You are NEVER hooked in.

[Steve Davy]

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=23476
Aborting launch ...as a technique

CAL - 2011/10/04 22:08:28 UTC
Ogden, Utah

here is a video of me aborting a launch, i had just returned to the sport after receiving my h3, and yes i was taught to hang check, this was all me not my instruction, you can bet that i hang check every flight, after this experience.

i felt pressure on my collar bone and knew something was wrong, had i launched it would have been a disaster, as it was i was able to abort, fix the problem and move on,

most of the Sites i fly you can not abort, you need to make sure you have done a hang check, launch in good cycles, and balance the wing, you only have one shot at it, get it right !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWqah1TykmU

[Tad Eareckson]

i had just returned to the sport after receiving my h3...

When you received your Three did you, perchance, touch at all on this:

The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association, Inc.
12. Standard Operating Procedure
02. Pilot Proficiency System
02 Rating Requirements
06. Intermediate Hang Gliding Rating (H-3)
-B. Required Witnessed Tasks
02. Demonstrated Skills and Knowledge

-e. With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

requirement? Just kidding.

...and yes i was taught to hang check...

- Of course you were. EVERYBODY teaches EVERYBODY to HANG CHECK - which appears NOWHERE in ANY of the rating requirements. But NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH* - which appears in ALL of the rating requirements. Including those for the Three some asshole had just GIVEN you.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=22608
I made a scary mistake.

- A hang check doesn't necessarily prevent you from launching with this sort of malfunction.

...this was all me not my instruction...

Bullshit.

...you can bet that i hang check every flight, after this experience.

I never had the slightest doubt.

i felt pressure on my collar bone and knew something was wrong...

Which you did the instant the glider started LIFTING. And if you had just bothered to LIFT the glider JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH you would've brought yourself into compliance with the conditions of your rating (and all of your previous ones), identified the problem, AND insured that you were connected to the glider when you really needed to be - without having to do a fucking hang check.

...had i launched it would have been a disaster...

No it wouldn't. It would've been unpleasant and uncomfortable but you could've maintained control of the glider just fine until you got things sorted out.

...as it was i was able to abort, fix the problem...

...again skip the hook-in check...

...and move on,

As you could have in the air if this had been a ramp launch.

most of the Sites i fly you can not abort, you need to make sure you have done a hang check, launch in good cycles, and balance the wing, you only have one shot at it, get it right !

And always, always, ALWAYS skip the hook-in check.
And only use the shift key once every three paragraphs - and then not where it makes any sense.
There's something to be said for making a habit of trying to do things right - no matter what the environment.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=23476
Aborting launch ...as a technique

Dave Hopkins - 2011/10/04 23:57:12 UTC

We can abort on most slope launches. if it goes bad in the first couple steps We can put on the brakes and get away with a dropped nose or small ground loop.
Also if we are not hooked in we should be aware that the glider has flown too high and we can let go of it before we get into the air or going to fast . I teach this on the training hill. we should let the glider fly off our shoulder and be very aware that the strap is tight . If the glider keeps going up let it go.

Yeah Dave, we should always check to feel that the suspension starts going tight right AFTER we start our launch run so we can try to abort before we get into the air or start going too fast. Fuckin' brilliant.

I watched a young pilot try to abort a launch on the TT ramp at henson's gap. Bad idea! Three steps into it he stopped after popping the nose and turned to look at the wire crew. The wire men screamed RUN RUN ! he turn and took two steps and fell in to the air. Very lucky his wing was still straight and level.

Oh. So this technique of yours for checking to feel that the suspension starts going tight right AFTER starting the launch run so we can try to abort before we get into the air or start going too fast works a little better on the training hill than it does on the Radial Ramp. That's good to know. I'm really glad you pointed that out.

(By the way... TTT has three Ts in it. (Did you and CAL have the same third grade English teacher right before you dropped out of school - at age fifteen - to become pilots?))

So in the end I can say that we can abort a launch. Ive done it at Ellenville and other slope launches. It's one of those judgement things.

If you have anything in the way of judgment you won't EVER put yourself in a position - shy of fooling around on the dunes maybe - in which you NEED to abort a launch.

[Tad Eareckson]

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2008/09/hang_glider_pilot_who_forgot_t.php

Ray Stern - 2008/09/03

Hang Glider Pilot Who Forgot To Buckle Up Was Local Realtor, Father

Sorry, I'm having trouble finding anything in the article about how "buckling up" was relevant. Can you help me out a bit?

What happened to hang glider pilot Kunio Yoshimura on Saturday was the sort of fatal blunder that reads like fodder for a Darwin award.

If you consider the entire culture Darwin Award fodder - and an excellent case can be made for that - yes. But it's not very fair to single out one of the occasional individuals who pays the ultimate price for the kind of Darwin behavior in which virtually all participants - including instructors - engage and which is encouraged by the national organization.

As local news reports detailed yesterday, Yoshimura forgot to connect himself to his hang glider...

The problem wasn't that he forgot to connect himself to his glider. The problem was that he NEVER *CHECKED* that he was connected to his glider JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

...before jumping off a windy cliff on Mingus Mountain near Prescott.

If he jumped off, that was another potentially lethal mistake.

Unable to control the craft, he deployed a parachute too low and fell more than 1,000 feet to his death.

How can you deploy a parachute too low then fall more than a thousand feet?

But this was a real tragedy in Yoshimura's family and in the state's hang gliding community.

The hang gliding community was the primary perpetrator of this tragedy.

Family pictures Yoshimura posted on the Internet...

http://www.amuragroup.com/eng_about_kunio.php

...like the one shown above, should stifle the macabre laughter of even the more cynical reader.

Yeah, it's only funny when somebody DOESN'T have 2.5 adorable little kids gets smashed to death on a mountainside.

The beauty of Kunio Yoshimura's chosen pastime can be seen in his YouTube videos, like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEhuBU64t18

- See any buckles between the harness and glider?
- See anybody "jumping" off anything?
- Anybody notice what's not happening within seven seconds of Kunio's launch and six seconds of the other glider's?
- Everybody notice that nobody else within camera range has ever heard of a hook-in check either?

The 36-year-old Phoenix realtor had been flying hang gliders for about thirteen years and documented many of his adventures with videos.

Anybody think:
-he ever ONCE in thirteen years did a hook-in check?
- anybody ever ONCE in thirteen years made an effort to get through to him?

The sport has an above-average risk factor, though, and is commonly thought to be even more dangerous than skydiving.

But it's really pretty hard to tell since USHGA does such a great job of suppressing crash data.

On Saturday, Yoshimura was attending an annual three-day event at Mingus Mountain with other members of the Arizona Hang Gliding Association. Details on the Web site go well beyond the snippets that appeared in local publications.

Hal Hayden, the Mingus Site Monitor for the association in Prescott, describes how the 1:30 p.m. incident unfolded with lightning speed after Yoshimuro...

That's not his name.

...launched "without first attaching his harness to the glider."

- No, for Kunio it was thirteen years in the making.
- Hey Hal, ever bother to read the requirements for your rating?
- Ever monitor the Mingus site to see if anyone was following sane launch procedures in compliance with their ratings?

The pilot grabbed the glider's control bar and attempted to pull himself up onto it...

Did you actually bother to READ the detailed account to which you refer below?

"He managed to climb up into the control frame and get his feet on the base bar."

...but he was unable to gain control and the glider dove approximately 1,000 feet down the slope of the mountain.

He was unable to gain control because he was too scared to hang back.

Yoshimura threw his parachute and let go of the glider before it impacted the hillside, but he was too low and the parachute failed to arrest his descent.

How do you know he let go? Why would anyone in his right mind let go in a situation like that?

Yoshimura's mistake can be boiled to down to the fact that he didn't perform a "hang check" before he took off, one member says.

The member's an idiot.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1153
Hooking In

Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02 02:45:48 UTC

When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check.

Another who goes by the name "Randy Skywalker" states that "Kunio was anxious to fly" and that "I should have noticed he was not hooked into the glider."

Nah, Randy. What you should've noticed was that NONE of the bozos in your neck of the woods EVER *VERIFIES* that he or any of the other bozos is hooked into the glider at the ONLY time it matters.

The most detailed account comes from "Flying MJ":

Randy and Kunio were both ready to launch at the same time...

Ultimately, Yoshimura's death is a chilling reminder for everyone that, sometimes, one careless mistake is all it takes.

Bullshit. It's an illustration of how when an entire culture elects to ignore regulations and omit a critical, obvious, virtually effortless safety procedure from virtually all flights decade after decade that you can count on someone getting killed every now and then.

And it's also a great illustration of how this culture is totally incapable of learning anything from anything - ever.

[bobk]

EVERYBODY teaches EVERYBODY to HANG CHECK - which appears NOWHERE in ANY of the rating requirements. But NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH* - which appears in ALL of the rating requirements. Including those for the Three some asshole had just GIVEN you.

This is why people can't believe you Tad.

You say that NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH*.

I'm sorry, but there are instructors who do teach that. So you're either lying or delusional or interpreting the regulation the way you want to interpret it without pointing out that others may interpret it differently (or using some childish play-on-words with the name "Nobody").

This is why people should rightfully doubt everything you say ... because you exaggerate to the point of saying things that are factually untrue to support whatever you want to prove.

[Tad Eareckson]

This is why people can't believe you Tad.

- Which people? All? Some? A few? Two?

- Yeah? And? There are zillions of people who can't believe that Earth is more than six thousand years old or that modern species evolved from much more primitive forms - despite the undeniable evidence represented by flight park operators and tug drivers. Ya can't win 'em all.

I'm sorry, but there are instructors who do teach that.

- Name two.
- Enough to be able to see any effort at compliance anything but a rarity at any given site?

So you're either lying or delusional or interpreting the regulation the way you want to interpret it without pointing out that others may interpret it differently (or using some childish play-on-words with the name "Nobody").

- I can't have all four?
- I started my hang gliding career focusing on others who may interpret it differently.

1:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4JFe7rUCnc

http://vimeo.com/16572582

password - red
2-112
http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7600/28811055456_925c8abb66_o.png

-
Hang Gliding Fail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mX2HNwVr9g
andyh0p - 2011/04/24
dead





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL00UefQqZA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0lvH-KxGlQ

5:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcKebsmnVUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u51qpPLz5U0


And it's so much more fun now that everyone and his dog - sorry - many people and only the rarest of dogs have movie cameras and post on the web.

This is why people should rightfully doubt everything you say...

- People should rightfully doubt EVERYTHING *EVERYONE* says and do the math for themselves. It's called SCIENCE. When they do that everyone eventually winds up on the same page.

- When that DOESN'T happen you end up with a bunch of Rooney following and harmonizing morons running the shows.

- I don't really want anyone who DOESN'T doubt everything I say participating in this forum. This is not and will never be a "'cause Tad says" sorta place.

- And I've gotten better as a consequence of the discussions here because people have challenged me on stuff I've had wrong.

...because you exaggerate to the point of saying things that are factually untrue to support whatever you want to prove.

And you think I care about keeping in the gene pool the kinds of idiots who take everything they hear literally and have no ability to understand intent and substance - IF people that stupid actually exist?

The title of this thread is:

You are NEVER hooked in.

It should've been:

No pilot is EVER hooked in.

so that pilots are as scared for their fellows as they are for themselves. That would bring it more into line with the analogous:

The gun is always loaded.

which works a lot better than "MY gun is always loaded."

The last thing we need in this sport are more herds of morons "thinking" along the lines of...

You are NEVER hooked in? That's bullshit. That's LYING to myself. Lying is IMMORAL.

I KNOW I'm hooked in. I just checked ten seconds ago. At that moment, I banished all concern about launching unhooked. I took care of it. It's done. It's out of my mind.

I've ALWAYS done it this way for a thousand consecutive flights and it's always worked for me.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15337
unhooked take off clip

George Stebbins - 2010/02/16 21:36:38 UTC

The key point that Tad is trying to make in his annoyingly prolific and pedantic fashion is the assumption made. Always assume you aren't hooked in except immediately after you've checked it. After a few seconds, you have to assume you aren't hooked in again. If you know you are, you are at risk. I've been known to mutter under my breath as I walk to launch: "I am not hooked in, I am not hooked in." Hey, it can't hurt! (And I've been caught doing it louder than under my breath a time or two...)

He's not saying to get rid of your other methods. Just to add this one and change your assumption that you are hooked in. (As annoying and strained as the gun analogies were, I think they might be apt.)

I suspect that if everyone ignored every item on this thread except the "Always assume you are not hooked in unless you just checked it one second ago" then there'd be fewer FTHI accidents. But hey, what do I know. I'm sitting in front of a computer typing into this overused thread instead of out flying. I can't be all that smart.

That's who I want teaching, mentoring, role modeling for, flying with, crewing for, watching my nephew - someone not above telling a lie that never hurt ANYONE and is very effective in preventing slaughter who isn't all that smart.

[bobk]

EVERYBODY teaches EVERYBODY to HANG CHECK - which appears NOWHERE in ANY of the rating requirements. But NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH*

This is why people can't believe you Tad.

You say that NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH*.

I'm sorry, but there are instructors who do teach that. So you're either lying or delusional or interpreting the regulation the way you want to interpret it without pointing out that others may interpret it differently

Name two.

Joe Greblo and Andy Beem.

There, now you've been proved to be either lying or delusional or interpreting the regulation the way you want to interpret it without pointing out that others may interpret it differently. You cannot say that NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH* because I know those two instructors do it. I'm sure there are many more. So people just can't believe what you write because you lied right there.

Tad, it gives me no great joy to "disembowel" you (to use your phrase), but you're leading people down a dangerous path with your myopic claims of what's safe and what isn't. I agree that "lift and tug" is a good method and I endorse it. But it does not work in all situations. There are situations where the additional risk of lifting the glider prior to accelerating the glider is greater than the risk of launching unhooked after a hook-in check 10 seconds ago. But you won't admit that because you've staked out a position that's inconsistent with that reality. You'd rather have your "followers" feel compelled to do something that puts them at greater risk than to simply admit you are wrong.

I'll say again, that you've got lots of good ideas, but you lose credibility when you're not able to back down from a position that's so clearly wrong. This makes people question all of your other claims regarding weak links and bent pin releases and everything else that you write. I'm starting to wonder how many of these other issues are just smoke screens to similarly "disembowel" other people you don't like.

[Tad Eareckson]

There, now you've been proved to be either lying or delusional...

- I guess you missed the part about idiots who take everything they hear literally and have no ability to understand intent and substance.

- I'm thinking that the reaction of the kind of hunter least likely to blow his buddy's head off was not to consider the firearms safety instructor who said that the gun is always loaded as a liar or delusional.

http://www.azhpa.org/azhpa_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2871
Kunio Checklist

Don - 2008/09/02 19:02
Long Beach

Kunio's accident was simple - he didn't perform a hang check!

I was taught to perform a "Hook-in Check" if I haven't checked in the last thirty seconds - I call it the "Joe Greblo Hook-in Check". Obviously Kunio didn't perform one of those either.

- If Joe was Don's instructor he's not getting the concepts across to everyone very well.

- If Andy Beem is doing things right that's great. But I've never heard that name before and the fact that I've never heard that name before is probably a good indication that he's doing nothing to get the problem fixed beyond what he does with his own students. And what he's doing with his own students doesn't seem to be particularly measurable on the national scale.

...without pointing out that others may interpret it differently.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hhpa/message/11629
Question

Zack C - 2010/05/11 23:13:24 UTC

We discussed FTHI at the meeting tonight. From my perspective, this seemed to be the consensus:

- We need to help each other more.
- There is no difference between a hang check and a hook-in check.
- Checking your connection status five minutes before you launch is no less acceptable than two seconds (and five minutes probably qualifies as 'just prior' for USHPA's ratings).
- It is preposterous to suggest that hang checks are dangerous.
- The Aussie method is one way to prevent FTHI.

Those there can add to or correct this recap as necessary.

That should work pretty well to point out that just about everybody interprets it any lunatic way he wants to - which is why there were two well documented unhooked launches amongst the Houston area divers last year.

(And that also works well enough for me to feel comfortable enough saying stuff like "NOBODY teaches ANYBODY to ESTABLISH THAT HE IS HOOKED IN *JUST* *PRIOR* *TO* *LAUNCH*".)

So people just can't believe what you write because you lied right there.

EXCELLENT!

Zack C - 2010/12/13 04:58:15 UTC

I had a very different mindset too back then and trusted the people that made my equipment. Since then I've realized (largely due to this discussion) that while I can certainly consider the advice of others, I can't trust anyone in this sport but myself (and maybe the people at Wills Wing).

When people in this sport start learning to trust no one but themselves then they realize that they need to have solid understandings of the THEORY...

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

Jim Rooney - 2011/08/26 06:04:23 UTC

If someone's got a problem with it... we've got over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TANDEM TOWS and COUNTLESS solo tows that argue otherwise. So they can politely get stuffed.

As my friend likes to say... "Sure, it works in reality... but does it work in theory?"
Hahahahhaa... I like that one a lot

...for which Harmonizer Sam's shitheaded cult leader has so much contempt and they're well on their ways to becoming competent pilots and extremely valuable assets to the sport.

But it does not work in all situations.

In situations in which it doesn't work people shouldn't use it. But in a couple of decades worth of flying a lot at a lot of different sites in a lot of different conditions I never once found - for myself - a situation which came anywhere close.

There are situations where the additional risk of lifting the glider prior to accelerating the glider is greater than the risk of launching unhooked after a hook-in check 10 seconds ago.

I'm sure there are. It's just that...
- People such as myself who ALWAYS do tension checks before all the launches of their careers never seem to encounter them.
- Instances of problems resulting from tension checks are entirely absent from the incident report record.
- All failure to hook in fatalities have involved people who didn't do tension check two seconds ago.
- If I launched following a last hook-in check ten seconds ago I'd consider myself killed for the purpose of the exercise.

But you won't admit that because you've staked out a position that's inconsistent with that reality.

It only becomes a reality when it's supported by an incident report. Until then it's speculation.

You'd rather have your "followers"...

I don't have - or want - "followers". Followers are people incapable of thinking for themselves who attach themselves to other stupid people with huge track records.

This makes people question all of your other claims regarding weak links and bent pin releases and everything else that you write.

GREAT!

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3035
Tad's Barrel Release and maybe an alternative

Brian Vant-Hull - 2008/02/13 14:19:02 UTC

Tad - that Stan and Ollie routine was a masterful bit of expository writing. So much so that it got me to go digging through my harness bag to pull out my Bailey release and check out your statements... you're right: it means the pin hits the barrel pretty darned close to the fulcrum.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3347
Tad's barrel release tested

Brian Vant-Hull - 2008/06/30 13:48:08 UTC

Under weight of these observations, I do attest that TAD's RELEASE is SUPERIOR to the BAILEY RELEASE and that the BAILEY RELEASE is SERIOUSLY FLAWED UNDER HIGH LOADS.

- The more they question my - or anyone's - claims the better off the sport is.

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

Kinsley Sykes - 2011/08/31 11:35:36 UTC

Well actually he didn't. But if you don't want to listen to the folks that actually know what they are talking about, go ahead.

Feel free to go the the tow park that Tad runs...

- The less they question my claims the more mindless zombies you have running around with their noses stuck in Lord Jim's ass.

- Antoine's load tester tends to spit out the same numbers mine does - after you do the English/metric conversions anyway.

Lemme see if I can get a few more people to question all my claims and everything I write...

There's absolutely no good evidence that global warming is occurring as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels. As a matter of fact, there's absolutely no good evidence that global warming is occurring - period.

I'm starting to wonder how many of these other issues are just smoke screens to similarly "disembowel" other people you don't like.

- I only disembowel stupid, dangerous, and/or evil people I don't like.

- Donnell Hewett was absolutely clueless on most of what he wrote and did more damage to hang gliding than I would ever have thought possible for one individual to accomplish. And the lunatic bridle/release system he "developed" once put me in one of the most deadly positions I've ever experienced in the air. But his intentions were good, I don't consider him evil, and have no desire whatsoever to disembowel him. His math - yeah. But him - no.

- If I don't like somebody who isn't a threat to hang gliding and feel like disemboweling him I'll disembowel him. I don't need any smoke screens. And I kinda resent the implication that people like Peter Birren are undeserving of disemboweling and that I'm only doing it for personal reasons and under false pretenses. So how 'bout you either figure out whether or not perlon is a no-stretch material and engage in the discussion based upon your conclusions or stay out of the exchange altogether?

[Zack C]

Bob,

He didn't mean 'nobody' in a literal sense. It's like saying 'nobody obeys the speed limit'. If this is the best you can get him on, I don't think his credibility is at risk.

But regardless, this isn't about 'credibility' or 'followers'...

I don't really want anyone who DOESN'T doubt everything I say participating in this forum. This is not and will never be a "'cause Tad says" sorta place.

...you lose credibility when you're not able to back down from a position that's so clearly wrong.

Tad used lift-and-tug for decades at many sites in every sort of conditions without issue. As far as I'm aware, Bob, you've never attempted it in the conditions you're afraid of. Consequently, if I was going to talk about credibility on this subject, I'd say Tad has more than you. Give it a try some time in demanding conditions...if you've got people on your wires, what's the risk?

I actually have similar concerns as you, but I'm not going to say Tad is 'clearly wrong' without trying it.

Zack

[Zack C]

Oops...I was trying to get a reply in before Tad since I figured Bob could stand to hear it from someone else.

Anyway, Andy Beem is one of Greblo's instructors.

Zack