Weak links

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Deltaman - 2013/02/19 16:46:12 UTC

Re: Your brain is the weaklink!

Jim Gaar - 2013/02/19 16:45:44 UTC

My/our pre-launch Mantra was (wish I had a dime for every time I said this to a pilot) "Be ready for a weak link break and IF there is ANY problem RELEASE!!

Be ready for a weak link break
means something not expected, so go for a stronger one

IF there is ANY problem RELEASE!!

So choose the best one, the more reliable, and the quickiest to release without loosing control.

I think you're IN now ! Well done.

Jim Gaar - 2013/02/19 16:50:23 UTC

Your words, NOT mine!

means something not expected, so go for a stronger one

Sorry I cannot agree with this statement!

Your OPINION - along with your competence, cranial capacity, logic, consistency, honesty, character - is duly noted.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Mike Lake - 2013/02/19 22:24:46 UTC

Re: Sorry to be slow answering...

The Floating Baron - 2013/02/19 03:05:15 UTC

You guys were in the early stage, test pilot days and Jim Rooney wasn't.

How was 130# greenspot chosen to be the one size fits all weaklink for all pilots?
Do you still use it? Nothing stronger considered even for heavier configurations?

I KNOW that this does NOT work for me (#130greenspot) ever...

oh and can we just get back to mourning the loss of a great guy...

In the earliest days of frame towing weak-links were derived at by a top down process of finding something that broke too often and then rounding up a bit. A sensible process I would say.

Overstressing the glider was never much of an issue and it was clearly recognised that weak-links offered little or no protection from the dreaded lockout. In those days lockouts were much more prevalent. The pilot did not want to have to deal with an unexpected loss of thrust while fighting to maintain the tiny bit of control he had.

In the early '80 frame towing systems were replaced with various body towing systems that offered the pilot much more control while on tow.
Of these systems the one that gained the most publicity was a system called Skyting.
There were news letters and some of the Skyting students referred to themselves as 'disciples' using terms such as 'spreading the word'.

Most appropriate, since it was always a religion with zilch in the way of a scientific foundation.

At the time towing was badly in need of some kind of 'order' and Skyting fitted the bill.

However, mixed in with some good ideas and methods were some bad ones.

The bad ones outnumbered the good by a ratio of at least two to one.

The two to one bridle for example proved unnecessary and introduced a far greater problem than it solved.

Given that y'all had independently and about simultaneously figured out that you needed to tow through the pilot - rather than the control frame - it didn't solve ANY problems. It just created some really lethal ones.

Also, according to Skyting, single point towing would be far too deadly to be possible.

And to this day Donnell has never acknowledged that his models and predictions were totally bogus.

More to the point, and for the first time, weak-links were looked at as something that would protect the glider from abnormal flight conditions.

By a goddam Hang One with some clueless observations of and assumptions about a number of flights you could count on the fingers of one hand. And with a massive denial of tons of crash, injury, and fatality reports that showed in no uncertain terms how full of shit he was.

The roots of just about all forms of towing can traced back to this time.

Which is why the vast majority of modern ones stink on ice.

A too weak weak-link is a legacy of the Skyting system derived at from a time when late '70s gliders were still common, people managed 3 or 4 tows a day by being pulled along by a motorbike. Pilots did not demand good climb rates or desire to fly in anything else but calm conditions.

Weak-links values were worked at from the bottom up finishing up with something only just able to get the pilot airborne. I can see this rounding down mentality apparent in the weak-link values used today.

Not for much longer in a lot of operations, methinks.

Does it work?

Of course it does and it will 'work' for 100000s of tows. It is a bit of string that breaks, not exactly rocket science.
The question is, is the breaking strength optimised for the least deaths and injuries?

I would like to know just how other values have supposed to have been tested.
Do you introduce a slightly stronger weak-link and note the number of times the pilot locks out and hits the ground? Or maybe try a few faceplants and note how many teeth get knocked out.

I am being flippant of course...

Really? These assholes have been seeing the data for a third of a century and haven't done anything about it.

...but the fact is you cannot determine to what extent a stronger weak-link would have improved someone's crashes but you can see (or at least some can see) that reducing the number of weak-link breaks would reduce the number of crashes!
A trade-off yes but it must be remembered that with a lockout you do have an OVERRIDER in the from of a release, THIS IS YOUR SECOND CHANCE.
A weak-link on the other hand has no such overrider and gives you no second chance it simply takes the flying decision away from the pilot.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/skysailingtowing/message/4593
Weaklinks

Peter Birren - 2005/02/08 19:22:49 UTC

What is the big issue? Re-launching? Oh, the wasted time! Oh, the hassle! Oh, the embarrassment! These are sure preferrable to Oh Shit!

---
This thread started with a fatality report and I am sure everyone is sad and keen to offer condolences.

Sorry, I'm not. I burned out on being sorry for these assholes a long time ago.

However, I can think of no better time to explore anything that just might reduce the chances of it happening again.

Take you're twisted agenda and shove it up your ass.

I don't think having an alternate point of view and offering it in a polite constructive way warrants being accused of 'crawling out of the woodwork', being a Tadpole, told to Foff, or having to put up with being accused of some kind of HG.org vote rigging conspiracy, a frankly juvenile remark.
A pilot is dead.
Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

The vast majority of those sleazy motherfuckers have absolutely no concept of shame. And anybody who thinks that Rooney shouldn't be permanently ostracized from this sport can rot in hell.

P.S. Hey Mike...

You left the "t" out of "Skyting" and the "en" out of "happening".

[MikeLake]

Just testing ...

[Tad Eareckson]

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

NMERider - 2013/02/19 22:56:19 UTC

...A pilot is dead...

...and I don't want to die if I can avoid it based upon what I have gathered for myself from portions of this thread.

You had the opportunity to gather the same stuff from what I was posting here and on your Jack Show cult three and a half years ago...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=13745
Good News vs Sad News

NMERider - 2009/10/01 22:31:04 UTC

IIRC - Tad has already worn out his welcome on the Oz Report over his AT release mechanism, and so it seems he has come here to preach his gospel of safety according to Tad. The prize of course will either be delivered by the HMS Beagle or can be found on the Gallapagos Islands.

... before I "wore out my welcome" for being right more times than was deemed appropriate.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=11497
Aerotow release options?

Tad Eareckson - 2009/07/04 11:50:50 UTC

Two things I'm sure of - death and taxes.
And one of the factors that goes into the first thing...
When you lose tow tension your angle of attack goes way up.
And if your angle of attack was way too high to begin with, your hang glider may not ever again be of any use to you or anyone else.

Jack Axaopoulos - 2009/07/04 12:13:01 UTC

Bullshit.

a) only the pilot can let the angle of attack increase when you lose tension. Thats 100% on the pilot. You are simply wrong and misleading again.

b) "And if your angle of attack was way too high to begin with..." Which should never be the case or youre making a pilot error. Again, you are misleading people.

This is the problem I have with you. You attempt to fallaciously attribute pilot errors to issues of mechanical towing devices or other things.

Sorry... but if you suddenly lose power, your nose just doesnt pop

I'll repeat, you would get through to a lot more people if you cut the thick layer of BS out.

Mike Lake - 2009/07/04 12:16:32 UTC
UK

At the risk of death threats...

Tad Eareckson - 2009/07/04 00:46:06 UTC

...much mistaken belief that our weak links will pop or we'll be able to push the bar out and blow them in time to avoid cratering. Lotsa luck.

I admire the undoubted skill and bravery of pilots who are able to deliberately break a weak link to get them out of trouble.
That this technique can be relied upon horrifies me.

One G was pulled out of a hat...

Yes, this does seem be a convenient nice round number.
The figure (IMHO) should be whatever it needs to be so it never breaks when you are otherwise having a good time.
"Just above never break when it shouldn't strength"

A bit like the Wills definition of luff line settings.
"Just slack in normal flight."

Tad Eareckson - 2009/07/04 00:46:06 UTC

The Hewett bridle is totally incompatible with the incorporation of a release which the pilot can be assured of being able to actuate without losing control of the glider. It put the focus on tension distribution at the expense of bulletproof release actuation.

Changes/compromises/improvements often have adverse and sometimes unknown effects.

A bridle I use to fly with many years ago had a plastic tube on the top leg to stop things hitting the pilot in the face (seen it happen) and to tidy up the dangly bits.
One problem solved.

However, the release mechanism sat just in front of the bottom bar and because of the plastic tube the bridle had an additional seatbelt type release around the hip area that you would release in free-flight and everything would wind up against the keel.

So far so good but some may have spotted the flaw here and I did too. If the bottom leg failed/released in flight for any reason then you would be towing from the keel only. This is a disaster (seen it happen) and likely to be fatal.

To overcome this (unlikely event) the unit was designed to automatically release in those circumstances.
Problem solved.

Later evolutions on this bridle included a clever way to release with your hands just about anywhere on the uprights AND on base bar and the incorporation of a very neat and non-dangly 50/50 threader. No doubt these were improvements, improvements that may well have saved lives.
However, the changes were incompatible with the original safety feature and the reasons for its existence were lost in time.

Just the one life lost because this bottom leg failure as far as I know.
A catchall system is very difficult to achieve.

Michael Bradford - 2009/07/04 13:00:24 UTC
Rock Spring, Georgia

Bullshit.

a) only the pilot can let the angle of attack increase when you lose tension. Thats 100% on the pilot. You are simply wrong and misleading again.

SG,

A glider under tow is a powered aircraft. String powered. When climbing under power, the angle of attack is relevant to the climb path, not the horizon. And if the tow force is subtracted instantly, the angle of attack is instantly translated, whether or not there is pilot input. A classic Departure Stall can easily, almost instantly result. Pitch and power are not independent forces.

If you are in the middle of a climbing correction when the "power" fails, failure to immediately lower the angle of attack can yield an immediate deep stall.

A correct statement might be that "Only the pilot can compensate for the naturally increased angle of attack when you abruptly lose tension."

A glider under tow is a powered aircraft.

Jack Axaopoulos - 2009/07/04 13:48:47 UTC

My second sentence describes what im trying to say better.

Agree on the power versus non-power. Just never had an issue cuz I know how to fly a glider. If you dont instinctively know how to set your proper angle of attack in any given scenario, you shouldnt even be flying. Any sudden loss of bar pressure should trigger a response from the pilot.

What I was trying to address is AT's original quote:

There IS NO SUCH THING as "the limit for safe operation" with respect to tow line tension 'cause you can get killed BECAUSE you have ZERO tension...

Its nonsense and more grandstanding. You can get killed BECAUSE you ran out of gas in your car. You can get killed BECAUSE you stop pedaling your bicycle.

Guess what, I can fly a glider all over the sky with a towline attached to the nose and nothing on the other end, and guess what??? It still flies! WOW!

Really sick of this bombastic, grandstanding, arguing style I come to my own forum each day and get pissed off. Time to end this.

And all of you fuckin' wastes of space who let that pigfucker get away with shit like that have Zack Marzec's blood on your hands.

I can't speak for anyone else but my takeaway from this thread is this:

1 - If I am under aerotow while too low to safely deploy my reserve...

Don't even waste everybody's time by talking about getting in a tow situation in which you're gonna need to toss silk.

...and the tug suddenly slows and climbs rapidly leaving the line slack...

The tug NEVER suddenly slows and climbs rapidly such that the line is left slack - and a slack line has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Zack Marzec's incident or any topic at hand.

...I must make a conscious decision regarding just how much I am willing to push out and attempt to take up the slack and climb even with the tug.

This is bullshit. Read the accounts and get a grip on what was going on.

I must be cognitively aware of the risk of coming off of tow (for any reason)...

For ANY reason? What do you think is the most likely risk - by a factor of at least a thousand - to cause a glider to off of aerotow?

...and possibly entering an accelerated stall too low to deploy with an upset or broken glider and possibly in proximity to the turbulence that may have thrust the tug upward.

Fuck turbulence. This didn't have a goddam thing to do with turbulence.

- The glider - flying ONE POINT - followed the tug into a huge powerful smooth thermal.

- When he surged up he couldn't hold the nose down because he was a pro toad - LIKE YOU ARE.

- The fishing line that he put in his system because he thought it would be a better emergency release than the Quest crap he had on his shoulders broke.

- Game over. No reset

2 - I will not expect a weak link system to save me from a lock-out.

Great.
- What WILL you expect a weak link to save "YOU" from?
- What strength will you use to achieve whatever goal that is?

3 - I will appreciate that it is the tug pilot's call as to the maximum breaking strength of any so-called weak link system and not mine.

Fuck the tug pilot and fuck you for continuing to defer to these sleazy stupid egomaniacal serial killers. If I want to fly a fucking two G weak link it's his fucking job to make sure that I don't get the rope.

4 - I will be prepared for a loss of towing thrust (for any reason) at any point during the tow operation.

Well then, you're OBVIOUSLY a much more skilled pilot than I - or Zack Marzec - will ever be.

This is the chaff I have sifted for myself from all this wheat.

That's EXACTLY what you've done. Recommend you stay out of agriculture as well as aerotowing.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Bill Cummings - 2013/02/19 23:43:28 UTC

Mike Lake - 2013/02/19 22:24:46 UTC

A weak-link on the other hand has no such overrider and gives you no second chance it simply takes the flying decision away from the pilot.

To feel better about the above quote I would have liked to have seen the word towing in place of the word, "flying".

Yeah Bill, and on the afternoon of 2013/02/02 I'm pretty sure Zack Marzec would've been totally on board with you on that. Unfortunately - for him anyway - sometimes there's a pretty radical divergence between Skyting Theory and reality.

[Tad Eareckson]

Hey Zack,

A further word on this:

http://www.kitestrings.org/post8108.html#p8108

Zack C - 2013/02/09 22:47:41 UTC

I have a hard time believing you'd fault Mark for not releasing him after saying...

I don't want some asshole dumping me...

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

Jim Rooney - 2007/08/01

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

It's more of this crappy argument that being on tow is somehow safer than being off tow.

...TO FIX WHATEVER'S GOING ON BACK THERE.

But in the Zack Marzec scenario there's NOTHING GOING ON BACK THERE when the tug hits the lift. The glider's in dead air, high, centered, and level with a normal pitch attitude and good airspeed / angle of attack - and that can be easily and safely assessed by the driver.

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

Mark Frutiger - 2013/02/09 02:31:37 UTC

The turbulance level was strong, among the strongest thermal activity I've felt leaving the field. I've encountered stronger mechanical mixing, but the vertical velocity this time was very strong.

He KNOWS something extraordinary is going when he plows into this thing and WE ALL KNOW that the glider will be safer if he's off tow in advance of plowing into it himself.

I would have no problem whatsoever with somebody dumping me and leaving me with the rope in those circumstances and would certainly respect that decision.

[Tad Eareckson]

Keen Intellect Jim on Tad's efforts to incorporate one and a half G weak links to replace one-size-fits-all Rooney Links five and a half years before a Rooney Link will snuff Zack Marzec:

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

Jim Rooney - 2007/07/22 16:59:30 UTC

Basically anything less than the cabling on your glider?
You've got to be kidding me!

Keen Intellect Jim on Zack C's efforts to incorporate one and a half G weak links to replace one-size-fits-all Rooney Links twelve and a half days after a Rooney Link had snuffed Zack Marzec:

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

Jim Rooney - 2013/02/15 06:48:18 UTC

In your book however, anything less than the cable strength of the glider is OK?
Yeah, sorry... nope. Not behind me at least... go be a test pilot behind someone else.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

William Olive - 2013/02/20 06:42:07 UTC

Re: A few overlooked factors?

I use 3/16" poly rope behind a trike, but I like it a bit longer than 50 yards. My ropes are about 70 metres, but to each his own.

Yeah, name something in aerotowing that ISN'T just a matter of personal preference or opinion.

One thing though, new poly rope has a penchant to twist and can quickly wrap up a DF release, rendering it impossible to release and even if the WL does fail, the top rope wont pass through the ring, which is why Bill Moyes uses expensive Spectra rope for his towlines.

And you OFF THE SCALE *STUPID* FUCKING MORONS...

Towing Aloft - 1998/01

I witnessed a tug pilot descend low over trees. His towline hit the trees and caught. His weak link broke but the bridle whipped around the towline and held it fast. The pilot was saved by the fact that the towline broke!

...couldn't POSSIBLY address that issue by:
- putting weak links at BOTH ends of the bridle?
- following FAA regs and and putting a weak link at the front end of the towline?
- all of the above?

Did you ever experience such a wrap up youself? I expect not, if you kept on using poly behind a DF.

What? You think that a catastrophic and easily remediable failure of a component of an aerotow system would cause somebody to alter his configuration? How many times have we needlessly killed somebody - even when in flagrant violation of existing regulations and standards - and kept right on doing things the same way because we get away with it damn near all the time and it's so easy to write off as dead guy error?

Poly rope is a good WL in its own right, and I usually find that the rope will break before the tug end WL does if you put the rope over a fence etc.

How very reassuring for the asshole at the FRONT end.

You:
- have no fucking clue what a weak link is to begin with.
- ASSUME that:
-- a single single loop of 130 pound Greenspot is an ideal weak link for all solo gliders
-- it blows at twice the strength it does
-- a tandem glider weighs twice a solo glider
-- a double loop blows at twice the single loop you've ASSUMED blows at twice what it does
-- the double loop blows at 2.6 times what it ACTUALLY does
- use the same weak link on the front end that you do for the tandem so it's a toss-up who gets the rope.
The front end weak link is already too light to safely tow a solo.
You:
- use a tow mast breakaway the same strength as your fishing line.Then you dumb down your front end weak link so it will break before the breakaway.
- ASSUME that a cheap shit dangerous elastic towline will protect your dangerously understrength weak links.
- USE a cheap shit elastic towline which DOES protect your dangerously understrength weak links.

So wanna take a stab at what tension you're capable of pulling and holding? Just kidding.

Clueless fuckin' assholes.

William Olive - 2013/02/20 06:56:25 UTC

Re: Your brain is the weaklink!

A weaklink break is ALWAYS an unexpected event...

Gawd how I wish that were true. I've always been ASTONISHED when they HOLD.

...why is that a logical reason for increasing the strength.

You all the sudden wanna start talking LOGIC?!?!?! The entire fucking lunatic system collapses the nanosecond you introduce the slightest TRACE of LOGIC.

And PERISH THE THOUGHT that any logic should begin with anything like...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=26870
weak links

michael170 - 2012/08/17 17:01:40 UTC

Zack, let me see if I understand your logic.

You had a thing and it broke needlessly.
You didn't want the thing to break needlessly.
You replaced the thing with a stronger thing.
Now the thing doesn't break needlessly.

...strengthening a piece of string to the point that it didn't break needlessly and permitted you to accomplish what you came out on that particular day to do and leave in the driver's seat of your car instead of the back of an ambulance.

You could extrapolate that to mean use a 3/16" steel cable, coz that sucker won't break and ruin your day.

If you DID use 3/16" steel cable I one hundred percent guarantee you that aerotow expenses and crash rates would drop to tiny fractions of what they are now. You think Zack Marzec was thinking, "Thank GOD I wasn't using 3/16" steel cable!" as he was tumbling to his death?

BTW, I don't advocate the exclusive use of greenspot, and in fact, I think an infallible weak link should be between the towline and the release, which with a pro-tow system it clearly isn't.

- It clearly is on MY "pro tow" system...

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


...asshole.

- And of course there would be NO MORE A POSSIBLE WAY to put a weak link on the back end of the towline than there is to put one on the front end of the towline - like it says in the FAA regs.

But hey, I don't feel strongly enough about that I won't tow with a pro tow myself, they're just too damn convenient.

Yeah, until you're blasting up in a thermal at 150 feet waiting for your Moyes Link to pop with the bar stuffed about an inch and a half back from pro toad trim. Then things start getting damned inconvenient pretty damned fast - for HUNDREDS of people.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Viktor Moroz - 2013/02/09 12:43:38 UTC

Paul Tjaden - 2013/02/07 23:47:58 UTC

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.

Gordon Rigg - 2013/02/08 15:29:52 UTC

Shortly after launch the tug pretty much went out of sight vertically upwards, then came down again as I shot upwards - I pulled on all I could and ended up vertically above the tug with a totally slack rope. During all this I didn't feel out of control or in any risk of stalling or anything like that - just frustration...

As for me it doesn't matter how strong the turbulance was. All pilots must do as much as they could to prevent glider stopping in the air and/or getting a high AoA at the low airspeeds. Seems Zach didn't do that. The question: why?

1. He was flying a tow configuration which deprived him of a lot of the top end of the speed range for which the glider was certified. If he had used a bridle to split the tow tension between himself and the glider at its trim point on the keel he'd have been in a normal position relative to the control bar and would've been able to keep his pitch attitude and angle of attack under much better control.

2. He put a piece of fishing line in his system and authorized it to act as Pilot In Command in the course of many emergency and potential emergency situations. And it made the wrong call - as it almost always does. And I one hundred percent guarantee you that he was not the least bit surprised by the call it made this time.

Every... mmmmm... "unpleasant" low-altitude evolutions I had seen were involved by too high AoA. Usually it finished by lock-out with late release or weak link breaking. Thanks gods all I have been seen were just breathtaking show.
But this lesson I have learned very well: the first enemy during aerotowing is a high angle of attack;

Which is another way of saying that the first enemy during aerotowing is a weak link for which one has the expectation of breaking as early as possible in a lockout situation.

...especially after release or unexpected weak link breaking.

Yeah.

Manned Kiting
The Basic Handbook of Tow Launched Hang Gliding
Daniel F. Poynter
1974

"The greatest dangers are a rope break or a premature release." - Richard Johnson

This isn't really a groundbreaking revelation.

Tow safely.

There's no such thing as safe towing behind a Dragonfly. The system needs a major overhaul before that can happen.

[Tad Eareckson]

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

Steve Morris - 2013/02/09 14:41:41 UTC

Does anyone know if Zack lost his grip on the base tube?

- Nobody's ever lost a grip on a basetube on a glider which was still right side up.
- Thanks for spelling his name right.

This could have been a significant factor in the pitch up and tumble, but not a necessary condition.

He had a grip on the basetube but, ultimately, it was totally useless to him because he was configured, deliberately, such that he couldn't pull the bar back anywhere near as far as he needed to.

Marc Fink - 2013/02/09 14:52:32 UTC

I'm a little confused by the sequence of events--but it sounds similar to a couple of experiences I've had when transitioning a strong thermal out of synch with a tug.

You're permanently confused, Marc. And there's not a goddam thing that's ever gonna change that.

The glider type and bridle rigging may have more influence than you might think.

Not more than I think.

I've done some protows...

Didn't realize you were a pro - like Zack Marzec.

...on low to intermediate performing gliders (not advisable in general)...

I got news for ya... It's NEVER advisable on ANY glider. It's ALWAYS a major control compromise.

...in a similar out-of-synch transition where once the line of pull got to a certain angle I was basically in a vertical lock-out and there wasn't anything I could do to prevent climbing at an accelerated rate of climb and increasing AOA.

No shit. That's why the call it "pro tow". Only a real pro will be able to prevent climbing at an accelerated rate of climb and increasing AOA in a situation like that.

Very hard to do a real bar pull--in instead of what becomes essentially a push-up off the basetube.

I got more news for ya... It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to do to do a real bar pull-in. EXACTLY like it's physically impossible to do to do a real bar pull-in with your hands on the downtubes. This ain't rocket science. This one has a lot in common with the 1994/10/29 Gerry Smith landing approach fatality.

I throw these ideas out there not because I'm indulging in useless speculation...

Oh, perish the thought that you should indulge in SPECULATION. Grieving Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney might tell him to GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!!!!!!

...or questioning anyone's capabilities...

We certainly don't need to do that - Zack proved in no uncertain and irrefutable terms that he didn't have any capabilities. He didn't have the capability to hold his nose down and he didn't have any capability to stay on tow in an emergency situation.

...but because I think most of us are pretty shaken up by this tragedy...

- The total idiots - and, yeah, that WOULD constitute damn near all of you.

- After watching gliders raining out of the Sky for a third of a century as a sole consequence of Hewett Links why would anybody be shaken up by something like this?

...that befell a talented pilot...

- That BEFELL him. When someone's playing Russian roulette with two rounds in the cylinder you don't talk about what's gonna happen an average of a third of the time as BEFALLING him.

- He wasn't a TALENTED pilot. He wasn't a pilot. His pilot was a piece of fishing line with a huge track record which has been proven to work - infallibly, one hundred percent of the time.

...and would like to know what, if anything, we can do to prevent something like this from happening again.

Sorry, I got nuthin'.

But seriously, Marc... Why would we want to PREVENT something like this from happening again? We really need about a half dozen of these in rapid succession to get the point across. Hell, that's what it took at Zapata...

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

Davis Straub - 2011/08/26 14:04:52 UTC

We had six weaklink breaks in a row at Zapata this year. Russell Brown (tug pilot, tug owner, Quest Air owner) said go ahead and double up (four strands of Cortland Greenspot).

...a couple of seasons ago and even after that the benefit...

Davis Straub - 2011/08/28 15:26:28 UTC

We couldn't figure out why we had so many breaks so quickly. Maybe just coincidence.

...was stunningly fleeting.

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

Marc Fink - 2007/05/18 14:16:20 UTC

Tad--I've said it in the past--I really admire anyone that seeks to improve safety in towing (becuase it is necessary)--but I really don't have the slightest idea what the frig you are talking about!

You toss around load limiting figures without any real asociation to breaking strengths and desired load limitations. Just because a weaklink on liftoff breaks doesn't mean it has failed to do what it's supposed to do. If you go out and get slammed in turbulence on lift-off and the weaklink breaks--the failure is not in the weaklink--but in the pilot's judgement for going at that time in those conditions and/or not responding quickly enough to unload the pressures. Them's the breaks, so to speak.

You have a predilication for using scare tactics and pure speculation in some of your accident interpretations. You seem to expect that people to accept your equipment and ideas based on your convictions before they're proven.

Please get in touch with Peter Birren and get some info on development and implementation of safety systems. When you have a safe system based on meaningful quantitative test results--then present it in a positive way. I promise I'll be the first to adapt when and if it passes muster.

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

Jim Rooney - 2007/05/19 01:43:49 UTC

yeah, but speculation and 'conviction' are so much more fun
Glad to see you recognised the black hole just before it sucked you in... too bad it's too late to avoid it... enjoy your pointless debate

Fuckin' asshole.