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=Yd1EIsbG0p0How 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=bTa6XL16i0UIndustry 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=ls2QiDtSO7cWe 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.