Heck I don't know, I just use what they gave me.

And, besides, if there were anything better available or possible everyone would be using it already.

I think a stronger weak link would be safer, but primarily I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.

Base it on physics and...

Tost Flugzeuggerätebau

Weak links protect your aircraft against overloading.

...an understanding of what they do in sailplaning.

I have been shocked and surprised at all of the reported weak link breakages. Especially for what were reported as innocuous take off conditions.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24846
Is this a joke ?

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/26 17:34:33 UTC

Remember, a weak link improves safety.
Say it over and over and over in your head until it sinks in.

Shut the fuck up and drink your Kool-Aid. You're causing unrest and frightening the children.

For my final flight at Quest, Rich let me fly in the afternoon so I could soar. I was all over the place behind the tug in the strong conditions. After the flight, I recollect the tug pilot coming over and telling me she was impressed I managed to stay behind her. The weak link held just fine.

In fucking credible.

I imagine the forces were a lot less with the Target I was flying compared to a faster ship.

No. Quite the contrary. The higher the lift to drag ratio the lower the percentage of the glider's weight you need to get it airborne and climbing. That's why sailplanes can get away with lighter weak links than we can.

However, in hindsight I am sure glad I did not suffer a weak link breakage.

Weak link breakage isn't something you SUFFER. It's a cause for joy and celebration - because, regardless of what happens to you after it blows, it's a one hundred percent certainty that if it hadn't blown some evil tenfold worse would've befallen you - virtually always a lethal lockout.

No doubt having attachment to the keel helped too.

Keeriste! Didn't Davis JUST TELL YOU that pro toads are MUCH SAFER?

As to the releases, all I have seen first hand is that used at Quest.

So you know they're perfect.

They seemed a bit hokey...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14221
Tad's release

John Fritsche - 2008/12/12 05:38:02 UTC

Do people still use those (IMO, stupid) releases that involve bicycle brakes?

...(I recall the bicycle handle spinning around the downtube when I was releasing), but it seemed to work ok.

So I really wouldn't worry about any problems with it in a full blown emergency.

However, Personally I think a mouth release or something handier on the base tube would be better.

How 'bout something...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8318603266/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8306300488/

...built in?

For me I would answer 1 for Poll 1, and 4 for Poll 2.

Really hard to go wrong with 2 for 2 - 'specially with your personal experience and a bunch of easily preventable fatalities.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31052
Poll on weaklinks

Davis Straub - 2013/02/14 00:39:22 UTC

Poll on weaklinks

Oh good, democracy based aviation. If only Bob could see how far we've come.

Do you believe taking off with a stronger weak link would be safer for your Aerotowing?

Do you:

- believe:

-- taking off with after you've backed up the hang strap, the one component of your glider that isn't backed up and the last component that would blow in a load test by a factor of six, would be safer for your flying?

-- that a:
--- glider being aerotowed is flying at a higher angle of attack than it is in free flight?
--- Hang Four being pro toad is as safe or safer than a Hang Two flying two point?

- want to listen to the folks who actually know what they are talking about or go the tow park that Tad runs?

01) Yes, it would be safer.
02) No, it would not be safe.
03) I already fly with the correct strength.
04) I'd launch with no weaklink at all, if they would let me.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skysailingtowing/message/4633
Weaklinks and aerotowing (ONLY)

Steve Kroop - 2005/02/10 04:50:59 UTC

Weak links are there to protect the equipment not the glider pilot. Anyone who believes otherwise is setting them selves up for disaster.

05) A weak link is there to protect the equipment - not the pilot. Anyone who believes otherwise is setting himself up for disaster.

06) There is no possible fucking way to predict - throughout the FAA 0.8 to 2.0 G legal weak link range - whether the pilot and/or his glider will come out smelling like a rose or be killed instantly following a blow and anyone who tells you otherwise is either:
- a) a total moron
- b) a liar
- c) all of the above (Rooney, for example)

07) Given that a blow of a weak link of ANY rating is virtually always an override of the decision of a competent and safely equipped pilot to remain on tow it can be predicted that, for the vast majority of likely scenarios, the pilot and glider will be in worse shape after the blow than they were before. (See Zack Marzec, 2013/02/02, to get a feel for this concept).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skysailingtowing/message/4597
Weaklinks

Donnell Hewett - 2005/02/08 23:28:13 UTC

Every towing system, without exception, contains a weaklink. It may be a string or mechanical device deliberately inserted into the towline, the towline itself, the release mechanism, the flying wires of the glider, the pilot's harness (when body towing), or some other component of the pilot-glider-tug system. But something eventually is going to be the first thing to break. That thing is the weaklink.

08) Flying without a weak link, regardless of whether or not "they" would let you, is not an option. Something eventually WILL volunteer its services as a weak link. The only option the pilot has is to ensure a particular device will be THE weak link.

09) My weak link is the Dragonfly tow mast breakaway the stupid pigfucker who designed the tug built in because I fly with a weak link in the middle of the FAA safety range and the Flight Park Mafia refuses to operate in compliance with FAA aerotowing regulations.

10) I don't fly any more because - due to the stupidity, incompetence, and corruption of USHGA and the Flight Park Mafia - it was impossible for me to operate under safe and legal protections and I didn't want to die in the same stupid manner that Zack Marzec did two Saturdays ago.

So, with respect to your idiot fucking poll, Davis...

A STRONGER WEAK LINK THAN *WHAT*?!?!?!

The only people who can fairly accurately answer "1" are ALL of the total fucking morons using 130 pound Greenspot, the vast majority of whom are doing so off the bottom of the legal range, and those in the lower half of the legal range.

But anyone who answers "1" can be safely be assumed to be a moron because that's the only way to explain someone who believes he would be safer flying a heavier weak link but isn't using a heavier weak link.

Anybody who:
- flies:
-- 130 pound Greenspot and answers "2" is a total fucking moron
-- in the lower half of the legal range and answers "2" is a moron

Anybody who knows what the fuck he's doing and talking about who flies in the middle of the safety range and answers "2" is worried about release overload.

Anybody who flies a weak link in the middle of the safety range and answers "3" is full of shit because there's no more such a thing as "THE CORRECT STRENGTH" than there is "THE CORRECT HELMET" because there's no possible way to predict what will be going on when the shit hits the fan and what will be the consequences of a particular number or feature.

- 1.5 Gs could allow you to climb safely through a Zack Marzec scenario, slam you in in a lockout, or have no bearing on your survival or death.

- A helmet with better impact protection could prevent your brain from getting terminally mushed, break your neck during deceleration as a consequence of its greater mass and inertia, or make no difference whatsoever if you pull a Zack Marzec.

If anyone answers "4" his rating should be revoked immediately and his instructor should be stood up against a wall along with all of his grade school teachers.

I wonder if my nephew will live long enough to see the day when the lunatics no longer have this degree of control over the asylum. I sure know I never will.

[Tad Eareckson]

Hey Bill...

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Bill Cummings - 2013/02/13 20:04:07 UTC

If the flight parks insist on the use of a standard...

- The pigfuckers who run these flight parks...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2467
weak links

Jim Rooney - 2007/07/19 14:50:52 UTC

Weak links don't always break in lockout situations... so lets make them stronger? Are you nuts?

I don't care if they're "Meant" to break in lockout. How the hell is it a bad thing if they do?

You're advocating making tow systems more dangerous for the sake of definitions. Here in reality, weak links work. They may not suit your definitions, but you're on crack if you think they're not doing people good.

And yes, get behind me with a "strong link" and I will not tow you.

...DO insist on the use of an illegally light, dangerous "standard" weak link like the one...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bRrpHNa68iY/UQ6Pv9gRZyI/AAAAAAAAjTg/Hc22bx5122Q/s2048/20943781_BG1.jpg


...that killed Zack Marzec two Saturdays. So you know in no uncertain terms that any such flight park is dangerous and incompetent.

- And, of course, you also know that the flight park is too fucking stupid to understand that weak links need to AT LEAST vary in proportion to flying weight and preferably in proportion to max certified operating weight - as prescribed by federal law.

- You also know, obviously / by definition, that any flight park that forces your safety by forcing you up on a "standard aerotow weak link" also subscribes to THIS:

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2467
weak links

Jim Rooney - 2007/08/01 13:47:23 UTC

Whatever's going on back there, I can fix it by giving you the rope.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7462005802_bbc0ac66ac_o.jpg


philosophy of towing safety.

- Let's ignore reality for a moment...

...each pilot still has the ability to blow the pilots weaklink with more tow force or less tow force just by increasing or decreasing the length of the shoulder to shoulder pro tow bridle.

...and say that it was actually possible to effect a significant adjustment of towline load by this certifiably insane approach of adjusting bridle length / apex angle. So now you know that you're dealing with a flight park too fucking stupid to understand the effect of apex angle on towline / glider load and thus has no real clue as to any actual numbers.

Lemme tell ya sumpin' dude...

- A REAL pilot DOES NOT:
-- TOW AT THAT OPERATION.
-- ADVISE ANYONE TO TOW AT THAT OPERATION.

- A REAL and RESPONSIBLE PILOT / HUMAN BEING reports that operation to the fuckin' FAA and gets it shut down before the next Terry Mason or Zack Marzec gets killed. (Note that there's been no advisory out of Quest in the past dozen days about grounding Quest Links.)

Say hi to Bob for me and let him know that his vision for free market hang gliding is doing just fine.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30971
Zach Marzec

Bill Cummings - 2013/02/14 19:31:15 UTC

Zack C.,

Are you implying that lighter weak links provide protection from excessive angles of attack...

No I wasn't implying that.
No it wasn't apparent from ZM's incident ---I missed that video. Could you please send me the link.

Most unfortunately, there IS NO video. If there were it would be a lot easier to scare these assholes away from "standard aerotow weak links" but good. But here's a milder example of something similar which one would hope would get the point across:

0:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR_4jKLqrus

While no one was packing slush into barrel releases, sticking them in the freezer overnight, and then bench testing the activation tension necessary to release, I was field testing all the releases on the frozen lakes of Minnesota.

So how many people are still towing on the frozen lakes Minnesota and have this compulsion to pack slush into their barrel releases between flights? And of that population what percentage are doing the gene pool any favors?

No release on the planet has passed that test to my knowledge.

Here's a thought then...

Stop doing that test. If you get bored get yourself a bottle of sulfuric acid and see what you can accomplish.

My pilot friend and I are alive today only because we didn't believe what Steve Kroop said about weaklinks before he said it and we didn't believe what he said after he said it.

So you're using your weak link as a Ryan Voight instant hands free release? Yeah, Bill, hang gliding's been proving that you can get away doing incredibly stupid shit almost all the time for decades.

PL, ST, & AT should not be done if a pilot is not ready at any second during the tow for the tug to break, the line break, weaklink break, or an inadvertent release.

Meaning, of course, that YOU will ALWAYS be able to handle a tug break, line break, weak link break, or inadvertent release ON TOP OF WHATEVER ELSE MIGHT BE GOING ON TO COMPLICATE YOUR DAY. Good freakin' luck.

If you're towing on a road where there is a bottle neck of trees ahead that you HAVE to tow past--you're towing on the wrong road.

And if you're towing on anything lighter than a one and a half G weak link you're towing on the wrong weak link.

If the base tube is totally stuffed and you are under tow and still gaining airspeed with a frozen release...

Fuck that. If you're towing with a frozen release you are - for the purpose of the exercise - already dead. If that's something that floats your boat then fine - but take it out of any hang gliding discussion and into some fringe activities forum.

...the best possible scenario is to pop your weaklink...

Assuming, of course, that you're not low and fighting a lockout.

...before you tank up with enough energy to do a half failed loop or get dumped into a break stall or tumble when the strong weaklink breaks. (oxymoron)

This is total fucking bullshit.

- If you can't figure out either how to engineer a slush proof release or keep a release out of the slush and preflight it before each tow then don't fuckin' tow.

- Zack just got killed in FLORIDA. Frozen slush was not an issue. The issues were that he was using a Quest Link and being pro toad.

- The fucking Challenger WAS NOT ENGINEERED TO BE LAUNCHED IN FREEZING CONDITIONS (and it was pretty marginal under the best of circumstances). It was engineered to be launched in FLORIDA. When they tried to get away with launching it in freak freezing conditions in Florida they blew it up.

- Stop derailing this discussion with a lot of bullshit about how it's OK to fly with releases welded shut as long as they're paired with Quest Links.

You don't need to be under tow to fly low through a thermal to get hurt.

No, you could be over a frozen Lake in Minnesota with a barrel release packed with refrozen slush and your life dependent upon blowing a Quest Link and surviving the recovery. Lemme know how that keeps working out for you.

Towing hard through one is no guarantee either.

If the thermal's nasty enough you can get tumbled free flying through or around one. But whether in free flight or under tow you wanna start out with everything under as much control as possible and if you're a pro toad with a Quest Link you're two thirds fucked before you start.

Another standard we should have is putting that strong weaklink on each and every one of our bridles and break it between two vehicles and watch what happens.

If a heavy pilot that has a tidy, short, dainty, low drag. pro tow bridle and is always popping weaklinks he can extend the pro tow bridle and have better luck.

- Bullshit.

- I don't do LUCK. I leave that to Quest, Ridgely, Manquin, Lockout, harvest the data, and get a few giggles.

As for that video of MG crashing his brains out the best single correction would have been to put on a vertical stabilizer.

The best single correction would have been if he had had a FUCKIN' CLUE as to the difference between platform and aero.

The standard pro tow threaded bridle is ------THREADED!

Who wrote this STANDARD? Where's the documentation on it? How 'bout the load test results for the bent pin Quest releases? What happens to towline tension when you put Quest Links on BOTH ends of the bridle?

Why aren't we reworking this?

'Cause WE - meaning ME - reworked this YEARS ago.

Is this the best we can do?

No. THIS:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/8305308635/


is the best we can do - for a one point / secondary. (Make it a three-string, though. Shoulda seen that one coming.)

Are we so brain dead that we will make this the required standard?

We being US hang gliding? Goddam right.

Because if we do some of us will end up that way.

Not me, Zack, Antoine, Joe Street.

Not because of anything on OUR end of the operation anyway. But you go up behind a Dragonfly driver you're rolling dice.

[Zack C]

Looks like the USHPA SOPs...
https://ushpa.aero/policy/SOP-12-02.pdf
...have been updated recently. The dedicated section on aerotowing has been deleted, with only the AT rating requirements remaining. This means the equipment section is gone along with all references to weak links (other than the simulated weak link failure at altitude).

I'm not sure if the aerotow equipment guidelines section is going to be eliminated entirely or if they moved it to another document. I don't even know how to navigate to the above referenced document on their website...I've only been able to get to it through Google.

I know I accessed the old document from their site within the past week so at first was very suspicious of the timing of the change, but there are other changes to the document and the new one is dated January 2013.

At any rate, I'm attaching the previous version of the document (dated June 2012) so we don't lose it.

Zack