[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad,

You know that I've worked to bring you to this forum because I didn't like that you were kicked off of other forums. But at this point, I have to confess that I'm no longer reading your longer posts (other than an occasional skimming). It's not that I don't like you, or disagree with your posts. It's simply that they're too long and too often filled with hate and revenge.

Having said that, I think a lot of what you're trying to say was expressed very well by your quote of John Moody written to Zack and another Bob (not me):

John Moody - 2010/02/03

Bob, Zack,

Thanks for the clarification on that Tad Eareckson letter.

Bob, I had already looked over the first two links you posted about the Capitol Hang Gliding Club and knew that Tad was an active member in the early '90's and I had also looked over his Flicker pictures of releases. It was the third link that turned out to be the really good one. I read the whole thread from top to bottom, about a three hour chore for me and keeping score as it bounced from person to person was hard for a while. The one thing I found I could seriously relate to was Tad Eareckson. He is my newest Hero now. In a nutshell, he argued that more times than not, staying on the rope is better than blowing a weaklink or having the rope handed to you by an observer. He made the point clearly that a weaklink's only purpose is to protect the aircraft and of course the really big one that some pilots fail to understand: a weaklink will not prevent a lockout and in fact probably won't even be strained by one! Getting off the rope IS THE PILOT'S DECISION. The other side of his argument, and the part that started the conversation, is that mandating the maximum strength of a weaklink is crazy - what should be mandated is the MINIMUM strength.

His argument is that having a weaklink blow up in your face when you really need the tow force is the more dangerous situation. Getting off the rope is not always the right answer. There are more factors involved and only the pilot can be aware of them.

Tad, if you could write clearly and briefly like that without all the hate and foul language, I think you'd do a better job of spreading your message and saving lives. That's just my humble opinion.

[TadEareckson]

1. The other Bob was Bob Fisher. He voted to ban me from the Houston forum about nine and a half months later.

2. Did you read the part where John said:

I read the whole thread from top to bottom, about A THREE HOUR CHORE (not tour) for me and keeping score as it bounced from person to person was hard for a while.

And that was a person who was a rather important pioneer of towing who pretty much got it to begin with.

3. I'm not actually all that into saving lives. That's just a byproduct of saving the sport from people I would much prefer to see dead.

4. If these jobs coulda been done by clear, short, simple, obvious messages without all the hate and foul language they'd have all been done thirty years ago.

5. We probably got different ideas about what's foul language and what ain't.

[miguel]

miguel,

I agree with Rick.

Who's never towed. Big surprise.

Running down a slope, being seamlessly lifted into the air by the glider, flying away like superman, without a care in the world is pure joy and happiness.

Without a caaaaare in the world. No concern about the practically free gasoline it took to move the three thousand pounds of metal underneath your glider up the mountain, the resources it takes to maintain and repair the road, and how your Suburban is gonna get back down the mountain and meet you in the LZ. Oh wait - you probably just spoke the instructions into the GPS unit.

Nope, I do not worry about the gasoline nor the price of rice in China. You seem to be forgetting that tow rigs of whatever form use energy also.

Towing hgs adds multiple layers of complexity, worry and is simply unfun.

Yeah, the tens of thousands of us who do it and the top competition pilots in the world who flock in from all over the world to Florida, Texas, and Australia to do it are all totally delusional. They should really start listening to YOU.

Nope again. They do what works for them. I do what makes me happy.

Zack C - 2011/03/04

As for platform launching, I was nervous about it when I started doing it. It looked iffy, like things could get bad fast. I've since logged around a hundred platform launches and have seen hundreds more. Never once was there any issue. I now feel platform launching is the safest way to get a hang glider into the air (in the widest range of conditions). You get away from the ground very quickly and don't launch until you have plenty of airspeed and excellent control.

I did a platform tow where the release from the truck malfunctioned. I pulled the release and was still on the platform. The time it took for the truck to slow down and stop was very intense. I was imagining being released and spread on the tarmac below like peanut butter on bread.

Lemme tell you some other things that add layers of complexity and worry and make things simply unfun in mountain flying that don't exist at all or as comparable factors in dolly and platform launch towing.

a) launch ramps
b) cliffs
c) slots
d) shallow slopes
e) running launches
f) wire crews
g) hook-in failures
h) light air
i) crosswinds
j) venturis
k) catabatic flows
l) rocks
m) trees
n) inability to abort
o) rotors

There. That's safely over half the alphabet - and I can probably attach a fatality or two to every one of those items.

Here are some random thoughts to counter the above: releases, weak links, clowns at other end of the rope, thermals in the towpath, miscommunications between pilot and tow operator. And how could I forget: Every tow operator is an bona fide EXPERT and you must do things their way whether it is right or wrong, safe or dangerous.

Those photos are all lies. Save for the string, you used damn near everything you showed in the bottom two photos - chassis, engine, fuel, battery, rotor brake assembly, gauges, axle, tires, driver's seat, and much much more - to get you to the point of the photo at the top. 'Cept you hid it all under a sleek coating of painted sheet metal and cut it out of the photo completely to create the illusion that you just strolled up to launch with everything you needed in a small backpack to pretend you're Superman.

They are not lies. Almost anyone can drive a vehicle to launch and drive back to the lz. Advanced drivers can even do XC retrievals. How many people can COMPETENTLY operate the tow apparatus? Better yet, how many of the tow operators are competent?

And all that crap hidden underneath all that sheet metal is only good for one to - if you carpool - four launches before it's gotta be driven - by someone - all the back down to the LZ where all the gliders need to be broken down and hauled back up before you can even start thinking about giving them second shots.

True, but out here, there is always a party in the lz. You can chill under the trees, with a beer, and watch the carnage in the lz. Life is good this year. You can also go for a swim in the lake

Whatta crock.

Nope Tad, the word is reality.

[DarthVader]

... My objective is to learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve the principle. In short, fly through the sky without being caged in it and obey the principle without being bound by it.

[TadEareckson]

Dear Reader,

In Bob's 2011/08/09 20:03:07 UTC post everything that followed:

I tend to prefer foot launching as well...

was edited in following my response. So to respond to all that...

I am in control.

If that delusion makes you feel happier - sure, why not.

1. Barn Swallows and Ruby-Throated Hummingbirds can make reasonably good claims of being in control. Big bipedal monkeys strapped into bunches of sticks and cloth? Get real.

2. HGMA performance standards are just arbitrary specs based upon what can be reasonably expected of our basic configurations of sticks and cloth. There's nothing in the warranty that says you're gonna be able to survive some of the things that Mother Nature can be expected to throw at you in some rather ordinary circumstances.

3. All aircraft are compromises. Ours typically trade control away for performance and portability.

4. Our level of control sucks compared to what sailplanes can do.

Any kind of towing puts some degree of control over my life into someone else's hands.

We are highly social monkeys dependent upon highly complex social infrastructures. Every time you spread peanut butter on a slice of bread your putting some degree of control over your life into countless other someone's hands.

And you're REALLY putting A LOT of degree of control over your life into countless other someone's hands when you drive en route to Ridgely over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and east on Maryland 404 where the only thing separating you from another monkey with a ton or so of metal coming at you with a closing speed of well over a hundred miles per hour is a little paint in the middle of the road.

And given my experience with people, I generally find that somewhat unsettling.

Me too, welcome to Planet Earth.

I guess my point is that stepping outside of our own comfort zones isn't always bad.

And pushing our comfort zones is about the only way we become better pilots.

And consider this...

1. A free flying glider ten feet over the runway doesn't have much in the way of options. He WILL BE ending his flight in very narrow space of time and geography and he may me in circumstances which will not leave him alive when things finish moving. If a Dragonfly and a towline instantly materialize that same compromised glider will have options which may allow him to delay contact with the ground another ten hours and make it at another runway four hundred miles away.

2. I'm guessing that Ridgely has pulled something in the ballpark of eighty thousand tows to date. To my knowledge NOBODY who got into the air and stayed on tow has ever been so much as scratched in a launch related incident.

3. The ONLY launch related crashes have occurred as a consequence of the 130 pound Greenspot those total morons are using to keep everyone safe.

4. The ONLY serious crashes - mangled and destroyed gliders, broken arms, concussions - that have happened to Ridgely originated flights have happened to people in free flight mode. Attempted standup landings and blown aerobatics.

5. So who would the statistics indicate is in better control of his plane? A glider going up on the opposite end of the string from a douchebag tug driver? Or a free flyer?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad,

At some level, all failures end up being human failures. A failed airframe was either improperly constructed, improperly maintained, improperly assembled, improperly inspected, or improperly flown in improper conditions. All of those things are under human control. When you add another person into the mix (tug pilot or winch operator) you roughly double the chance that one or the other is going to have a human failure. If you have a third person (signalling?) then it goes up again. Then you have to add the problem of communication (miscommunication) which further increases the failure rate.

Now you might say that more eyes are more likely to catch more problems (and there's some truth to that), but that's counteracted by the lemming factor (even though this looks scary, if everyone else is doing it, then it must be safe). It's also counteracted by the fact that you've added another whole aircraft (with its failure modes) and also added a towing apparatus (with its failure modes).

I'm sorry, but when I'm standing at launch with only one guy on the nose wires (and I'm looking right at him), I will have far fewer human failure modes than any towing system. Of course there are also meteorological failure modes (in both cases), but I can mitigate them through my own choices (in both cases).

I claim that the most difficult risk for the pilot to mitigate is another human being in the loop. Please let me know if you disagree with that statement or not. Thanks.

[Bill Cummings]

I only got down to (In the first group) #3 and I was so bummed I had to post and go somewhere happier

[TadEareckson]

miguel,

Nope, I do not worry about the gasoline...

Very few people do. That's why we're roasting the planet.

You seem to be forgetting that tow rigs of whatever form use energy also.

Not for a nanosecond. But...

1. It's a lot easier to move a tow rig to a bunch of Mohammads than to move a bunch of Mohammads to a mountain.

2. It eats up a lot less gas to drive a platform launch truck five thousand feet on a runway with a glider in tow than a glider carrying truck up to a thousand foot launch and back.

3. Dragonflies DO eat gas - but they deposit gliders into thermals very quickly and efficiently and are a lot closer by for a lot of people.

Nope again. They do what works for them. I do what makes me happy.

1. Proper towing WORKS for anyone who's halfway competent flying a glider.

2. The flight park and the mountains are fairly equidistant for lotsa folk in this area so lotsa folk do both.

3. If you don't wanna tow then don't tow. But...

a) don't tow for legitimate reasons (I've got a mountain in the back yard, I despise the people at Ridgely, I love the mountains);

b) recognize that - as shoddy as it is - towing has got a pretty good safety record;

c) don't pretend that there aren't downsides, complexities, dangers, expenses, and impacts associated with mountain flying;

d) don't pronounce it unfun for anybody but yourself - 'cause there are many thousands of people, most of whom fly both environments, who find it a total blast.

I did a platform tow where the release from the truck malfunctioned.

WHY?

Before gliders were - for all intents and purposes - required to be HGMA certified the sport was an absolute bloodbath. We get sane standards for tow equipment in place and enforced - that kinda bulls*** don't happen.

Here are some random thoughts to counter the above: releases, weak links, clowns at other end of the rope, thermals in the towpath, miscommunications between pilot and tow operator. And how could I forget: Every tow operator is an bona fide EXPERT and you must do things their way whether it is right or wrong, safe or dangerous.

I totally agree with damn near all of that. And I got so fed up with the incompetent irresponsible scumbags who refused to make any pretense of conforming to any hint of standards and regulations that I went to USHGA, the FAA, and war - in that order.

Those problems - for all intents and purposes - do not exist in sailplaning and are all fixable in hang gliding. All we need to do is get a few heads of bona fide EXPERTS on pikes and things will start falling into place.

Some comments...

There are ZERO excuses for malfunctioning releases and blown weak links.

Thermals in towpaths are problems only when they're epic and can be avoided the same way they are at mountain launches - watch the ribbons.

Miscommunications are not problems. There are no communications in aerotowing once the cart starts rolling and there's nothing forcing one plane to stay connected to the other when things become problematic.

And if you f***ed things up before you got on the cart - tough. It's no worse than if you f***ed things up prior to a free flight. And there's nobody you can call to bail you out in that environment. (Ask Pete Lehmann about that issue.)

Almost anyone can drive a vehicle to launch and drive back to the lz.

Anyone who can drive a vehicle to launch and back to the LZ can drive a platform rig down a straight runway well enough for me to be comfortable.

Tug drivers, granted, are a lot harder to come by. But all I want from them is to stay in position in front of me as best as they can while I'm reciprocating in the back, keep their towlines and weak links up to snuff, and stay the hell away from the release lever.

Advanced drivers can even do XC retrievals.

We're on fairly even footing there - although retrievals tend to be a lot easier without a lot of mountains to drive over and around.

How many people can COMPETENTLY operate the tow apparatus? Better yet, how many of the tow operators are competent?

One has to know what a weak link is in order to COMPETENTLY operate a tow apparatus. So in the US... something in the zero to two range.

No, the Hearne guys are doing platform in a manner I don't have any serious problems with. Aero's a total disaster though.

True, but out here, there is always a party in the lz. You can chill under the trees, with a beer, and watch the carnage in the lz. Life is good this year. You can also go for a swim in the lake.

It was like that at Ridgely too - minus the swim in the lake.

Nope Tad, the word is reality.

Humans have the ability to shape reality pretty dramatically - usually for the worse. Let's try giving better a shot - just to see what happens.

[Bob Kuczewski]

1. The other Bob was Bob Fisher. He voted to ban me from the Houston forum about nine and a half months later.

FYI: You're making Sam's decision to ban you from the SW Texas forum look better all the time.   

3. I'm not actually all that into saving lives. That's just a byproduct of saving the sport from people I would much prefer to see dead.

Actually, I think you're just trying to even the scores on anyone who has "disrespected" you in the past. You've done a lot of good analysis, but then you decimate your readership with insults and foul language. Your only saving grace had been that you wanted to make hang gliding safer. But according to your "byproduct" comment, maybe that's not even true. Maybe it all comes back to you wanting revenge on the people you'd "much prefer to see dead". Unfortunately, that's not a good basis for building a new national hang gliding association.

There are lots of people with whom I disagree. But there aren't any that I'd rather see dead. Instead, I'd much prefer to convert them all into believers in fairness and openness and competence (that includes, Jack, and Davis, and David Jebb, and Brad Hall, and Lisa Tate, and Rich Hass). That's what I am working to build here, and I welcome anyone who shares those goals. By contrast, you don't want to convert the people you hate, you just want to see them hurt them somehow. That's where we differ, and that may be where we'll have to part company.

Tad, revenge is the easy road, and it's the road to mutual assured destruction. If we want to build a better hang gliding association we'll have to get past the hate and focus on simply doing things better. Your ideas on towing could be part of that. But your hatred can't. Please think about which of the two is your higher priority and focus on that. Thanks.

[TadEareckson]

Bob,

...or improperly flown in improper conditions.

Or properly flown in proper conditions which suddenly and unpredictably became improper. Much as I dislike the defense for all but the rarest of situations, shitt DOES happen. I tend to give tumblers passes.

When you add another person into the mix (tug pilot or winch operator) you roughly double the chance that one or the other is going to have a human failure.

1. Let's limit it to tug driver to make it simple.

2. And let's say that he DOES have a human failure at fifty feet.

3. What's the worst that can happen?

a) He starts climbing too fast. You can get rid of him and land.

b) He starts turning hard. You can get rid of him and land.

c) He starts runs out of gas. You can get rid of him and land.

d) His weak link is half the strength it needs to be. You can dump the towline and land.

e) You get slammed by a thermal, go up like a rocket, and his weak link blows or he hits his release. You're dead.

These things are all EXTREMELY rare issues at dangerous low altitudes. And the rest of the time you're going up. And nobody ever got hurt in a hang glider that was going up.

Then you have to add the problem of communication (miscommunication) which further increases the failure rate.

Cite me an instance of anybody in the history of hundreds of thousands of aerotow launches getting scratched because of a communication issue. The communication guy signals the tug to take up slack and go. If he's supposed to signal go when you're ready and doesn't nothing happens. If he signals go when you're not ready you have the option of staying put. And besides - this NEVER happens.

Now you might say that more eyes are more likely to catch more problems (and there's some truth to that), but that's counteracted by the lemming factor (even though this looks scary, if everyone else is doing it, then it must be safe).

There are zillions of people involved in getting F-18s blasted off of carrier decks. They have WAY better success rates than the three a**holes involved in glider launches at Ridgely.

It's also counteracted by the fact that you've added another whole aircraft (with its failure modes) and also added a towing apparatus (with its failure modes).

In a period encompassing two consecutive Saturdays we just had two Dragonflies totaled, one driver killed, and the other partially killed. From the perspective of the gliders they were towing, a totaled tug is nothing more serious than a pop of a loop of 130 pound Greenspot. And these idiots blow twenty or thirty of them a day. BFD.

...and also added a towing apparatus (with its failure modes).

The tug end release system is only for the tug's protection. I don't give a rat's a** if it's welded solid - not my problem. And my release system doesn't have failure modes - and, even if it did, I've got redundancy coming out my wahzoo.

I'm sorry, but when I'm standing at launch with only one guy on the nose wires (and I'm looking right at him), I will have far fewer human failure modes than any towing system.

1. 'Cept you don't have anyone on your sidewires and if a wing gets away from you your a** can be upside down in less time than it takes to read the rest of this sentence.

I used to do and assist with a lot of launches off the north Pulpit ramp in really brutal conditions and I don't remember anybody ever saying "Let's just go with a nose man 'cause that'll reduce the human failure modes."

Bob Kuczewski - 2011/07/23

I was flipped over on launch when I was a hang 2. I had my hands full (obviously more than full) just trying to control the glider ... let alone attempting to let it just "lift and tug" without pulling me off my feet. Earlier this year I was flying at Torrey when I witnessed a friend of mine get blown over on launch (broken bones ... healing nicely as I've heard). That was while he was doing his level best to just control the glider.

2. Nothing like either of those has ever happened at Ridgely.

I claim that the most difficult risk for the pilot to mitigate is another human being in the loop. Please let me know if you disagree with that statement or not. Thanks.

Generally speaking, a plane with a pilot and navigator in the cockpit is gonna be safer than a plane with just a pilot. There will undoubtedly be exceptions but you go with what works best most of the time. If you have fifty troops available to take the hill you don't go with thirty - even though you WILL reduce the probability of friendly fire casualties.

Solid statistics are REALLY hard to come by in hang gliding but you'd hafta be out of your freakin' mind to suggest that the local mountain sites are putting out the volume of launches that Ridgely does. (Think about the turnaround time for launches for gliders sledding at a mountain launch versus an aerotow park.) And in the time that Ridgely's been running we've killed one local pilot and beaten up another pretty good at a local mountain launch - and haven't scratched anybody on a Ridgely tow launch.

Yeah, Jim Rooney and the idiots who "trained" him ARE dangerous and CANNOT be mitigated. But you're still a hundred times safer launching behind him than you are trying to get out of the Woodstock slot on any day you wanna name.