Hi gang. I'm Shannon's husband. Thanks for the well wishes.
I'm not a pilot and am writing this from an iPad from Shan's hospital room, but this thread was forwarded to me so I thought I'd give folks some info. First her condition... She was badly hurt with both arms basically shattered but chances are good for a full recovery.
No they're not. They suck.
Needless to say she's in pain etc. and is only lucid for brief periods at the moment but she has related to me that she feels the accident was fully due to error on her part.
No. It was virtually ENTIRELY the fault of the assholes who trained her at Quest and everything upstream from there. And I one hundred percent guarantee you that if she had rocketed through her advancement and kicked ass at the US Nationals next year Quest would be accepting the praise for their fine program they'd have consequently gotten so they need to get proportionally credited for this end product as well.
No doubt a lawyer would urge us to not admit that...
No doubt. However Yours Truly here could handle THAT issue with both hands tied behind his back.
ALL pilots are egomaniacs and are lightning fast at blaming themselves for anything and everything that goes south on any particular flight. Listen to Holly here as she's coming out of four days worth of semicoma:
Even more amazing, she remembered a few details of her setup for launch just prior to the accident. (Before this, she didn't even remember being at Blue Sky---parts of it are clearly returning, though I don't expect she'll remember the accident itself any time soon.)
Holly began showing very faint signs of blaming herself for the accident, which I immediately swept away. She wasn't distraught or upset, but glumly said "I can't believe I did such a boneheaded thing." I told her FORGET IT! It was an accident, period, and it could have happened to any of us. She asked about the glider, and was visibly saddened when I told her the Litesport was totalled. But then, she lightened up and said "Well, that's probably a good thing, 'cause I don't need to be flying a Litesport any more."
Nobody:
- made it clear that she was not to tow one point without clearance
- gave her training to fly one point as she would need to in the event of a bridle wrap
- checked her at launch to ensure that she was properly configured
- equipped her with a release she could actually use in an emergency and/or under load
- pointed out that her driver:
-- failed to dump her at a safe point in her oscillation cycles
-- dumped her at the worst possible moment in the emergency when the result she experienced was a foregone conclusion
...but were not litigious people...
Bummer. The only way we're ever gonna get anything fixed is by getting a few of these entities sued out of existence.
...and she isn't hesitant to admit error on her part.
And, by contrast, the only way you can get the operators primarily responsible for these things is to start slowly lowering them in boiling oil.
She has told me that she had an issue with her harness that she allowed to distract her and which kept her from correctly judging her circumstances and she made "a classic mistake."
Attempting to foot land when she had absolutely no need to - in a state which has an absolutely spectacular lack of need for foot landings.
As I say I'm not a pilot so judge that as you will.
I wouldn't worry about you not being a pilot. Nobody at Quest has ever been and only two or three of the people to whom you're talking are.
Shannon is a relative novice to hang gliding...
And will forever remain so.
...with about 120 flights...
Which will remain her career total.
...but is an experienced pilot, she got her private pilots license as a teenager and then was a student at Embry-Riddle almost fifteen years ago...
Does anyone at Embry-Riddle advise whipstalling any aircraft to dead stop landings?
...and has been an active sailplane pilot for years. I've known her for most of her life and flying is her passion - she will take own up to her mistakes, and improve as a pilot from the experience...
She's never again gonna be as good a pilot as she was prior to impact two and a half days ago.
...and the reminder...
A reminder of which she had no need whatsoever.
...that flying is wonderful but unforgiving of any lapse.
BULLSHIT. Flying is forgiving of TONS of lapses - if it weren't we humans would rarely last more than five or six flights. But it's a real bad idea to do stupid obviously dangerous shit near the ground and fuck up your execution a little bit.
And on 2012/06/11 at the Lumby, BC LZ Michael Wood's gonna do the same stupid obviously dangerous shit near the ground and fuck up his execution to a much lesser degree and end up dead as a result.
Bill Taylor - 2013/09/21 23:26:58 UTC
Willows, California
I was thinking the same thing. On my third wing and looking for a used T2 so who knows what color it will be. Besides, scars are like tattoos but with a better story.
I have a few on my leg from a early flair and parachuting in from six feet. Landing in a gopher hole and falling on my rear end. Didn't hurt a bit for ten minutes. Now I have stainless steel ballast in my leg.
Well, the important things were that you:
- held the "flair"
- came down feet first
- stopped on a dime
Bill Taylor - 88107 - H3 - 2012/09/02 - James Tibbs - FL 360 AWCL CL FSL TUR
Did you ever, for just a moment, consider NOT flaring - at all? If you had, to date, rolled all of your landings in, how many of them would have resulted in injuries necessitating surgery and stainless steel ballast?
I really like the focus on decision-making in the air. We get a lot of "Do this -- don't do that" instruction, but when it's framed as, "Now what would you do?" it impresses upon you how important it is not to get yourself into a difficult situation. I'm impressed that you created a great educational video from a frightening and humbling experience. Oh, and thanks for 7:54 -- now I know the position I was in when I broke my arm! Still not sure how the arm got out from behind the down tube...
Stephan Mentler - 2013/10/08 17:35:57 UTC
Pensacola
As I have not been able to fly for the past several months - I have been doing a bit of reading. Are any of the old-timers here familiar with the concept of the no-flare landing.
Anybody who flies anything other than a hang glider for starters.
I had read that this was being instructed back in 2000. I believe one of the proponents was a gentlemen by the name of Joe Greblo. The chief argument for this type of landing was that the traditional flare (tail-slide) was not necessarily the best method for the modern hang glider (modern as of 2000).
Bullshit.
Don Boardman - 1982/12
Rome, New York
The landings, by the way, are the greatest. You come in just like a seaplane and touch down gently skimming on the water's surface.
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."
The "traditional" flare has never been anything close to the best method to land a hang glider.
I was just curious as to whether or not this was a fad or were the gliders at the time not flare friendly.
There much flare friendlier now. Just read the 187 post Davis Show Sticky thread featuring the Patron Saint of Landing that Brian's about to link to and you'll have that landing down in no time.
On a side note - does any video exist of this type of landing?
I'm still waiting for a link to a video of some landing where it's necessary to stop on one's feet.
Brian Scharp - 2013/10/08 17:51:09 UTC
Here's the oz thread on landing. It covers that and other methods, pro's and con's of them.
His one-technique-fits-all attitude espoused on the Oz Report Forum has become tiresome to read. It does not work in the fucked-up world of XC landings and weary pilots.
Really surprised that the glider manufactures don't put a fifteen page abridged version in their owners' manuals.
Try getting him to respond to the last couple of unhooked launches in his neck of the woods while you're at it.
BTW he teaches the full flare for when needed, but recommends the run out landing in most cases when you can, with a flare at the end if needed.
Does he ever teach people to come in on the fuckin' wheels when there's absolutely no reason not to?
It depends on the conditions and glider. The issue with a full flare is if you get caught up in a gust that lifts a wing you could end up with a whack or worse.
Like injured, crippled, paralyzed, or killed.
Nic Welbourn - 2013/10/09 00:03:55 UTC
Canberra
I figure learning to flare well is an essential skill.
Got any data to support your figuring?
But if you don't need to flare, don't flare...
Any thoughts on what you shouldn't do if you have absolutely no need to land on your feet?
Rodger Hoyt - 2013/10/09 06:20:28 UTC
Those who advocate no-flare landings do not fly in western US deserts with tall sagebrush LZs.
Nobody lands in western US deserts with tall sagebrush LZs. They don't exist.
In 3-foot high sage, you must bring that wing to a complete stop - no run-in possible!
And if you're good enough to be able to predict that there will be no fuckin' way you'll need to run out a landing - regardless of what Mother Nature hands you in the way of air movement - then knock yourself out.
Ditto for rough, rocky and primitive fields.
That everybody talks about but nobody actually lands in - at least not more than two or three times without wishing he hadn't.
That moon-walking pilot a couple of posts above would have two broken ankles in many western cross country landing fields.
That moon-walking "pilot" put himself in the hospital for two and a half months on a routine tandem launch from Coronet Peak - so let's see if we can get him squared away on the Hang Zero stuff before getting that ambitious.
And here's the recent result of one of his hotshot dear friends being unable to handle landing at the Quest Air Happy Acres putting green following the inconvenience of a simple Rooney Link pop that thousands of other aerotow pilots...
Due to the rough conditions weak links were breaking just about every other tow and the two tugs worked hard to eventually get everyone off the ground successfully.
So how 'bout we start worrying about addressing the issues that got that Hang Four professional killed on that putting green before we start worrying about hypothetical assholes breaking hypothetical ankles electing to come into obvious death traps?
Any thoughts? I notice we didn't hear from you before Davis locked down the threads on his show and the Jack Show thread petered out when attention spans were stretched far beyond capacity.
You can't run it in everywhere.
You can't safely LAND everywhere - and only total shitheads think that landing in the kind of dangerous crap you describe as "LZs"....
There have been a number of bad landing incidents in the wash by a variety of experienced pilots because it is a dangerous bailout, period. It is NOT the club's landing zone either. It is a bailout and when it's hot on the surface it can and will bite you in the ass.
Be glad you don't fly XC where I do. It really sucks here in the LA Basin and I'm tired of all the hazards.
May as well learn to flare it right EVERY TIME!
And balance beam competitors may as well learn to stick THEIR landings EVERY TIME!
And I think YOU should be the one to make sure that everyone from Hang 2.5 and up learns to flare it right EVERY TIME! - and, of course, cover all equipment damage and medical expenses...
"LZ" is the abbreviation for LANDING ZONE. A landing zone is a designated field at a tow operation or within a safe glide of an elevated launch. LZ fields look like the one above in which Allen's ripping his shoulder apart practicing for landing in three foot sage and:
ALL of the high volume ones are big, reasonably flat, and smooth with no rocks of appreciable size and nothing growing higher than several inches. People select, groom, and maintain them that way because otherwise people WILL BE HURT as a consequence of those issues - despite all the diligence of our excellent instructors in teaching people how to perfect their standup spot no-steppers. All you've gotta do is put a taxiway sign up at the edge of a huge field section and some airline/carrier pilot will eventually figure out some way to fly into it and break a couple of arms.
A field with three foot sage or a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place is not - and will never be - an *LZ*. Some dildo pushing his luck and having to park in some deathtrap does not consecrate said patch as an LZ any more than a patch of desert that a disabled Airbus needs to plow into becomes an international airport.
Neither, for that matter, is a four hundred acre sod farm five miles over the back that gliders occasionally land in an LZ. It's a FIELD.
OK, Jack Show assholes... How many of you:
- are:
-- safely landing in three foot sage and rough, rocky, primitive fields?
-- confident in your ability to safely land in three foot sage and rough, rocky, primitive fields?
- got into the sport largely to achieve a life-long dream of landing in three foot sage and rough, rocky, primitive fields?
- can't wait for your next opportunity to landing in three foot sage or a rough, rocky, primitive field?
- have:
-- never landed in anything more hostile or challenging than the Kagel and Mingus primaries and thus feel that your hang gliding careers to date have been empty wastes?
-- landed in something more hostile or challenging than the Kagel and Mingus primaries and really wish you hadn't?
-- snapped an arm in half or ripped a shoulder apart in an LZ comparable to Kagel or Mingus practicing for landing in an environment you have never landed in?
-- figured out that practicing for safely landing in three foot sage and rough, rocky, primitive fields is sending your likelihood of getting seriously fucked up over the course of a career or several seasons through the ceiling?
Steve Murillo - 2013/10/07 22:40:00 UTC
SHGA - Safety Director
Comment on blown launch
Yesterday was an extremely unpredictable day. There was convergence, and the resulting tempest made for quite a challenging day.
Aside from the blown launch, we had at least four pilots break downtubes on landing.
Is that up or down from the regular count?
As our pilot indicates in the account above, winds were switching from blowing up to slightly blowing down and back again. Down in the LZ, it was even more pronounced, and many pilots had to shoot northerly approaches. At least two pilots opted for a normal southerly approach and unfortunately paid the price.
Was the price they paid for the normal southerly approach...
- "Oh, that's so much more brainless than landing on your feet!"
- "That was beautiful!"
- "That was a GREAT landing, Rotor!"
- "Who cares if it's downwind!"
- "Ooh shit, that was awesome!"
...or for trying on your putting green to practice for emergency landings in narrow dry riverbeds with large rocks strewn all over the place?
Two very experienced pilots recognized the unpredictable conditions early on in their flights and opted to land early, before the winds switched. Their landings were uneventful. These guys get a BZ each for good head work.
Have you ever had to shoot a northerly approach? What would you do? Where would you set up? What direction would you turn? Where would your numbers be? Would you go long and accept the wash? How long is that wash anyway? A quarter mile? A half mile? A football field?
Next time you are in the LZ you might make a note to walk the LZ, rehearsing a northerly approach in your mind as you go. Hey, at the worst it could save a downtube!
Can you think of anything else that might save even more downtubes?
NMERider - 2013/10/08 01:18:48 UTC
I came in to land around 4:20 PM and didn't notice anything unusual until the glider ahead of me came in from the wash south of the LZ and skimmed over the overshoot ramp. I noticed that the wind on the deck was from the WNW or cross the LZ runway about 20 degrees north of perpendicular and switchy. Since I was flying 305 pounds on 144 square feet I was cautious of a sudden shift N or S so I set up over the wash ready to come in from either side. I split Solomon's baby and came in perpendicular trying to clear the berm as low as possible. I dragged my feet across the grass and ran it to a stop in the parking lot. I dropped the control bar onto my over-sized Delrin skids. No harm done.
Later I found out about another topless glider that came in from north to south with what I assume was a tailwind as it resulted in an overshoot into the wash and a broken arm (humerus).
Lemme guess... Hands on the downtubes?
I also heard about another topless wing that was damaged and the pilot aggravated an old injury. Lots of whack stories.
So at least for the whack story guys there didn't seem to be much of an advantage for attempting to foot land, right?
It sounds like the safest topless landing was in the field next to Olive View Hospital where is was strong out of the west on the deck and the pilot just floated in.
Kendall demonstrated the wisest tactic as I have learned from Phill: stay in the air until the surface wind is clearly organized then quickly dive in and land. He did a very nice landing from the South over the overshoot hill while the wind was much more north than west.
Keep in mind that it was more west than north yesterday which was great for floaters which could be landed across the runway without fear of overshoot but for heavy wings it was problematic.
Fly with wheels. If the landing goes wrong, it hurts less to roll in than to pound in.
If you're attempting to foot land in an iffy situation where you can roll in there's already something going seriously wrong with the landing.
NMERider - 2013/10/09 05:38:50 UTC
Great comments by Ken!
Including the last one about the wheels, Jonathan? I don't hear anyone saying that wheels wouldn't have made any difference and you've got a broken humerus out of the afternoon's festivities.
Sounds to me like if the guy had just HAD wheels he'd have come out OK. And the silence on this issue as it relates to Sunday is pretty deafening - especially from Joe Greblo and George Stebbins.
I've been asked to contribute to this topic by providing my opinions on how to make safe landings in turbulent flying conditions.
1. You just had a bunch of crashes and a broken arm at the Kagel primary - or as close as a lot of your guys could get to it anyway. Why did you need to be asked?
have been a more appropriate place for your comments?
3. Shouldn't people rated to fly Kagel without sponsors know this shit already?
There are a half a dozen topics in hang gliding that rank very high in importance and this subject is one of them.
No shit. When was the last time you addressed your local unhooked launch epidemic?
I believe, every pilot will get his/her share of surprises and things going wrong on approach.
I believe every PILOT should be checked out well enough such that the surprises aren't surprises and don't result in things going wrong on approach - 'cause people tend to get killed (2008/04/29 - Kagel - Jeff Craig) when they do. Conventional aviation seems to be able to handle this fairly well - so what's the problem with hang gliding?
Some pilots seem to come out of these situations in good shape and for others, it's everything from scary, to a trip to the hospital.
1. All PILOTS can handle these situations without getting scared or hurt.
2. Or morgue, dude - it's been less than five and a half years.
I also believe...
I don't have a whole helluva lot of confidence in instructors who teach aviation based on their personal beliefs.
...the way to best insure good landings in bad conditions is through disciplining myself to perform nearly each and every landing approach in the manner that's most forgiving of change ie: most tolerant of sudden turbulence, lift, sink, or surprises.
NEARLY each and every landing approach. It's OK to cut corners, compromise, fuck up every once in a while. If you maxed out your margins every time you'd eliminate just about all the risk which is so important in attracting us to the sport.
Low approaches, slow approaches, S-turn approaches, approaches needing hand and body position changes, all can be dangerous when something begins to go wrong. So what are the most forgiving approach techniques.
Christian Thoreson - 2004/10
Thus wheel landings, the safest and easiest way to consistently land a hang glider...
Most instructors...
FUCK most instructors. Hell, fuck 'em all.
...agree that in general the aircraft pattern approach (downwind, base, and final) is the approach most forgiving to surprises.
ALL instructors agree not to teach students...
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
...to EVER demonstrate a method of establishing that they are hooked in just prior to launch.
ALL aerotow instructors agree not to teach students that:
- light weak links are extremely dangerous
- there's no such thing as a release within easy reach when the shit hits the fan
- in the vast majority of emergencies giving the glider the rope is the worst possible thing the driver can do to it
Let's look at the aircraft approach itself. Does a very low approach allow for things to go wrong?
Ask Jeff Craig.
How about a very high approach with a real long final glide?
Ask John Freak-Accident Simon.
The long straight final might be good for preventing unwanted turns, but when done in lift and sink it's not possible to maintain a perfect glide angle without speeding up or slowing down.
So why do we have any assholes teaching long straight finals?
Speeding up creates its own unique problems, but not as many as slowing down. A conservative landing approach is best for all but short runways or small fields where the RLF approach can be safer.
A Restricted Landing Field Approach is the most conservative flavor one can make. People who do all their approaches as such tend never to fuck up.
So what's the solution to landing in turbulence? Here's a list of things that can help.
1. Accept the fact that you can't land precisely where you want to, but where you end up, and you may end up much shorter or much longer than you planned.
So why do we still have bullshit like THIS:
The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Inc. - 2013/02/07
12. Standard Operating Procedure
02. Pilot Proficiency System
09. Advanced Hang Gliding Rating (H-4)
0B. Advanced Rating - Required Witnessed Tasks
02. Demonstrated Skills and Knowledge
-h. Demonstrate three consecutive landings that average less than 25' from a target (or optional landing task - see Addendum 1 - Optional Landing Task) after a flight which requires turns on approach. In smooth conditions, the spot location should be changed by the Observer, for each of the three flights. Flights should be a minimum of one minute and 200' AGL.
on the books allowing instructors to force useless and dangerous spot landings?
2. Minimize turns on final. Purposeful turns in turbulence while on final are dangerous and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
If you've made a turn you weren't on final. Final means you've stopped turning.
3. Assuming that you have a long runway...
I NEVER assume I have a long runway. When I actually do I treat it as a short runway and approach accordingly.
...try to enter ground effect about 1/3 up the runway. This leaves ample room to land short and plenty of runway ahead to land long.
4. Choose a "target airspeed" for your approach that is right for the amount of turbulence that you think might be present in and above the landing zone. The stronger the turbulence, the faster the "target airspeed".
Any chance your target airspeed is gonna be higher than what you can obtain with your hands on the downtubes?
5. Minimize the need to change hand and body positions during the approach as it's difficult to change a hand position at any other speed than trim speed.
6. Don't try to flare to a full stop. Just like in flight, "airspeed is your friend and stall is your enemy". Your glider cannot be aerodynamically steered once it stalls, and flaring always stalls the glider.
So what if you just stayed prone with your hands on the basetube, flew it all the way to the deck, and let it settle down on the wheels...
That's also why it's important to stay practiced at both "full-flare" and "run-out" landings.
So if you're a paraplegic - like Chris Starbuck - you can't stay practiced at what's important. So you probably shouldn't consider flying - 'cept maybe in sled conditions.
Here's 4 things to consider for a simple landing approach checklist.
Couldn't you make it FIVE things? That would match the number of Cs you do for your hang check.
I say them out loud during downwind, on base, and again during final.
ABLE
A= Is my ANGLE of attack low enough for the expected turbulence?
B= Is my BODY upright with my feet under me (not behind me)?
No. If I do that I can't do A - 'cause I always expect a lot of turbulence. Besides, I don't want my feet getting between the ground and my wheels - 'cause then my wheels may not function the way I need them to.
L= Are my hands LOW?
If they're on the basetube they are. If you get them any lower than that you won't be able to keep your speed up.
E= Are my EYES on target? - flying precisely on my imaginary runway centerline.
No. They're on my landing checklist taped to my left downtube. I couldn't remember what the E stood for.
Couldn't we check our Chinstraps before we started our approach? That would be five items like for the hang check and we could use the acronym CABLE. And, hell, that would also remind us to check our sidewires if we hadn't done it on preflight.
Nothing creates carnage like declaring a spot landing contest.
Those work great for targets.
If I have one, I can tell the moment the glider begins to deviate. This quick recognition of an impending turn, helps me react quicker to keep the glider going straight.
I'm more interested in level than straight. What if it turns because it's yawing into a crosswind?
I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.
...advises staying on the basetube and bellying in if things get ugly. People have been killed they rejected that option. Is there some reason you're not mentioning it?
Have you ever once in your nearly four decades of instruction suggested either of those options? If not, I'm guessing you've never had any back, legs, knees disabled types express any interest in the sport. Seems a bit odd to me. Or is it just a matter of those options being incompatible with your personal belief system?
Stephan Mentler - 2013/10/10 18:12:06 UTC
Pensacola
Thank you for the responses. My reason for researching this is that I believe that there has to be a better way to land a hang glider than a full flare tailslide...
Yeah. Damn near anything else that doesn't involve flying into the side of a barn.
...yet that seems to be the only method accepted as legitimate to be a hang glider pilot.
Note the correlation with the one-size-fits all standard aerotow weak link - and the people pushing it.
The obsession with the flare landing is so great that I have witnessed pilots make the terrible decision to kick out of their harness and rapidly grab the downtubes and do a full flare foot landing, as they have been trained to do, only to crash when the situation and conditions called for something different.
Bull's-eye.
In all of the cases the pilots would have been better off to belly land. At least one of the pilots gave up hang gliding.
People have been crippled and killed.
It seems our wings have evolved, as have our harnesses, varios, etc., but our commonly accepted landing techniques have not.
And why do you think that is?
As a serial wheel-lander that competes, I recognize the importance of knowing how to foot / flare land as I have landed in a few places where my wheels would not have cut it (corn and soy fields, plowed soft dirt, etc)...
Don't land in corn and soy fields. And think about what happened to Paul Tjaden coming down on...
Paul Tjaden - 2004/04/26
There was a friendly field just below me but I could see the grass and small weeds blowing dramatically as the thermal Lauren was climbing in pulled air in from nearby. I chose the side of the field away from this disturbance and started an uneventful approach to an obvious upwind landing. Everything seemed quite normal until just before I started my round out. At that time I felt a sudden acceleration and drop and my groundspeed increased dramatically. Can't be certain, but I think it may have been the rush of air going outward from the sink usually found on the outer edge of thermals.
At any rate, I suddenly found myself in a strong downwind situation. Never really had time to flare, just found myself being pounded in to the ground at fairly high speed. The soil was too soft and sandy for my wheels to roll and I whacked hard. The glider never went over on top and I didn't break or bend any aluminum so it must have not been that extreme but apparently I was thrown through the control frame violently enough to cause a spiral fracture of my left humerus.
...a soft surface. He'd have probably been OK, definitely much better off, if he'd stayed prone and on the basetube.
...and I do a full flare landing; however, I question why the full flare landing is the default method for nearly all pilots.
You're not...
Christian Thoreson - 2004/10
Thus wheel landings, the safest and easiest way to consistently land a hang glider...
...alone.
Even the most experienced pilots screw up their flare and at a minimum break a downtube but usually end up with worse.
Bullshit.
- Usually they don't do any damage.
- Next usually a downtube gets bowed and can be straightened.
- Then a downtube gets trashed.
- And there will be a lot of downtubes trashed before someone gets seriously hurt.
You want to grow the sport - landing is probably the most intimidating part for most.
For EVERYONE.
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."
OMG!!! You dont even have wheels!!?!?!?!?
YOURE GONNA DIE FOR SUUUUREE!!!!
I have a brilliant idea. People who cant land for sh*t.... LEARN TO LAND That way when a weak link breaks on you, ITS A NON-ISSUE. Genius huh???
...when I was making the point.
The psychology that the only acceptable landing is a full flare no-stepper is...
Programmed in starting Day One, Flight One.
...definitely poorly considered...
To put it mildly.
...and has indeed caused more than its fair share of damage.
Most common HG injury... spiral fracture of the humerus.
...all of it.
The goal is to land your aircraft safely with no damage to yourself or the glider or to property.
No no no no...
The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Inc. - 2013/02/07
12. Standard Operating Procedure
02. Pilot Proficiency System
07. Novice Hang Gliding Rating (H-2)
-B. Required Witnessed Tasks
02. Demonstrated Skills and Knowledge
-j. Demonstrates three consecutive landings that average less than 100' from a target, safe, smooth, on feet and into the wind.
If you wish to land on the wheels every time, then that is going to mean staying with gliding range of a well tended, smooth field that supports this type of landing.
And if you WISH to pull off safe standup landings every time, then you can land in whatever crap you feel like.
There is no shame in that choice.
Good. Then sailplane pilots are off the hook.
The caution is this, however. If you are going to ever fly farther than a single glide from your flight park's LZ...
Bullshit. It's one helluva lot easier to find wheel landable fields than it is to find the thermals to take you out of range of the goddam flight park.
...then you need to be prepared to land on a variety of surfaces.
Name some people who are fully prepared to land on a variety of surfaces and stay upright.
Some fields that are not safe to roll in on are safe to run in on.
Meaning that if you are not able to stay on your feet you're gonna get hurt.
Some that are not safe to run in on are safe to do a no-stepper on.
Coming into a field that requires a no stepper to stay safe shows shit pilot judgment.
Some are just not safe LOL.
Anything that isn't safely wheel landable.
If you are in that category that likes to fly out of range of the primary LZ then you will eventually realize that the landing technique that takes the most skill and precision is the full flare no-stepper.
Bullshit. We have paraplegics who fly XC - quite successfully thank you very much.
Foot landers who fly XC and break arms in perfectly wheel landable fields are a dime a dozen.
If you want to maximize your safety then mastering this technique is going to require the most effort.
I can't control the glider in strong air with my hands at shoulder or ear height and I'd rather land on my belly with my hands on the basetube than get turned downwind.
...after you've mastered it, Paul.
That doesn't mean to say that this is the only style that needs mastering. You can master the full flare no stepper in light, smooth wind and still have your @$$ handed to you trying it out in a rowdy turbulent LZ.
In other words, the full flare no stepper cannot be MASTERED in the real world. Even if you've mastered it in fake conditions when you come down in injun country where it's critical to your safety you're gambling that Mother Nature isn't going to do anything to upset your carefully laid plans.
And this is EXACTLY what Quest, Davis, USHGA are saying about the Zack Marzec fatality. If you tow up and get hit by a monster thermal, invisible dust devil, invisible bullet thermal too low to get a parachute open you are dead - and the only thing you can do to better your odds of survival is wear a full face helmet.
Same is true for any landing style... conditions will impact the results, no doubt about it.
How many landing styles do sailplanes have?
If you want to maximize your safety as much as possible you must become proficient in a variety of landing styles and practice them in a variety of conditions.
If you wanna maximize your safety as much as possible DO NOT PRACTICE DANGEROUS LANDING "STYLES".
Then you must also get really good at recognizing when conditions aren't favorable for safe landings of any style and act accordingly.
Thermal conditions can throw monkey wrenches into landing plans at drops of hats. If you wanna maximize your safety margins use the landing "style" with the widest safety margins. And don't land in crap that forces landing styles with paper thin safety margins.
And now we're right back where we started from, but this time we've replaced the ego - machismo - BS of "Wheel landings are for girls" with a well thought out, reasoned approach that will allow us to combine our honest assessment of our skills...
I'm totally not into SKILL in critical phases of aviation - takeoff and landing. If something requires more skill than a solid Hang 2.0 can deliver then I want no part of it.
...with our judgement on the conditions of the day to decide if to fly, and if so how to land safely in whatever field we end up in at the end of the flight.
Crashes and injuries resulting from people making go decisions in marginal conditions are statistically nonexistent.
- Foot launches are inherently dangerous. Narrow safety margins.
-- 2012/04/05 - Dave Seib
-- 2012/07/04 - Eric Thorstenson
-- 2013/05/30 - Grant Bond
- Tow launch crashes are damn near one hundred percent consequences of marginal and submarginal weak links.
- Landing crashes are almost entirely consequences of people making efforts to master foot launching techniques to maximize their safety.
Jason Boehm - 2013/10/10 19:55:55 UTC
Stapleton, Colorado
I question why the full flare landing is the default method for nearly all pilots.
because its the easiest, on your body, on the equipment in all different kinds of terrain.
BULLSHIT.
- It's the default cause asshole USHGA, schools, and instructors shove it down everyone's throat and hardwire them - EXACTLY they way they do with 130 pound Greenspot.
- They're fuckin' disasters for bodies and equipment.
- Fuck all different kinds of terrain. Only assholes land on all different kinds of terrain.
oh the field is giant and well groomed, sure you can land on wheels, or do a piss poor flare (imp sorry "moonwalk") or you can land on your feet
Or break a downtube or arm trying.
the last landing I did was a wheel landing, its definitely an option, I was tandem and my passenger said she wasn't going to be able to run, so i said, ok, we'll just wheel it in...and after dragging everything across the ground its excess wear on your gear, skid marks on harnesses attest to this
Yeah. Putting skid plates on harnesses you can reasonably expect to be rolled in on is beyond the scope of human engineering.
over time repetive wheel landings can damage the airframe near the apex...
it also isn't a technique, its just flying into the ground as slowly as possible
You mean:
- the safest strategy for one of the two most dangerous phases of the flight?
- a reverse sequence of what's done at the other most dangerous phase of flight?
- the way every other fixed wing aircraft on the planet does?
I've been flying hanggliders for 13 years, and done exactly 3 wheel landings, one was 2 weeks ago, the other 2 were also tandem (took a small rock to my knee and my worst HG injury on one of them, i could barely walk).
And that surprised you? That you could take a rock to the knee rolling in on a rocky strip without kneepads?
in those 13 years other then those 3 tandem wheel landings, every landing I attempt is a nosteeper...
Yeah, I'm guessing you're getting them as steep as you possibly can without doing a backflip.
...yes sometimes i fuck up and do the "moon walk" and have to run, but by and large I have been successful, 13 years, not so much as one bent downtube
1. Which means that you've bonked. Which is something that NEVER happens in conventional aviation careers and is a real big fucking deal when it does.
2. And Quest Air has been popping thousands upon thousands of Quest Links over the course of a couple of decades and just once was one really inconvenient.
They're just flexing and not damaged in the least. And the nose comes into contact with the ground only with the lightest kiss imaginable. But that landing was a lot more expensive than it would've been if he'd totaled that glider many times over. And yet you could include it in your thirteen year string without changing so much as a punctuation mark.
You want to grow the sport - landing is probably the most intimidating part for most. Is there a better way to land?
stop trying to find a better way to land, and learn to land?.......crazy I know
Get fucked. When this sport has been trying to teach tens of thousands of students for over three dozen years to "land" - including those with mega conventional aviation qualifications like Shannon Moon - and the injury rate is constantly horrendous then there's something wrong seriously wrong with the approach, not the participants.
Jason Boehm - 2013/10/10 20:00:28 UTC
Mike Bastan - 2013/10/08 17:55:53 UTC
The issue with a full flare is if you get caught up in a gust that lifts a wing you could end up with a whack or worse.
and how does being half stalled and running 10 mph mitigate this?
2013/10/10 20:16:50 UTC - 3 thumbs up - Paul Hurless
Yeah, you know you're on the right track when you've got Paul Hurless on your team.
Dontsink - 2013/10/10 21:40:41 UTC
Spain
I think it mitigates by not putting you six feet from the ground, banked and stalled.
Now, one task into the meet we are all hanging our heads as we just get confirmation about the fatal accident of Croatian team pilot Ljubomir Tomaskovic. He apparently encountered some strong turbulences on his landing approach. He got pitched up and turned around from a strong gust at low altitude, then impacted tailwind into some treetops from where he fell hard onto the ground.
You are a semiliterate Grade A asshole, Jason - always have been and always will be. And I don't give a rat's ass about how consistently you are or aren't able to pull these things off. They are inherently dangerous and mostly useless and everybody with half a brain or better knows it.
Nic Welbourn - 2013/10/10 22:27:17
Canberra
Excellent post pjwings
Paul's full of shit. He's stated, in effect:
- Some fields require full flare no steppers.
- Turbulence can neutralize anyone's ability to pull off a full flare no stepper.
- But master the full flare no stepper to the point you can pull it off in a field that requires a full flare no stepper in turbulence or never get out of range of the primary.
He's stating, in effect, that nobody can ever safely fly XC and, at the same time, adding to the obsession with the full flare no stepper that Stephan correctly identifies as a pathological condition of the sport.
Just over thirty thousand hits now (30008). Hard to believe that with that much quality material available and in circulation with that many pilots that anybody's ever even dropping the bar in a narrow dry riverbed with large rocks strewn all over the place anymore - let alone that you'd have the kind of carnage in and around the Kagel primary that you did Sunday afternoon.
I think if we just get a few more people reading it a little more often and a little more thoroughly we'll achieve the critical mass we need to finally lick this problem.
That way when a weak link breaks on you, ITS A NON-ISSUE. Genius huh??? 
