In addition to the "pilot" there are at least sixteen other people in the immediate vicinity of that launch. Not one of them looks either to verify that he's hooked in or for him to verify that he's hooked in. But WE GET IT.
If I'd been up there I can one hundred percent guarantee you that that wouldn't have happened. (And if Joe Greblo and/or Danny Brotto had been up there he'd still have launched unhooked but we'd have been able to rest assured that his helmet would've been buckled.)
Pablo Garcia (pablog) - 2015/01/12 14:37:49 UTC
Madrid
Concerning the Lanzarote video, the pilot was actually hooked in the glider.
SHIT. I've been robbed.
Apparently there was a problem with the way the hang strap was attached to the new Atos keel, in this case held just by velcro. A faulty installation, presumably from factory.
And isn't it great that we're finally hearing about this issue!
On the other side, the glider went down smoothly enough to allow the pilot (not me, btw)...
Who, BTW?
...to take off again, luckily enough sparing a couple of nearby topless gliders.
Lesson: verify your equipment, even if coming straight from factory !
What? We're supposed to preflight these things?
combat.is.hell - 2015/01/12 21:46:10 UTC
Sweden
Hi Pablog,
You say that he was hooked in but am I right to guess he didn't do a hang check by hanging his weight on the hang point?
Matt Christensen - 2011/06/02 00:21:46 UTC
Vienna, Virginia
I thought I should pass on a lesson learned from the HG Spectacular. As you may know, many of us were flying borrowed gliders at this event. After two days of flying, one of the pilots flying a borrowed glider requested a hang check, which he had done prior to every flight. During the hang check it was noticed that something looked odd with the hangstrap. Upon closer inspection it was found that the hang strap was attached to the keel using only velcro! A little tug on the velcro and the pilot dropped free.
...he can rest assured that there's no fuckin' way he's just hanging from a velcro connection.
Pablo Garcia - 2015/01/12 23:07:26 UTC
I'd say you are mostly right. He may have laid on his knees to check the carabiner was in the hang loop, but I agree that's not a hang check itself.
So the fuck what?
Mike Bomstad - 2015/01/13 00:50:51 UTC
Hard to believe that when closing the lower zipper the pilot did not notice the hang strap not through the eye of itself.
It would be very hard to ignore and not notice that.
Knock yourselves out doing your idiot hang checks. If you do a hang check before one hundred percent of your launches you'll be able to say that you've done hang checks before one hundred percent of your launches.
A Great Post and you only gave him five exclamation marks and ten of your obnoxious little clappy smilies? Fuck you, Bob.
It was painful watching the continual PIO that he never seemed to get under control.
Yeah, let's talk about the shit that happened AFTER he skipped the hook-in check.
He was lucky to have a nice sandy landing zone within easy glide.
Fuck! He was lucky he didn't raise his wing into the turbulent jet stream just prior to launch. This way he at least had a fighting chance - and was able to win.
This is why Joe Greblo teaches a HANG CHECK with the 4 "C"s:
Joe has his five Cs, five things to check before launching.
...FIVE "C"s. Are you sure you didn't FORGET one of them?
- Connection - Verify that you are in fact connected to the glider and everything is properly routed.
- Clearance - Verify that you are hanging at the right height above the bar. This further verifies that you're connected to the glider.
- Crotch - Verify that your legs are through both leg loops and that they are indeed fastened.
- Chin Strap - Verify that your chin strap is holding a helmet onto your head.
Joe also teaches a visual and tactile hook in check just before launch. Turn around and actually look at it.
Damn straight! That way there's no chance of getting your wing in the turbulent jet stream when you're launching unassisted in howling winds. Much...
Luen Miller - 1994/11
After a short flight the pilot carried his glider back up a slope to relaunch. The wind was "about ten miles per hour or so, blowing straight in." Just before launch he reached back to make sure his carabiner was locked. A "crosswind" blew through, his right wing lifted, and before he was able to react he was gusted sixty feet to the left side of launch into a pile of "nasty-looking rocks." He suffered a compound fracture (bone sticking out through the skin) of his upper right leg. "Rookie mistake cost me my job and my summer. I have a lot of medical bills and will be on crutches for about five months."
We visited Steve Wendt yesterday, who was visibly choked up over Bill's death. For Steve, it all comes down to one thing: you've got to hook in. Period.
Yep. It all comes down to one thing. You've got to hook in. Period! Really hard to find...
Amazing how when this topic comes up every time you see people argue the same arguments over and over again. It has been a classic (although niche) endless Internet flame topic.
I suspect that some of the parties that have posted in threads like these before are refraining now since they have learned that it is nearly (completely?) impossible to change people's minds on the topic.
For my part I will just refer you to the classic Tad Eareckson essay which I call "the gun is always loaded" which is a bit overworked but probably all you will ever need to read regarding FTHI. A lot of people will find it gores their particular sacred Ox, but I have never seen anyone point out a flaw in his logic.
...a flaw in that logic either. These guys are both such excellent instructors. What a pity it is that they get all these really crappy students who simply refuse to follow the procedures they're taught.
Thanks again for a good post Free!!
Did you read the topic title, Bob?
Hey Warren... You gonna let this motherfucker get away with this bullshit?
I saw that one myself, the guy who did it was stressed out because of the comp and because he'd rigged way back in the line (of course that was everybody else's fault). He almost stepped on my glider, almost broke another gliders tip wand in the process of clearing a path and was generally loud and obviously stressed. The reason for the mistake may have been this. The glider almost hit a pilot in the head and crashed into a glider way back on launch. I don't know the extent of the damage.
The Mala launch is one of the few places where you can get away with launching unhooked.
Well great then. All the more reason to skip preflights and hook-in checks.
Same thing happened last year also, with a flex that time.
Oh. Another incident in which the pilot was hooked in but the suspension was just velcroed to the keel. And we're just hearing about it now. Great job of incident reporting. Also a great collective job of making sure gliders get off safely.
...wasn't an unhooked launch but the flexi, for which we don't have a picture, was. So we'll just use the Atos picture to represent the flexi. Fair enough?
Pablo Garcia - 2015/01/13 09:11:29 UTC
The falling ATOS just bent two batons of the glider on the ground, afaik.
I agree, Mala is forgiving in that sense.
An extremely experienced pilot was launching a new Falcon 2 via scooter tow. The pilot failed to hook in prior to launch and held onto the control frame (assisted by the upper towline hanging over the bar) until he released at approximately fifty feet. The glider was locked out by this time as the pilot let go with one hand to effect the release. The pilot was propelled through a pine tree, dislocating his shoulder and breaking an arm.
And don't bother reading the threads that deal with issues like this one in the Incidents Reports subforum. Started discussing this one a bit shy of six days prior.
Tormod Helgesen - 2015/01/16 12:38:00 UTC
Not too expensive. It hit a T2 in the set up area, bent two battens on that glider and received some scratches. The Atos flew later that day.
uvflyer - 2015/01/16 15:47:32 UTC
Netherlands
Better to consider this lucky, if it was a ramp things could have gone worse !
But it wasn't. So no BFD. Let's talk about glider damage and repair expense.
Mike Badley - 2015/01/16 19:02:58 UTC
Love the fact that with TWO wire crew and a whole bunch of dudes standing around watching launches - that NOBODY catches that he is unhooked! Sad. Sad. Sad.
He wasn't unhooked - asshole. So how 'bout the fact that no one gives a flying fuck that he doesn't do a hook-in check?
(Oh, I already hear all the PILOT RESPONSIBILITY replies... but C'mon, Man! It only takes a sec to look for the biner.)
And less than that to do a lift and tug.
Ask yourself how you would have felt if you were up there as wire crew (or just spectating) and you watched a pilot hurl off a cliff to his death - and you could have prevented it.
A PILOT will always do a hook-in check and thus won't hurl off a cliff to his death. Any regular Joe who launches unhooked will be someone who's chosen to ignore the hook-in check message. I could've prevented it if he'd bothered to listen to me. He didn't so tough shit. I'm gonna take a bit o' pleasure watching an Aussie Methodist plummet. A Davis Dead-On Straub, Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney, Ryan Instant-Hands-Free-Release Voight, Tom I-Don't-Teach-Lift-And-Tug-As-It-Gives-A-False-Sense-Of-Security Galvin I'm gonna enjoy more than I can describe.
NMERider - 2015/01/16 20:09:28 UTC
He wasn't unhooked! The hang loop was improperly secured at the factory and finally separated from the glider. You can even see there is no hang loop attached to the glider if you download the video and go frame by frame. This has already been discussed in another thread here and on the OR forum.
This is a grim reminder to do a full weight hang check if you want to be certain and not just the typical half-assed hang check that's too often done.
Matt Christensen - 2011/06/02 00:21:46 UTC
Vienna, Virginia
I thought I should pass on a lesson learned from the HG Spectacular. As you may know, many of us were flying borrowed gliders at this event. After two days of flying, one of the pilots flying a borrowed glider requested a hang check, which he had done prior to every flight. During the hang check it was noticed that something looked odd with the hangstrap. Upon closer inspection it was found that the hang strap was attached to the keel using only velcro! A little tug on the velcro and the pilot dropped free.
...you can be CERTAIN you're safely secured to the glider. It's not like you're gonna encounter any situation in which your gonna be pulling more than one G up there - unless you do something really stupid like a turn. Fuck the full weight hang check. LOOK at the goddam connection so you can verify that it'll hold to twenty times the breaking strength of the fuckin' glider.
I typically launch with no crew at all so I have to do a careful visual inspection of my hang strap system and connection during pre-flight.
I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:
HANG CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.
HOOK-IN CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.
They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.
...PREFLIGHT.
There are plenty of ways to get a 'false positive' when preparing to launch.
1. First, let's be clear on our terms here. "Preparing to launch" means you've finished your PREFLIGHT - with the possible exception of connecting to your glider and checking/preflighting the connection and suspension routing. There are legitimate reasons for not doing that until you're on the ramp.
2. Name some.
3. The fuckin' hang check, Aussie Method, Joe Greblo Five Cs are all proven false positives waiting to happen - again.
Find a system that works best for you.
Fuck that. ANY system - including no system at all - for ANYBODY is highly likely to work PERFECTLY for untold hundreds of consecutive launches.
Fabio launched unhooked after he unhooked himself in order to be able to lower his camera boom. He then proceeded to launch and realized the situation as he ran down the wooden ramp. Luckily he had a soft landing in the bushes. The fact that he had 3,000 flights while hooked in is no excuse.
...for over three thousand launches worked perfectly for him...
...right up until that one. And it's a no freakin' brainer that the vast majority of people who've died launching unhooked did so with well under three thousand launches under their belts using systems that had previously worked best for them.
Amazing how when this topic comes up every time you see people argue the same arguments over and over again. It has been a classic (although niche) endless Internet flame topic.
I suspect that some of the parties that have posted in threads like these before are refraining now since they have learned that it is nearly (completely?) impossible to change people's minds on the topic.
For my part I will just refer you to the classic Tad Eareckson essay which I call "the gun is always loaded" which is a bit overworked but probably all you will ever need to read regarding FTHI. A lot of people will find it gores their particular sacred Ox, but I have never seen anyone point out a flaw in his logic.
It "MAY" 'cause the logic is bulletproof and the record is that nobody who knows the difference between a preflight and a hook-in check has ever been recorded falling from a glider.
And every single other system that's worked best for all other individuals HAS been well documented to result in people falling from gliders - just as logic predicts.
I've followed this debate/controversy/argument/trench war/food fight/contretemps/battle of the ideologies for years and have never made a post on this topic until now.
I think that most of this discussion misses the point. And Tad's rants simply represent a more extreme form of missing the point. All those who believe that they have a magic solution to the problem and that everyone else is wrong have missed the point. Those who think that one method of avoiding FTHI is better than another have also missed the point.
The real point IMO is that no method (including the lift-and-tug) is infallible. No method can completely prevent failure to hook in, or indeed any other form of pre-flight set-up error. When you life depends on it and your are doing something dangerous, and doing it repeatedly, 99.99 percent reliability is no good, only 100 percent will do. The problem is therefore in our nature as human beings. How can we perform at the 100 percent reliability level when carrying out a complex task such as preparing for gravity-defying flight? How can we be sure that we don't get distracted and forget a step? The last-gasp before take-off check, the LGBTOC, whether lift-and-tug, four C's, or whatever, is just another way of coping with this problem, but it is also subject to the same human fallibility. The very thing that we think with (the old gray lump) is a flaky instrument and can't be totally relied upon (some gray lumps are more flaky than others ). In other words, I think this whole topic is a human factors issue, not an issue of methodology although, obviously, methodology is not unimportant.
The LGBTOC is just another pre-flight check, and this includes the lift-and-tug, the four C's or whatever else you can come up with. All such checks depend on having the discipline to actually do them. The lift-and-tug is no exception, contrary to what Tad would have you believe. I can image a scenario, admittedly a bit far-fetched, in which a pilot is about to take-off, does the lift-and-tug, gets distracted by something, unhooks to deal with that, then gets pressured to launch quickly for some reason (maybe his best mate has just crashed in the LZ and he needs to get down there fast). He then forgets to repeat the lift-and-tug, with the inevitable result. Tad would have you believe that something like this can't happen, that his method will always save the day. But in the end, human frailty can defeat just about any method or any plan.
The real problem, regardless of the actual pre-flight method that you use, is to have the mental discipline to be rigorous in actually applying the method. If any part of the pre-flight ritual is interrupted, then the checks need to be repeated. Your LGBTOC needs to be done and not skipped, regardless of whether it's lift-and-tug, the four C's, the Aussie method, or even three resounding blasts on a Mukkinese Battle Horn (whatever floats your boat). They are all of no-use if you skip doing them or allow a distraction to compromise them. The only thing keeping you from a mistake is the degree to which you can apply this rigour. On this point, we need to be like someone with Howard-Hughes-level OCD: always make the checks, and if distracted, repeat the checks, and if distracted again, repeat them again. And for the older pilots with deteriorating memory (like me), the problem is even worse: "Did I actually just do step 8, or was it step 7, or am I only imagining that I just did step 8?".
The real point is that no method is infallible. Don't let Tad or anyone else convince you otherwise. It's all about having the discipline to follow rigorously and without fail in any circumstance whatever method you personally have decided to use. It's your decision and you need to slavishly apply it in all circumstances, and apply it as if your very life depends on it.
Because it does.
AirNut - 2015/01/17 17:59:33 UTC
I've followed this debate/controversy/argument/trench war/food fight/contretemps/battle of the ideologies...
The hook-in check is NOT an IDEOLOGY. It's a logical scientific approach to the problem that actually...
Helen McKerral - 2010/01/28 04:15:06 UTC
Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Hiya Tad,
I've been doing the lift and tug for some months now, after our discussion. It's good and it works.
...WORKS. But you wouldn't know that because you've never once in your entire idiot flying career actually bothered to implement this strategy.
...for years and have never made a post on this topic until now.
Which, given the all the horrible tragedies we've been having nonstop since near the beginning of the sport, tells us all something about your interest in and concern about this issue.
I think that most of this discussion...
From which Tad has been totally excluded for over three years because...
He has concerns about people trying to muck up the forum, but he has also dealt effectively with Tad.
...Lord Bob effectively dealt with him.
...misses the point. And Tad's rants...
Quote me something of mine that qualifies as a RANT - motherfucker.
...simply represent a more extreme form of missing the point.
Wow, this is a pretty definitive post - considering it's your first on the issue.
All those who believe that they have a magic solution...
I don't do magic.
...to the problem and that everyone else is wrong have missed the point.
I can't wait until you enlighten me. There are 725 previous posts on this issue on Kite Strings, the vast majority of them mine and many quite extensive; a lot of stuff on junk sites like CHGA, RMHPA, and the Jack, Davis, and Bob Shows; and an article that comes up REAL HIGH on results for the search, "failure to hook in". You have ONE POST on The Bob Show.
Those who think that one method of avoiding FTHI is better than another have also missed the point.
Obviously. It's fuckin' insane to think that there might be one best approach to ANYTHING in aviation. That's why:
- we have such a confusing hodgepodge of comp glider designs
- in response to stalls some people pull in, others push out, and the people like Bob who can run the appropriate Navier-Stokes equations do nothing because they realize stalls aren't dangerous
The real point IMO...
Pick one. Is it the real point or just your goddam idiot opinion?
...is that no method (including the lift-and-tug) is infallible.
So quote me a lift and tugger who's failed to lift and tug. Show me a video of Tad Eareckson, Doug Hildreth, Steve Kinsley, Rob Kells, Eric Hinrichs, Helen McKerral, Chris Valley skipping one.
No method can completely prevent failure to hook in...
So you're just rolling dice every time you foot launch. If you fly long enough it's just a matter of time before you screw this particular pooch. Now where have I heard something like THAT before?
There isn't one sure-fire answer.
If there was, we'd all be doing it already. This thread I think makes this obvious... every single thing people have put forth as "the way", someone else has show how it can fail. Every single one. Argue about the details, but every single one fails.
Argue if you will about the examples (whatever), the trick of it isn't the method to me, it's how using new things doesn't work (and actually causes problems) in strange ways (like when going back to "normal" flying after getting used to the new method/device).
Enough about what doesn't work though... what does?
Since we don't have a plug that only fits one way, we fall on lesser methods, but some are better than others...
In particular... Third Party Verification.
You won't save you, but your friends might.
Not always, but they're more reliable than you.
Oh yeah, Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney - world's foremost expert on unhooked launch prevention and 130 pound Greenspot fishing line.
...or indeed any other form of pre-flight set-up error.
Unhooked launch has shit to do with preflight and setup. But you'd have had to have actually read some of my rants - and George Whitehill's article in the 1981/05 issue of the magazine - to understand that.
When you life depends on it and your are doing something dangerous, and doing it repeatedly, 99.99 percent reliability is no good, only 100 percent will do.
Bull fucking shit. You've just told us all in the two previous sentences that...
The real point IMO is that no method (including the lift-and-tug) is infallible. No method can completely prevent failure to hook in, or indeed any other form of pre-flight set-up error.
...there's nothing we can do to hit 100.00 percent. So 99.99 sounds pretty goddam good to me. One in ten thousand launches is gonna be unhooked, if I have nine friends and we all have thousand flight careers it's a nine out ten chance that it's gonna be one of my friends who eats it. I'm pretty cool with that.
The problem is therefore in our nature as human beings.
Contrary to the popular bullshit, we're not all created equal. (Thank you, Charles Darwin.)
How can we perform at the 100 percent reliability level when carrying out a complex task such as preparing for gravity-defying flight? How can we be sure that we don't get distracted and forget a step?
We can't. Everybody other than the walnut brained Focused Pilots understand that.
The last-gasp before take-off check, the LGBTOC, whether lift-and-tug, four C's, or whatever, is just another way of coping with this problem...
The fuckin' idiot Four Cs or whatever are *NOT* LGBTOCs. And if you'd like to argue otherwise you show me a video of somebody running something else in that Last Gasp Before TakeOff period. I just timed my armchair gasps as five per minute - twelve seconds apiece which is six times what I consider acceptable for a hook-in check. So you show me a video of somebody doing some other verification inside of the final twelve second window.
...but it is also subject to the same human fallibility.
How 'bout moving a foot forward at the commencement of a launch, pulling in in response to a stall, leveling off in ground effect toward the end of final? Just how subject to human fallibility are those actions amongst people who have some business putting themselves in the air?
The very thing that we think with (the old gray lump) is a flaky instrument and can't be totally relied upon (some gray lumps are more flaky than others ).
That's why we have equipment, procedures, redundancies to compensate.
In other words, I think this whole topic is a human factors issue, not an issue of methodology although, obviously, methodology is not unimportant.
Ultimately, it is. You're saying no matter what we do we're just rolling dice and that no approach is better than any other. So we can also just roll dice to make our selection of strategy.
The LGBTOC is just another pre-flight check, and this includes the lift-and-tug, the four C's or whatever else you can come up with.
Fuck you. A hook-in check is the initiation of the launch sequence. All the other rot is preflight shit that NEVER occurs in the literal last gasp.
All such checks depend on having the discipline to actually do them.
But I did have an incident where I failed to hook in. At High Rock. Eddie Miller saved my sorry butt. Sure woke me up. Too bad Bill did not have a scare like that. I now have a nice DSL line through the tangle of Alzheimer's plaque. That was at least ten years ago and there is still not a blade of grass on that neuron path. So that is not how I am going to die.
What we really have to do is to vaccinate pilots, like I have been, but without the scare. How do you do that? How do you get them to internalize a procedure so that they do it no matter what distractions are present? I don't know. But I have come to feel that the communal effort to assure that pilots are hooked can be destructive of this purpose.
Rob Kells - 2005/12
My partners (Steve Pearson and Mike Meier) and I have over 25,000 hang glider flights between us and have managed (so far) to have hooked in every time. I also spoke with test pilots Ken Howells and Peter Swanson about their methods (another 5000 flights). Not one of us regularly uses either of the two most popular methods outlined above. Each of us agrees that it is not a particular method, but rather the fear of launching unhooked that makes us diligent to be sure we are hooked in every time before starting the launch run.
Basically, the idea is that no matter whether you use the Aussie method or not (another emotive topic), or how you do your hang check (step through or hang, look, feel, whatever) the VERY LAST THING you do immediately before every launch is to lift the glider up off your shoulders so the hangstrap goes tight and you FEEL the tug of your legloops around your groin/thighs.
More important, I think, is a change in mindset: that you constantly assume that you are NOT hooked in. That is the default mindset and only after you've done the lift and tug - immediately before every launch - do you decide you're hooked in. Also, because the default assumption is negative rather than positive, you are much less likely to start any run unhooked.
Allen Sparks - 2010/09/07 01:03:18 UTC
Thanks for the Tad 'lift and tug' reminder.
I have launched unhooked and experienced the horror of hanging by my fingers over jagged rocks ... and the surreal result - i.e. not being significantly injured.
I am a firm believer in 'lift and tug' and the mindset of assuming I am not hooked in. It is motivated by the recurring memory of my own experience ... and the tragic deaths and life-altering injuries of good friends.
This is fear and mindset based and reinforced through conditioning and muscle memory.
The lift-and-tug is no exception, contrary to what Tad would have you believe.
Fuck you. I did lift - or float - and tug every single foot launch of my foot launch career from the fall of 1980 to the fall of 2005 and never came close to missing it ONCE. You NEVER do it but you're the self-appointed expert - one of hundreds - who's gonna set everyone straight on this issue.
I can image a scenario, admittedly a bit far-fetched, in which a pilot is about to take-off, does the lift-and-tug, gets distracted by something, unhooks to deal with that, then gets pressured to launch quickly for some reason (maybe his best mate has just crashed in the LZ and he needs to get down there fast). He then forgets to repeat the lift-and-tug, with the inevitable result.
Yeah, maybe he'll forget that the pointy end of the glider goes forward too. And, in contrast to the crap you just spewed, I've seen that happen. Granted, it was a first class Kitty Hawk Kites ride factory "student" of mine, but at least there's a foundation in reality.
Tad would have you believe that something like this can't happen...
Well, there's something we can agree on.
...that his method...
It's not MY method, motherfucker. It preceded my entry into the sport and I got tuned into it by one of my instructor colleagues at Kitty Hawk. And it's also the method of folk like Doug Hildreth, Dennis Pagen, Rob Kells - but I don't ever seem to hear assholes like you linking it to THEIR names when they're pissing all over the strategy.
...will always save the day. But in the end, human frailty can defeat just about any method or any plan.
1. But you had to make up an absurd example - the likes of which has never actually happened - to illustrate your point.
2. So you're advocating that we just continue doing what the fuck ever over and over and accepting the odd Rob Dunn, Eleni Zeri, Bill Priday, Bille Floyd, Kunio Yoshimura, Yossi Tsarfaty, Lenami Godinez-Avila?
The real problem, regardless of the actual pre-flight method that you use, is to have the mental discipline to be rigorous in actually applying the method.
I don't have any mental discipline. Never had, never will. That realization made me scared shitless I'd launch unhooked and being scared shitless is what makes me do hook-in checks - every time, no matter what. I'm guessing you're scared of ground looping a launch 'cause your wings aren't level so you always level your wings before you start your launch run. I'm scared of that too but a tiny fraction as much as I am of launching unhooked so I always do hook-in checks.
If any part of the pre-flight ritual is interrupted...
Again, this isn't a goddam PREFLIGHT RITUAL - asshole. This is...
I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:
HANG CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.
HOOK-IN CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.
They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.
repeating a dozen times. This is what people who ACTUALLY DO hook-in checks ACTUALLY DO.
Your LGBTOC needs to be done and not skipped, regardless of whether it's lift-and-tug, the four C's, the Aussie method, or even three resounding blasts on a Mukkinese Battle Horn (whatever floats your boat).
Only one of the above is an actual fucking hook-in check.
They are all of no-use if you skip doing them or allow a distraction to compromise them.
Lift and tug is especially of no use for assholes like you who NEVER DO IT.
The only thing keeping you from a mistake is the degree to which you can apply this rigour.
There's no rigor involved in a lift and tug - compared to moving your goddam glider onto the ramp anyway. And you WILL be tensioning your suspension ANYWAY for every launch. You can choose to do it a second or two BEFORE you start your launch run...
..a second or so after - the Bill Priday / Paul Edwards technique. Equally effective for letting you know whether or not you're hooked in.
On this point, we need to be like someone with Howard-Hughes-level OCD: always make the checks, and if distracted, repeat the checks, and if distracted again, repeat them again.
Yeah, you work on that for yourself - and everybody else.
And for the older pilots with deteriorating memory (like me), the problem is even worse: "Did I actually just do step 8, or was it step 7, or am I only imagining that I just did step 8?".
Yeah, I did that every foot launch I made from age 27 on. I could NEVER remember what I'd done or hadn't done two seconds prior. So I always said, "Fuck it." and just did it again.
The real point is that no method is infallible. Don't let Tad or anyone else convince you otherwise.
What's the title of this thread, shithead? I try to convince people that it's virtually useless. That it's so useless that even if you did it two seconds ago you need to do it again at the last possible gasp and then run off the ramp STILL assuming you're not hooked in. It's all these other assholes...
Well, very simply we could make a new rule for competition. If you are seen in your harness but not hooked into your glider you are automatically disqualified.
An advanced pilot launched unhooked. The pilot was able to hold on and effect a landing on the beach below, but suffered a broken pelvis and internal bleeding. It is extremely fortunate that this pilot had the strength to hold on for the duration of the flight, and it's amazing that these were the only injuries suffered. Lesson learned: HANG CHECK, HANG CHECK, HANG CHECK! Your life will most often depend on it.
The harness is part of the aircraft... end of story.
(Just because it's easy to remove, does not mean it should be. Don't choose the path of least resistance)
So ya know that I heard the, uh, definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and to expect different results. So I decided to make a change. And so now I've incorporated a formal checklist system when I fly.
This is why Joe Greblo teaches a HANG CHECK with the 4 "C"s:
- Connection - Verify that you are in fact connected to the glider and everything is properly routed.
- Clearance - Verify that you are hanging at the right height above the bar. This further verifies that you're connected to the glider.
- Crotch - Verify that your legs are through both leg loops and that they are indeed fastened.
- Chin Strap - Verify that your chin strap is holding a helmet onto your head.
Joe also teaches a visual and tactile hook in check just before launch. Turn around and actually look at it.
...trying to convince everybody all their strategies are infallible. How come you're not going after them?
It's all about having the discipline to follow rigorously and without fail in any circumstance whatever method you personally have decided to use.
Exactly. Unless you're such a disciplined person that you never make mistakes under any circumstances no matter what - just like AirNut, Bob, Rick, Sam, Ryan, Mike Bomstad - then you need to stay home and play checkers and watching videos of people perfecting their flare timing.
It's your decision and you need to slavishly apply it in all circumstances, and apply it as if your very life depends on it.
Because it does.
What a load of useless clueless crap.
AirNut - 2015/01/17 18:12:45 UTC
P.S.
For those of you interested in acquiring a Mukkinese Battle Horn, the only completely foolproof method of avoiding FTHI, I'm thinking of starting a completely new thread to expound the unique qualities of this life-saving device.
I might even post it on Tad's site.
If you do it'll be your first and last post on Tad's site. And you really shouldn't be on Tad's site anyway 'cause...
Zack C - 2010/11/23 05:23:34 UTC
As for rules, just keep it civil, stay on topic, keep topics in line with the forum purpose, and don't lie or misrepresent others' statements.
...you're already misrepresented the crap out of Tad's statements.
Warren Narron - 2015/01/17 19:34:38 UTC
Thanks for weighing in, and yes, it's inevitable that you will be dealt with by Tad at Kite Strings.
Fuckin' DONE.
I'll just add, without the actual U$hPA requirement wording...
With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.
...is simply- you must demonstrate an effective method of knowing you are hooked in immediately prior to launch.
It's not about a checklist.
It's about using some method to assure you are hooked in the last seconds before launching. A lift and tug accomplishes this, and it is one step beyond in addition to all previous checklist...
Preflight.
...satisfactions.
And satisfaction is THE ultimate killer in ALL unhooked launch fatalities.
A lift and tug could have easily caught this deadly brainfart.
I always liked to launch with a tight strap anyway, for control of the glider.
OK, AirNut, write a few more paragraphs on doing what-the-fuck-ever and conditioning yourself into becoming a laser focused demigod - vastly superior in ever way to all the douchebags before them who've launched with dangling carabiners and missed leg loops. That really appeals to the testosterone poisoned assholes who fly these things.
When you get a pile of crap this massive it's easy to miss the seeing the forest for the trees. AirNUT is saying...
- Lift and tug is fallible because we mere mortals are not capable of maintaining the focus and discipline to overcome distractions and implement it without fail over time.
- The only acceptable strategy is to develop superhuman focus, discipline, immunity to distraction.
- When we've reached that point (which we all will, of course, 'cause none of us are assholes (assuming we survive to that point (at some unspecified time in the future)) whatever strategy we feel works best for us obviously becomes infallible (except, of course, for lift and tug 'cause that's Tad's baby).
So AirNUT...
- How long did it take for you to develop superhuman focus, discipline, immunity to distraction and how many times did you launch unhooked in the process?
- In addition to yourself, Ryan, Bob, Rick, Sam, Ryan, Mike Bomstad, who are some other examples upon whom we muppets can model ourselves?
This is why Joe Greblo teaches a HANG CHECK with the 4 "C"s:
- Connection - Verify that you are in fact connected to the glider and everything is properly routed.
- Clearance - Verify that you are hanging at the right height above the bar. This further verifies that you're connected to the glider.
- Crotch - Verify that your legs are through both leg loops and that they are indeed fastened.
- Chin Strap - Verify that your chin strap is holding a helmet onto your head.
Joe also teaches a visual and tactile hook in check just before launch. Turn around and actually look at it.
Hey Bob...
- Quote me:
-- Joe Greblo telling us what his goddam Cs are
-- one of his students or indirect beneficiaries telling us how he was snatched from the jaws of disaster by one or more of Joe's goddam Cs
- Name some instructors who DON'T teach their idiot students not to verify that:
-- they're:
--- in fact, connected their gliders with everything properly routed
--- hanging at the right height above the bar
-- their:
--- legs are through both fastened loops
--- chin straps are holding their helmets onto their heads
--- parachute containers are safely secured
- Show me a video of one of Joe's students turning around and actually looking at his carabiner just before launch.
- Name somebody who discovered an issue with his carabiner by touching it.
Wanna hear my Five Ds for safe landings?
- Don't get out of range of the field.
- Don't come in downwind.
- Don't clip a tree turning onto final.
- Don't overshoot the field.
- Don't blow your flare timing.
There. I just solved all of hang gliding's landing problems for all time. If anyone ever crashes again it'll be 'cause he failed to heed one or more of my Ds. Do I get an NAA Safety Award now?
And a solid breakfast. Statistics show that a strong cup of coffee alone actually increases the likelihood of launching unhooked over ingesting nothing at all as it gives a false sense of security.
!
). In other words, I think this whole topic is a human factors issue, not an issue of methodology although, obviously, methodology is not unimportant.
