The US Hawks should:

[Bob Kuczewski]

This issue has been discussed at great length in many other topics, so I'd like to start collecting everyone's thoughts in one place. I'd also like to start building a solid consensus on what the US Hawks hook-in verification policy should be. I suspect this will require a series of proposals, discussions, and votes. So I'd like to start with one proposal that's been brought to us by Tad. Here's the proposition:

The US Hawks should:

   A - Require ALL pilots to launch with a tight hang strap in ALL conditions.
   B - Recommend launching with a tight hang strap, but leave it to the pilot's decision whether it's safe to do so in any conditions.

I'd like to get an "A" or a "B" from everyone whose posted on these discussions. You can list other choices in your post, but please also list your choice between A and B (imagine they were the only choices and you had to make a decision). I've also created this topic as a poll, but since the poll system is somewhat untested (in this forum), I'll only be counting those votes listed in each person's posts.

Thanks.

P.S. I vote for "B".

[Bob Kuczewski]

Please note that there's been a lot of discussion about this issue in other topics on this forum and in other forums.

Here are some of the primary topics containing Hook-In Verification discussions in the US Hawks forum:

• Board index / U.S. Hawks National / Hang Gliding Videos / FTHI
• Board index / U.S. Hawks National / Hang Gliding General / Aerotowing Guidelines
• Board index / U.S. Hawks National / Building the US Hawks / Special Observer
• Board index / U.S. Hawks National / Hang Gliding General / Failure to Hook In

Here's a related topic at the KiteStrings forum:

          Board index / Hang Gliding / General / You are NEVER hooked in.

If you find a particularly important section in any of those topics, please feel free to either reference it with a link or copy it directly (as appropriate) so this topic can give a fairly complete representation of all these discussions. Thanks.

[TadEareckson]

C - None of the above.

So I'd like to start with one proposal that's been brought to us by Tad.

1. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. This is Bob's misrepresentation / distortion of what Tad's been saying.

2. Tad's proposal is essentially:

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

which, if you're a USHGA rated pilot, is the regulation under which you've been flying - WITHOUT OBJECTION - for the past three decades or any part thereof.

3. Aviation regulations are not determined by popularity poll results 'cause Mother Nature has a really high quality veto pen and a virtually unlimited supply of red ink. Neither USHGA nor the FAA nor any other legitimate regulatory entity makes rules this way.

4. Bent pins are gonna win out over straight ones by landslides EVERY TIME.

5. Any person with the ability to register himself onto this forum gets to influence policy. All he needs to do is get in and click a button. And right now the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of eligible voters are spammers.

6. Both A and B are astronomically bad ideas.

7. I don't give a rat's a** about any results of this poll and don't recognize the slightest hint of legitimacy.

8. I DO recognize arguments and positions supported by actual DATA - versus opinion and speculation - so if you have them make and present them and back them up.

[TadEareckson]

From Aerotowing Guidelines...

From my flying experience (mostly 70's and 80's) small planes have an oil pressure gauge and cylinder head temperature gauge.

I'll bet they have fuel gauges too. And I'll bet that if the pilot sees the needle pointing to "E" when he's at the downwind end of the runway he doesn't take off. And I'll bet that if he DOES take off the NTSB is gonna be able to determine that the gauge was working properly and - if he lives - he'll be resigning from his job as a pilot so he can spend more time with his family.

Pilots are taught to scan their instruments all the time, but the instruments won't say anything until the pressure is gone.

You've got a couple of aluminum bars on the sides of the pilot seat parallel to its edges. You pull up on the bars with your hands simultaneously with a force of 35 pounds apiece. If the volume of oil circulating in the engine is normal a green light shows up on the instrument panel.

Do you make doing that check IMMEDIATELY before flooring it MANDATORY?

The better chance of catching this problem is the hope that oil will either be seen seeping out of the engine compartment covers or that it splashes on something hot enough to make visible smoke.

What are the analogous passive indicators for a hang glider pilot standing on a ramp that his carabiner is dangling behind his knees?

But you're missing the point.

No I'm not. You're just choosing to read into what I'm saying - and not saying - in whatever way is most convenient.

The point is that in "real aviation" pilots are trusted to be able to make life and death checks before committing to flight ... and remember that they've made those checks while committing to flight.

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/03

You mean the way I load test my sidewires before moving out to the staging area and plopping my glider on a cart? Yes, do continue.

Maybe you'd better stop worrying about the 5,000 or so hang glider pilots in this country and start beating down the doors of the FAA about all the "real" pilots (and passengers) whose lives are at risk because they're committing aviation based on what they remember having done 10 minutes ago.

1. I guess I failed to make it real clear that I only give a rat's a** about:

a) the one or two percent of hang glider "pilots" - irrespective of nationality - who show some indication of having something positive to offer the gene pool; and

b) the sport itself.

2. I don't know of many real aviation pilots who've fallen out of their planes - and occasionally leaving their passengers to fend for themselves - because they NEVER do a particular simple, easy, mandatory check. In hang gliding they're a dime a dozen.

3. You mean the way I load test my sidewires before - sometimes several hours before - moving out to the staging area and plopping my glider on a cart? Yes, do continue.

4. A REAL pilot doesn't waste the time and effort remembering what he did ten minutes ago when all he needs to do is glance at the fuel gauge.

5. And I don't waste the time and effort remembering that I hooked in ten minutes ago and DIDN'T subsequently UNHOOK to tap an undersurface batten back in when I'm feeling tension on my leg loops.

Jaime Perry - 2008/11/12
Trenton, Georgia

Still need to perform a hang check before every flight, before I call out clear to launch I verbally announce that I've had my hang check and I visualize the person who gave me the hang check. No one ever forgets to say clear!

6. This guy's an idiot.

...and I strongly endorse it when the pilot judges the conditions to be safe enough to use it...

Here we go AGAIN...

Where's ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE that this has EVER been an actual issue?

How many times have I asked this and how many times have I gotten NOTHING beyond a statement that it's an established fact? Exactly like Rooney's idiot:

One of the biggest bits that seems to be under appreciated is the bit that weaklinks break under shock loading.
They can take a hell of a lot more force if they're loaded slowly... which is exactly what happens in a lockout.

bobk - 2011/11/02

Go ahead, put up or shut up.

Go ahead, put up or shut up.

Screw their goddam judgment. They follow procedures that make sense and work written by people who have brains, have done their homework, and know what the hell they're talking about.

The Ridgely scumbags - after using my straight pin barrel releases on their tandems for the better part of a decade - took them off and replaced them with the bent pin crap they sell because, in their JUDGMENT, they didn't hafta answer any embarrassing questions from their victims about why what they were using for training wasn't the same as what they were selling at the counter.

Allow "pilots" to use their goddam judgment for anything before the glider takes off and after it lands and you've got a one hundred percent guaranteed stampede to the bottom.

OK, we've beat this to death on this thread and many others.

This topic hasn't been beaten to death on the forum until unhooked "pilots" start making something resembling an effort to comply with EXISTING regulations and stop beating themselves to death on the rocks.

So I'd like to ask everyone who's participated...

1. How 'bout people who haven't participated?

2. Does this:

Sam Kellner - 2011/11/01

count as participation?

...to weigh in...

Oh goodie! More democracy (read opinion) based aviation. Where - since all men are created equal - any dangerously inbred semiliterate product of Matt Taber's failure to hook in factory who's survived five flights in a morning session on a Lookout training hill by doing a hang check and waiting for the three gliders in front of him to clear can neutralize my - or Rob Kells' - vote.

...on a simple question:

The US Hawks should:

A - Require ALL pilots to throw all baby bunnies into buckets of battery acid in ALL conditions.
B - Recommend throwing all baby bunnies into buckets of battery acid, but leave it to the pilot's decision whether it's safe to do so in any conditions.
C - With each flight, demonstrate a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

I'd like to get an "A" or a "B" from everyone whose posted on these topics.

Why? 'Cause that's the way YOU are defining the issue?

Anybody with half a brain and a sense of fairness is gonna realize that Zack and miguel will be prohibited from flying in light air conditions in which the glider can't be floated so B's basically a foregone conclusion.

And, since B's a TOTALLY toothless dilution of the existing USHGA regulation that everyone's totally ignored for thirty years, US Hawks should expect a higher percentage of its "pilots" holding onto the basetube all the way down from Plowshare, splitting their skulls on impact, and suffering terribly until they die during the night, alone - or possibly in the company of the next guy who decided that it wasn't safe to do a hook-in check just prior to launch in those conditions.

[Bob Kuczewski]

C - None of the above.

Thanks for voting.

So I'd like to start with one proposal that's been brought to us by Tad.

1. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. This is Bob's misrepresentation / distortion of what Tad's been saying.

I'll leave it up to everyone to read the referenced material and decide for themselves if that's what you were saying or not. My purpose for the poll was to bring us to an agreement on what we should be recommending. As a side benefit, I am hoping it might end the continual bickering on several topics about this issue.

2. Tad's proposal is essentially:

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

which, if you're a USHGA rated pilot, is the regulation under which you've been flying - WITHOUT OBJECTION - for the past three decades or any part thereof.

We may end up going with that, but that statement has three big holes that have caused pages and pages of arguments. First which "methods" are acceptable? Second, who decides which "methods" are acceptable? Third, what is the definition of "just prior to launch"? A case can be made (although I wouldn't make it myself) that a hang check 10 minutes before launch satisfies that requirement. An even better case could be made that a hook-in check 2 minutes before launch satisfies that requirement. You quote that regulation as if it's definitive ... but it is not.

3. Aviation regulations are not determined by popularity poll results 'cause Mother Nature has a really high quality veto pen and a virtually unlimited supply of red ink. Neither USHGA nor the FAA nor any other legitimate regulatory entity makes rules this way.

I'm sorry to burst your dictatorial bubble, but the FAA is governed by the people who we elect. The same is true of USHPA. The problem (in both cases) is that the connection between the electing and the regulating is not always clear. That's why USHPA won't tell us how our own elected Directors vote. That's also why it's so hard to get straight answers from so many politicians. The more space they can put between themselves and what they do to us (via regulations) the more garbage they can get away with.

4. Bent pins are gonna win out over straight ones by landslides EVERY TIME.

Not true. You've had a platform here to make a pretty good case, and I think I'd prefer a straight pin myself. However, I do feel that the BIG DEAL you make about the differences is somewhat overblown. So I wouldn't fear using a bent pin release, but based on what you've said about your testing results, I think I'd currently choose a straight pin given the choice.

5. Any person with the ability to register himself onto this forum gets to influence policy. All he needs to do is get in and click a button. And right now the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of eligible voters are spammers.

I believe you're wrong again Tad. The only people who can vote (by posting as I've discussed) are members who've proven (to some degree) that they are real people. None of the spammers can do that. So it is not true that the "OVERWHELMING MAJORITY" of eligible voters are spammers. You are making false statements, so please be more careful about what you say in the future. Thanks in advance.

6. Both A and B are astronomically bad ideas.

Then my poll has already had a very good outcome. Anyone reading your long protracted posts would have believed that you were adamant that the "lift and tug" method was the only acceptable choice for everyone (except possibly Zack). It's good to hear that you have not been asking the US Hawks to mandate that for all pilots in all conditions (although I'm puzzled why you've used up so much time and screen space arguing that point).

7. I don't give a rat's a** about any results of this poll and don't recognize the slightest hint of legitimacy.

That's OK. No one has asked you for any portion of a rat's anatomy, and you're welcome to keep it all for yourself.

8. I DO recognize arguments and positions supported by actual DATA - versus opinion and speculation - so if you have them make and present them and back them up.

I also recognize arguments and positions supported by DATA. If you have any objective studies on the rates of accidents based on hook-in method, then please present them. But there's a problem with objectivity here because it's easy to say that several methods are nearly 100% reliable. The "aussie" method, for example, always works if you always follow it. The same can be said for the simple phrase "Never launch unhooked". How simple is that? If people would just follow that simple rule, then they'd never launch unhooked (duh!). So it's not so important whether the rule is bullet proof or not, but whether it can be statistically complied with in actual situations by real pilots over a long period of time.

Thanks for your participation in the discussion Tad. By the way, as I was posting this reply to your earlier message, I saw that you've posted again. So I'll try to answer your most recent post below.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad, I've read your most recent response (directly above mine), and I think you haven't given it enough thought before posting.

For example, I was talking about oil levels (not generally reflected on gauges), but you switched the subject to talk about gasoline levels (which are almost always reflected on gauges). I don't know if you did this intentionally to deceive people, or if you lack experience in general aviation, or if you just lost track of the subject. But my point was very clear from my example. Pilots in general aviation routinely rely on checks that they've made well in advance of their commitment to take off (launch). This is a well-accepted practice in many areas of FAA-regulated aviation. You haven't addressed that at all in any portion of your response.

The rest of your response is just a dog chasing his tail, so I'll try not to reward that activity. Instead, since you're very happy with USHPA's regulation, I'll ask you to address the three "holes" that I pointed out above.

We may end up going with that, but that statement has three big holes that have caused pages and pages of arguments. First which "methods" are acceptable? Second, who decides which "methods" are acceptable? Third, what is the definition of "just prior to launch"? A case can be made (although I wouldn't make it myself) that a hang check 10 minutes before launch satisfies that requirement. An even better case could be made that a hook-in check 2 minutes before launch satisfies that requirement. You quote that regulation as if it's definitive ... but it is not.

Thanks in advance.

[TadEareckson]

Thanks for voting.

I'm not really voting. This needs to be a logic - not a popularity - issue.

I'll leave it up to everyone to read the referenced material and decide for themselves if that's what you were saying or not.

I've had a lot of experience with people deciding for themselves what I'm saying after reading (or pretending to have read) referenced material. I'm not interested. If they can't quote it I didn't say it.

As a side benefit, I am hoping it might end the continual bickering on several topics about this issue.

Continual bickering on a topic ain't a bad state of affairs. It's the next best thing to fixing the problem. Absence of continual bickering is an indication of either perfection or incompetence, apathy, and/or censorship.

We may end up going with that, but that statement has three big holes that have caused pages and pages of arguments.

At that moment, I would banish all concern about launching unhooked. I had taken care of it. It was done. It was out of my mind.

Rick isn't arguing that he's complying with the regulation - he's just stating flat out that he's disregarding it.

First which "methods" are acceptable?

The US has a Constitution and a Supreme Court. When there's a conflict about whether something's legal or not they look at the intent behind the original statement. We're real lucky because we have a magazine article in which the intent is spelled out pretty definitively.

In that article it is made quite clear that the goddam hang check is off the table - and, subsequently, smart folk like Steve Kinsley and Christian Williams identified the goddam hang check as a big factor in PRECIPITATING hook-in failures.

George Whitehill - 1981/05

If, just before committing to a launch, a second check is done EVERY TIME and this is made a HABIT, this tragic mistake could be eliminated. Habit is the key word here. This practice MUST be subconscious on the part of the pilot.

And the off the scale EVIL goddam Aussie Method - which had not, at that time, yet reared its ugly head - is the absolute antithesis of any possible interpretation of either the regulation or stated intent.

Second, who decides which "methods" are acceptable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1EIsbG0p0

How tough a call is this one? That's at least 99 percent of what we're dealing with.

Zack's in light air on a dangerous ramp with no crew available, he can't tighten his suspension. He says to the ten year old kid watching him from the next rock "Is my carabiner connected to the white strap on the glider." The kid says "Yeah." and Zack launches. He's done SOMETHING - which is better than NOTHING. He's in compliance.

Third, what is the definition of "just prior to launch"? ...10 minutes...2 minutes...

The regulation states "just prior" and the intent is stated that it be made a subconscious part of the launch sequence. Forget two minutes and start working on two seconds - or better.

If, because of physical and/or situational considerations, ten seconds is the best you can safely manage, you're in compliance.

If you do it at ten and there was no reason not to do it at two, you're in violation.

I'm sorry to burst your dictatorial bubble...

My bubble ain't nowhere NEAR as dictatorial and vicious as gravity's is.

...but the FAA is governed by the people who we elect.

A safety link is installed at the point of attachment of the towline to the glider with a breaking strength not less than 80 percent of the maximum certificated operating weight of the glider and not greater than twice this operating weight...

Do you remember how you voted on that issue?

The problem (in both cases) is that the connection between the electing and the regulating is not always clear.

1. Read USHGA's aerotowing SOPs and try to find something that actually makes sense.

2. Read the FAA's Glider Flying Handbook and try to find something that DOESN'T.

That's why USHPA won't tell us...

Agreed. They're total SCUM. Whatever they're doing we should probably be doing the precise opposite. Can't see how we could go to far wrong with that approach.

You've had a platform here to make a pretty good case...

Shouldn't have needed a platform to make a pretty good case. A goddam ten year old kid should be able to just LOOK at the two and say, "DUH!"

Failing that the numbers from the bench testing are pretty unambiguous and the FAA should've shut these serial killing sonsabitches down.

...and I think I'd prefer a straight pin myself.

Oh. You THINK you'd PREFER one. So you really don't give a rat's a** about complying with rules and regulations which make things safe for you and the guy on the other end of the string who is - to some extent - risking his life to get you airborne. (There's a Dragonfly driver who had a little launch boo-boo in Ontario about three months ago who - as a result - will never walk again.) 'Cause, hey, NOBODY gives a rat's a** about compliance - even when the hardware to do it right is lighter, smaller, cleaner, cheaper than the Flight Park Mafia crap. So why bother?

However, I do feel that the BIG DEAL you make about the differences is somewhat overblown.

1. Yeah, why use something that can easily handle an eight hundred pound towline tension when you're probably NEVER gonna see as much as the three hundred the tried and true Industry Standard Bailey can take? Besides, the tug driver can probably do your job for you in a tight spot. (Unless his plane's stalling on takeoff.)

2. You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. You combine this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrel ... 066304861/

Industry Standard Bailey Release with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTa6XL16i0U

Industry Standard loop of 130 pound Greenspot and you'll probably never be in a situation in which the barrel will be overloaded. Just like if you go out on the highway with an engine that only fires on three cylinders, a burned out clutch, and four mostly flat tires it won't matter if your brake pedal is snapped off 'cause you'll be able to stop in time with the parking brake anyway. So just keep adding shoddiness to your system and everything will all balance out.

And, hell, I've only personally known two people actually KILLED because they couldn't make their releases work when they needed them to - and SCORES who HAVEN'T. So I'd say why mess with that kind of success?

3. If you can't even make a start by getting that crap out of the air how can you have any hope of making ANYTHING better?

So I wouldn't FEAR using a bent pin release, but based on what you've said about your testing results, I think I'd currently choose a straight pin given the choice.

Great. I really wish we had a dozen brave, fearless people in this sport with that kind of dedication towards advancement.

Bart Weghorst - 2011/02/25

No stress because I was high.

Unfortunately, we've got tens of thousands.

Zack C - 2011/11/02

I know, Tad, consider it a kill...it could have been a big problem near the ground...

I get along so much better with pessimists and cowards.

The only people who can vote (by posting as I've discussed) are members who've proven (to some degree) that they are real people.

Oh good. I was so afraid that real people like Pilgrim and Peter Birren would get drowned out by the spammers. Thank you for putting my mind at ease.

(Any chance we can limit the voting to real PILOTS? We'd get a lot better results and the tallying would be a lot easier.)

Anyone reading your long protracted posts would have believed that you were adamant that the "lift and tug" method was the only acceptable choice for everyone (except possibly Zack).

But no one would have been able to actually QUOTE anything to that effect.

It's good to hear that you have not been asking the US Hawks to mandate that for all pilots in all conditions (although I'm puzzled why you've used up so much time and screen space arguing that point).

And you shouldn't have ANY TROUBLE WHATSOEVER actually FINDING an actual square inch of such screen space, RIGHT?

If you have any objective studies on the rates of accidents based on hook-in method...

We gotta go with what we have. We'll never again get anything out of USHGA 'cause they've got Herr Tim shredding all the evidence he can get his hands on that things are being done wrong.

We have TONS of accounts of hang checkers thinking they had done the check when they hadn't and actually doing the check but forgetting that they had subsequently unhooked to get the helmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls2QiDtSO7c

We have accounts of hang checkers missing their leg loops.

1991/09/19
Mark Kerns
Wasatch State Park

Experienced pilot simply forgot to put legs through leg straps of cocoon harness. He could not get his foot into the boot after launch (which has saved other pilots), was able to hold on for several seconds, but slipped out of the harness and fell 200 feet. Died instantly.

We have accounts of Aussie Methodist morons who condition themselves to believe that any time they're in a harness they're connected to a glider launching without a glider.

Rob Kells - 2005/12

"Knowing" that if you are in your harness you must be hooked in, means that if something comes up that causes you to unhook for any reason, you are actually in greater danger of thinking you are hooked in when you are not. This happened to a pilot who used the Oz Method for several years and then went to the training hill for some practice flights. He unhooked from the glider to carry it up the hill. At the top, sitting under the glider with his harness on, he picked up the glider and launched unhooked.

(Big freakin' surprise.)

We have accounts of Aussie Methodists missing leg loops.

We have virtually nothing in reports of lift and tuggers launching unhooked and ZERO evidence of anyone being hurt.

We have ZERO evidence of launch safety EVER being compromised by lift and tug.

We have ZERO accounts of bruisings, manglings, or killings in which it was stated that the plummettee was incapable of tensioning his suspension JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

But...

So it's not so important whether the rule is bullet proof or not, but whether it can be statistically complied with in actual situations by real pilots over a long period of time.

ROT. This is about logic and common sense. (Good thing you weren't in charge of firearm safety procedures several hundred years ago - we'd still be waiting for definitive study results regarding training procedures based upon the concept of treating the gun as if it were always loaded.)

Brian McMahon - 2011/10/24

Once, just prior to launch.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25

I agree with that statement.

What's more, I believe that all hooked-in checks prior to the last one before takeoff are a waste of time, not to say dangerous, because they build a sense of security which should not be built more than one instant before commitment to flight.

Zack C - 2010/10/15

Speaking of which, while I can fault Tad's approach, I can't fault his logic, nor have I seen anyone here try to refute it.

Ridgerodent - 2011/08/25

I have been trying to fault Tad's logic and so far been unsuccessful.

1. The majority of pilots can lift and tug in ALL circumstances.

2. ALL pilots can lift and tug in at least SOME circumstances.

3. MANY pilots use it to ENHANCE controllability on launch and there is ZERO evidence of it doing the opposite.

4. It's easy for most pilots in no wind and less than effortless for all pilots in sufficient wind.

5. It checks the leg loops.

6. It minimizes or totally eliminates the delay between check and launch.

7. It easily becomes a muscle memory component of the launch sequence.

Rob Kells - 2005/12

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.

8. And the smart people NEVER assume they're hooked in prior to the instant of launch and NEVER lose their fear of launching unhooked.

...but you switched the subject to talk about gasoline levels...

Sorry, I didn't realize that discussion of fuel reserve was impermissible within the topic. I just thought it was a better analogy because a needle pointing to "E" is usually a lot better indicator that your engine is about to stop than an oil pressure needle pointing to normal is that it's gonna keep running. And the hook-in issue is kind of a binary/on-off thing.

I don't know if you did this intentionally to deceive people, or if you lack experience in general aviation, or if you just lost track of the subject.

Let's play it safe and go with all three.

You haven't addressed that at all in any portion of your response.

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/04

You mean the way I load test my sidewires before - sometimes several hours before - moving out to the staging area and plopping my glider on a cart? Yes, do continue.

(Maybe if I keep repeating this enough times it'll eventually sink in.)

And lemme tell ya sumpin'...

When a Cessna pilot turns around and heads back to the hangar because he suddenly remembers he left his cell phone on the workbench he tends not to drain all the oil out of his crankcase before he goes inside to retrieve it.

We've got a very dangerous vulnerability in hang gliding for which it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to find comparable analogies in ANY OTHER FLAVOR OF AVIATION. We know how to deal with it but we're more interested in preserving the sanctity of clueless individual opinion and irresponsible freedoms than we are about stomping out the problem.

The rest of your response is just a dog chasing his tail, so I'll try not to reward that activity.

Yeah, I answer all of YOUR questions and address all of YOUR points but when *I* ask questions and raise issues it's just a dog chasing his tail. How convenient.

Instead, since you're very happy with USHPA's regulation, I'll ask you to address the three "holes" that I pointed out above.

See above.

And add best practices, intent, good faith effort, logic, and common sense.

[Bill Cummings]

I was the second to vote for “B.”
Here is why:
(Talking AWCL here.)
I bought a pod harness and tried it out on a truck platform and never flew with it and sold it.

1)The Moyes Extreme harness was too difficult to get vertical in,

2)stay vertical in,

3)and the slider rail left me too low on the down tubes to suit me for the flair.
I still fly with a relic spaghetti harness since I crashed once trying to fool with getting into a foot stirrup on an older harness.

4) Any pod pilot with a zipper that says they never had trouble with their zipper either doesn’t get out much or is a liar.

5) A spaghetti harness launched with a tight hang strap will pick you up by the foot straps, draw tight over the knee caps and impede the running.

6) It works better to keep the control frame on my shoulders to hold the nose of the glider lower than any other pilot I know of.

What looks like a nose pop at the end of the ramp, is me letting the nose up from a position lower than anyone else holds their nose that are not using a spaghetti harness.
I let it up so that the tail will not contact the end of the ramp. I speed away from the edge, go prone, and nothing more than that needs to be done to fly. No getting into the pod. No shoe lace in the zipper. No zipper. I’ve never been trapped in a pod near the LZ. I’ve never drug my parachute out thinking it was my zipper cord. My last landing was into a one mile per hour wind with a density altitude of 5,500’ msl --a no stepper.

If the “A” vote carries and becomes Hawk Rule I will not be able to fly at a Hawk controlled, AWCL. (Requiring a tight hang strap starting run.) A tight strap launch and a bottle grip works well at South Face Pt. of the Mt.
The next time you go flying get vertical, keep your body straight and see how close you can hold your shins to the base tube. (Good luck with that. Then tell me you have more control over pitch with a tight strap.)

I do think that “lift and tug” where/when possible is a very good idea and should be done but I’m going to keep the down tubes on my shoulders where I have more control over pitch, roll and yawing around for the start of the run. (Loose strap.)
If I shortened my hang strap so that it was tight leaving my shoulders still in contact with the down tubes then I would be suspended to high above the base tube when I prone out.
A step through only as a hang check is not enough if you fly with a cocoon or spaghetti harness. They leave too many leg lines that can be on the wrong side of a leg. (IMO)

[TadEareckson]

I was the second to vote for "B."

Of course you voted for "B". This is a push poll designed so that that's the only possible vote you can take - GIVEN THE TWO AVAILABLE OPTIONS - so Bob can get the outcome he's looking for - "Do whatever the hell you feel like."

I still fly with a relic spaghetti harness since I crashed once trying to fool with getting into a foot stirrup on an older harness.

1. Install a bungee loop from the (call it) right end of the stirrup to the middle.

2. Pull the stirrup and loop up over your right calf.

3. When you're airborne kick your left heel into the left half of the stirrup and push it off your right leg.

4. Nobody ever died because he didn't or couldn't kick into a stirrup of boot. (And two or three people HAVE died 'cause they were trying when they should've been flying.)

Any pod pilot with a zipper that says they never had trouble with their zipper either doesn't get out much or is a liar.

And any pod pilot who's still trapped at two hundred feet and hasn't resigned himself to a belly landing is an idiot. (A couple of people have died by valiantly struggling on as well. (See my 1996/04 letter to the editor.))

A spaghetti harness launched with a tight hang strap will pick you up by the foot straps, draw tight over the knee caps and impede the running.

BTDT. Really endeared me to the stirrup I used for dune flying.

I've never been trapped in a pod near the LZ.

I have - a bunch of times. So I go into Chris Starbuck mode. It was never a BFD.

I've never drug my parachute out thinking it was my zipper cord.

Lotsa people haven't.

If the "A" vote carries and becomes Hawk Rule I will not be able to fly at a Hawk controlled, AWCL.

I don't think you need to worry about that too much. I heard a rumor that "A" fathered an illegitimate black lesbian daughter who doesn't play well with other children.

Requiring a tight hang strap starting run.

What if you just tightened it a couple of seconds BEFORE starting the run then dropped it back down to wherever the hell you felt like?

The next time you go flying get vertical, keep your body straight and see how close you can hold your shins to the base tube. (Good luck with that. Then tell me you have more control over pitch with a tight strap.)

1. On a launch ramp don't most people tend to be vertical anyway?

2. How much more limited by your shins is your bar stuffing ability when the wing is up all the way than when the control frame is down on your shoulders?

3. How much bar stuffing ability do you need when you're standing on a launch ramp?

4. How much bar stuffing ability do you need when you're standing on a launch ramp doing a hook-in check a couple of seconds before commitment to launch?

I do think that "lift and tug" where/when possible is a very good idea and should be done but I'm going to keep the down tubes on my shoulders where I have more control over pitch, roll and yawing around for the start of the run. (Loose strap.)

Fine. Is there a problem with doing a lift and tug JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH - like it says in the existing USHGA SOPs?

A step through only as a hang check is not enough if you fly with a cocoon or spaghetti harness. They leave too many leg lines that can be on the wrong side of a leg. (IMO)

JBBenson - 2009/01/25

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.

This issue isn't about what you do as part of your assembly and preflight procedures - it's about what you do at the beginning of your launch sequence to make sure you haven't done anything terminally stupid since your assembly and preflight procedures.

[Nobody]

I'm curious about your opinions there.

You get a competent organization to train competent instructors who then go on to train competent pilots, you stop having dead folks. There is no good reason to crash a hang glider and even less reason to jump off a cliff without one.

I vote C, Competency.