[TadEareckson]

CAUTION!!!

The following clip contains the distinct and pathological use of profanity and may not be suitable for young viewers. Parental discretion is STRONGLY advised.

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

(Sorry about the presentation, miguel.)

[TadEareckson]

I used to have a short control frame glider that I launched with a tight strap.

I think it's more of an in issue of the the width of the control frame relative to the pilot than the width - but I stand to be corrected.

It was done every flight in addition to the normal routine.

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.

The "normal routine" is the series of preflight checks. It's a big mistake to think of a hook-in check at the beginning of the launch sequence as an add-on.

Nope, I have a large control frame glider.

If you can't do it, you can't do it.

Then it got scary as I was thinking about the many ways I could bash my head open.

It would scare me too. But...

1978/08/02
Tim Schwarzenberg
26
Desert Mountain
Kalispell
Montana
Highster

Forgot his helmet, unhooked to get it. Launched without hooking up again. Hung onto control bar for several minutes, fell 400 feet. Body found four days later.

Luen Miller - 1994/09

The second pilot was distracted by backing off launch to get his helmet, which he had forgotten. While doing so he thought of a pilot who launched unhooked at Lookout Mountain as a result of the distraction of retrieving his helmet. Our pilot then proceeded to launch unhooked.

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

Sometimes the helmet is just a dangerous distraction. And I'll betchya every single person who's ever died because he forgot his glider had his helmet properly secured.

I tend to leave it open for water flights.

Lotsa people do. So if the locking mechanism were serving an actual positive function in hang wouldn't we expect reports here and there of people falling from their gliders into the ocean, surf, or beach after an hour or so into the flight?

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, so I do it.

Precisely.

Steve Kinsley - 2005/10/02

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 pilots responsibility to perform a hook-in check.

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.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25

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.

ZackC - 2011/10/02

I have, however, done a pretty good job of changing my mindset to always be afraid of being unhooked.

On the early mornings of 1941/12/07 and 2001/09/11 everyone was feeling warm and fuzzy.

It is part of the launch protocol around here. The person escorting the glider to launch asks if the pilot wants a hang check.

Boy it would make me SO happy to hear of a launch protocol around ANYWHERE in which the pilot would wait a half a second for the person who escorted him to launch to verify his connection. "Unhooked." "Hooked." "Clear."

Kinda like they do at big airports. The plane doesn't take off until the observer in the tower with the best view of the potential threats says he's good to go.

But in hang gliding OUR observers tell people...

Cragin Shelton - 2005/09/17

You are not hooked in until after the hang check.

..."You just HAD a hang check five minutes ago. There's NO POSSIBLE WAY you can't be connected to your glider now so let's forget about that issue and start watching the ribbons, leaves, and birds."

The check occurs just prior to actual launch. You can connect the dots and carefully color inside the lines.

No, the check occurs JUST PRIOR TO you connecting the dots and carefully coloring inside the lines. The actual launch occurs JUST AFTER you connect the dots and carefully color inside the lines. And problems occur when someone remembers he let the kid in the back row borrow his pencil or...

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

...he drops a crayon and he has to get out of his chair to retrieve it.

See above.

I did. Still not finding it.

I could argue the semantics of this ad infinitum but will not.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25

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.

The wider the gap between the check and the launch the more people you're gonna have falling into it. And that ain't rocket science.

[TadEareckson]

You want the right to mandate what people should do according to what YOU think they should do.

Lemme torture this horse a little more.

I don't want - and couldn't possibly have anyway - the RIGHT to MANDATE *ANYTHING*. I want some Standard Operating Procedures adopted by this organization which MANDATE a launch protocol which most effectively minimizes the risk of launching unhooked.

We don't allow someone to get a rating who feels that the stall recovery technique that works best for him is pushing out and getting to the high side - even if he hasn't been killed yet and even if a theoretical scenario in which that WOULD BE the proper response can be concocted.

In 1981/05 USHGA - almost certainly upon the determination of a number of individuals a Three-Toed Sloth could count on one hand - enacted a MANDATE that for all ratings the pilot:

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

The article that introduced the revision and defined the intent made it quite clear - quite correctly - that the hang check was NOT an acceptable means of compliance because there can be (and, in fact, always IS) a time delay between the hang check and launch and time delays are highly problematic because of issues of distractions, alteration of routines, and the deadly fallibility of memory.

The solution the article identified and defined - quite correctly - was to completely eliminate the time delay by doing a check "JUST BEFORE COMMITTING TO A LAUNCH" "EVERY TIME" to the point at which it becomes "A DEEPLY INGRAINED SUBCONSCIOUS HABIT" and not something that one REMEMBERS to do.

That definition of and solution to the problem is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SOLID and the logic is BULLETPROOF.

And nobody amongst the instructors, observers, or general pilot population got to vote on the adoption of the revision or - then or since - raised the SLIGHTEST MURMUR of objection to it.

And it's highly probable that NOBODY - then or since - altered his instruction or personal procedures in the SLIGHTEST in an effort to comply with the revision. My perception is that it had ABSOLUTELY no effect on what was happening at the training hills and launch ramps and that the hang check - performed when and wherever anybody felt like - continued on as the universally accepted and virtually only acceptable means of ensuring that the pilot would be hooked in at launch.

And three decades later people who make the slightest effort to comply with this requirement are rare as hens' teeth and failure to hook in incidents are common as dirt.

So this isn't about what *I* "THINK". This is about solid logic, decades of field experience and research into incidents and patterns, track records, and a consensus of most of the better functioning minds in the sport.

And if it WERE about what someone THINKS...

Google:

"failure to hook in"

and see whose name comes up all over the first couple of pages and who gets cited by some of the better tuned in folk in the forums the name person has been kicked off of.

Helen McKerral - 2011/10/30
South Australia

There have been threads about hang checks and hook in aplenty, and I actually use the tight hangstrap used by a rather notorious poster, whose style was irritating but whose message was sound. You use this technique - the lift and tug - IMMEDIATELY before launching, EVERY time.

Maybe my say-so should count a little more than that of some Hang Two hang-check-at-the-back-of-the-ramp-then-you're-good-to-go bozo out of Matt's "program".

A little summary/review/expansion...

---

Problem:
- Time delay between check and commitment leaving pilot vulnerable to distractions, disruptions, and faulty memory and false assumption issues.

Solution:
- Reduce time delay to zero to two seconds.

---

Problem:
- False memory or assumption of hooking in.

Solution:
- Discount any memory of hooking in and ALWAYS assume you're not.

---

Problem:
- Confidence regarding hook-in status.

Solution:
- Fear.

---

Problem:
- Hang check gives warm fuzzy feeling to pilot and crew.

Solution:
- Eliminate hang check.

---

Problem:
- Aussie Methodists.

Solution:
- Napalm.

---

Problem:
- Unhooked tow launches.

Solution:
- Use hook-in check as ready signal.

---

Problem:
- Crew oblivious to hook-in status at moment of launch.

Solution:
- Actively engage crew in hook-in check at moment of launch - every time.

---

Problem:
- Speculation that lift and tug checks - for those who can do them - at the moment of launch could be problematic.

Solution:
- Recall that they never have been and ignore it.

---

[Rick Masters]

In my opinion, this thread has become idiotic.

[Bob Kuczewski]

In my opinion, this thread has become idiotic.

Ditto.

[TadEareckson]

In my opinion, this thread has become idiotic.

1. Curious as to knowing if there's something in particular that's idiotic - other than the "just prior to launch" clause which we already know about - or is it just the whole thing?

2. OK, nobody's forcing you to read it.

3. But if you enjoy idiotic I highly recommend:

http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/post649.html#p649

containing Bob's theory that if you have the the glider generating the ten pounds of lift you need to verify your connection then when you try to torque it into the wind it will remain in a fixed yaw orientation while your feet spin and slide ineffectually on the ramp due to the reduction in traction.

4. THIS:

Rick Masters - 2011/10/19

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.

is idiotic - and I'm not gonna preface or qualify that with "In my opinion...". It's the hang gliding equivalent of:

At that moment, I would banish all concern about the gun being loaded. I had taken care of it. It was done. It was out of my mind.

But, hey, the fix is easy. Knock just one letter out of the last sentence and it makes perfect sense and starts getting us back on the right track.

[Bob Kuczewski]

3. But if you enjoy idiotic I highly recommend:

http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/post649.html#p649

containing Bob's theory that if you have the the glider generating the ten pounds of lift you need to verify your connection then when you try to torque it into the wind it will remain in a fixed yaw orientation while your feet spin and slide ineffectually on the ramp due to the reduction in traction.

Your quote here Tad demonstrates that you're either not reading properly or simply don't understand the situation. Maybe it's just been too long since you've struggled with a glider in windy conditions where you're at or near the maximum of your control authority. In that situation, you would be foolish to give up any ounce of control (let alone 10 pounds of control) for something that could be handled another way in the few seconds before launch.

If you don't get that, then I don't think another 1,000 pages of your long posts and our responses is going to help. So please just accept that your rigid little rule doesn't work all the time even though you're incapable of understanding why. Everyone agrees that "lift and tug" is a good practice, but there are situations where it's not practical (Zack is your own self-admitted example). So if you try to force everyone to do it, then are you going to ground Zack? Are you going to force people to do it when they're in a difficult situation already?

How about if you just propose a rule, and we'll see who would sign off on it. Go ahead and write down Tad's rule. And don't quote me USHPA unless you're going to specify a time limit because "just prior" isn't precise enough. Go ahead, put up or shut up.

Thanks in advance.

[Nobody]

In that situation, you would be foolish to give up any ounce of control (let alone 10 pounds of control) for something that could be handled another way in the few seconds before launch.

[TadEareckson]

Ditto ... and a very nice use of smilies!!

A more extensive response after I get through dealing with Zack's current situation.

[TadEareckson]

I want to be able to send my nephew into an organization with the competence, regulations, programs, procedures, practices, attitudes, peer pressure such that...

Bob held on to his base tube all the way down from Plowshare. The impact split his skull and he suffered terribly until he died during the night, alone.

...I don't hafta worry about him holding onto his basetube all the way down from Plowshare, splitting his skull on impact, suffering terribly, and dying during the night, alone. I want an organization which will build him into a competent, responsible PILOT who uses the safest possible equipment (allowing for performance tradeoffs) and follows the safest possible procedures that don't crowd out fun and airtime.

That organization, to the best of my knowledge, exists nowhere in the world or anywhere on the horizon.

In that situation, you would be foolish...

In that situation, you're ALREADY foolish. You've got no freakin' business being in ANYTHING LIKE that situation to begin with.

A competent pilot does not EVER put himself into anything close to a launch situation in which he's so close to the edge of survival that transferring ten pounds worth of glider hold-down authority from his arms to his suspension is a virtual death sentence.

And, of course, that unjustly dignifies with an air of legitimacy the lunatic assumption you're DEGRADING - rather than ENHANCING - control authority by loading the suspension.

Note also that a pilot flying at the bottom end of the hook-in weight range for his U2 160 has ALREADY surrendered A HUNDRED POUNDS of his allowable control authority for launch and every other aspect of his flight until the glider's stopped in the LZ.

"Yeah, there I was on the ramp. Last one off. 30 miles per hour. Alone. Right at the absolute limit of my control authority. All the sudden with no warning whatsoever it gusted to 30.25 and I suffered a ten pound increase in lift force. Doc says I shouldn't count on being able to rejoin my team in time for the World Cup next year."

If you put yourself in a situation like that then screw the "just prior to launch" clause - you've already done something thirty times more dangerous and irresponsible and thirty times more deserving of a rating suspension.

Maybe it's just been too long since you've struggled with a glider in windy conditions where you're at or near the maximum of your control authority.

Over the course of a couple of decades I did a LOT of high wind and turbulent launches from dunes, bluffs, hills, buttes, slopes, slots, ramps, and cliffs, I NEVER failed to - with tight suspension - verify that I was hooked in JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH, I NEVER put myself into a situation in which I was anywhere NEAR the maximum of my control authority.

And I defy you to cite me an example of anyone who isn't (or wasn't) a total moron launching in conditions in which he was at or near the limit of his control authority. Control authority is ALWAYS something of which we need to maintain a healthy reserve so we can deal with whatever Mother Nature has up her sleeve and/or be able to get away with a bit of pooch screwing without having to pay too high a price.

So please just accept that your rigid little rule doesn't work all the time even though you're incapable of understanding why.

1. Sorry, I don't "just accept" NUTHIN' from NOBODY in this idiot sport - at least not since Memorial Day weekend of 1999 when I listened to Chad Elchin explain to me why it would be a really bad idea to beef aerotow weak links up beyond the 130 pound Greenspot that was blowing like popcorn.

2. It ain't MY rigid little rule. It's USHGA's rigid little rule and has been for three decades - three decades in which neither you nor anybody else has suggested that it be repealed or modified.

3. I'm STILL waiting to see or hear of an ACTUAL situation in which the rigid little rule won't work. All I ever get is lunatic fabrications.

Everyone agrees that "lift and tug" is a good practice...

REALLY?

Charles Schneider - 2010/09/27

Personal experience: Many moons ago, I read a post in the HG magazine that suggested lifting your harness to see if your legs are properly through the leg loops of your harness. Sounded good to me, so I adopted the method. One day at Pack, I was distracted by a bunch of wuffos and failed to put my legs through the leg loops. (I believe there is another lesson here). As part of my pre-launch routine, I lifted the glider and felt what I thought were my leg loops tugging at my crotch. What I was actually feeling was my shorts being tugged by my custom fitting harness. So off I went...

I would implore all HG pilots who currently use the technique to abandon it, and discourage anyone thinking about adopting the technique to not do so. Reach down and positively feel those leg loops around your legs!

"I didn't feel like checking the chamber for a round so I just flipped the safety on. But it didn't fully engage and I almost blew my hunting buddy's head off. So I would implore all deer hunters who currently use the safety or are thinking about it to never to engage it. Always check the chamber so you can then relax and treat the rifle as unloaded."

Because *HE* FAILED to assemble his system properly, decided to OMIT the preflight inspection, and got a PARTIAL false positive (in that case, inconsequential) he stops doing it AND tells everyone else to stop doing it. And since it's a hang gliding group that he's talking to nobody calls him a total moron.

Ever once hear Davis endorse it?

Davis - 2011/09/10

I did lock down two threads though. One had a link to a Tad thingy.

Or is he too busy deleting posts and locking down threads that promote it?

Sam Kellner - 2011/06/04

You should sign him off for AWCL, assisted windy cliff launch.

Preflight, Hangcheck,
Sam

Scott Wilkinson - 2005/10/13

Steve Wendt (Bill's instructor) has already talked about instituting preflight hang checks (meaning literally getting down on the ground and hanging in your harness, just like you'd do in the mountains) for all of his students at the flight park - just to get them into the habit of doing it - even if they don't need to do it for a towed launch.

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!

Tormod - 2010/02/13
Oslo

I don't believe in gremlins unhooking my harness while walking to launch (usually 5-30 meters)...

FormerFF
H2 FL CL FSL
Roswell, Georgia

2009/07/11

At LMFP, standard procedure is to perform a hang check just before climbing onto the ramp. Considering that Alan was launched by an instructor, I am 100% sure that this procedure was followed. It was, however, not included on the video, as it doesn't go back that far. Whether or not it was "just prior" enough to meet your definition, nobody (other than yourself) cares.

2009/08/25

I'm not sure what you thought was going to happen to Alan's connection to the glider in the ten feet between where Gordon had hang checked him and where he launched.

Quinn Cornwell - 2009/01/24
Safety Officer
Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada

It's good to be conscience of the dangers in hang gliding, pointing this out right before you start running is just plain stupid.

And, of course...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=239597

...why would an Aussie Methodist be anything but rabidly hostile to the idea of wasting time and effort like that since they can't conceive of anyone being in a harness that's not connected to a glider.

...but there are situations where it's not practical (Zack is your own self-admitted example).

Zack's not not doing it 'cause it's not practical - Zack's not doing it 'cause it's physically impossible with his - but not necessarily all - glider/harness combos.

So if you try to force everyone to do it, then are you going to ground Zack?

Again, quote me EVER saying anything like that.

Are you going to force people to do it when they're in a difficult situation already?

But, oh look!

http://www.vimeo.com/24544780

Here's Zack in a difficult situation already doing it anyway! Pretty much by default.

How about if you just propose a rule, and we'll see who would sign off on it.

Who do we need to sign off on it and based on what qualifications? If something's solid, it's solid. If it ain't, it ain't.

Go ahead and write down Tad's rule.

Why does it hafta be "Tad's Rule"? Tad didn't come up with the procedure or the USHGA SOP. The only thing Tad probably came up with is "Always assume you are NOT hooked in."

Always lift the glider vertically and feel the tug on the leg straps when the harness mains go tight, just before you start your launch run.

How 'bout calling it "Rob's (as in Kells) Rule"? Everybody liked him.

Christian Williams - 2011/10/25

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.

How 'bout calling it "Christian's Rule."

1. He totally gets this issue.

2. He's not me.

3. People in Texas might think it's a Jesus thing and jump on it with the same enthusiasm that they do with creation science, rattlesnake roundups, capital punishment, and the lockout preventing weak link.

Or how 'bout the "The Gun Is Always Loaded Rule" 'cause that's what it's analogous to and people GET that concept.

Or maybe "Tad's Rule" would actually be a pretty good idea if it were worded like:

With no flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch 'cause Tad say's so.

And don't quote me USHPA unless you're going to specify a time limit because "just prior" isn't precise enough.

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.

So Rick's doing it that way because "just prior" isn't precise enough? Not 'cause he just decided he wasn't gonna do it?

This release must be operational with zero tow line force up to twice the rated breaking strength of the weak link.

And if we specified that if a bent pin folds up inside the barrel before the tug's weak link blows and Bart needs two hands to pry the release apart after getting the rope the he should not considered it operational at a twice the breaking strength of the weak link?

I'm not so sure that precision of language is the problem here.

01. If you can do the freakin' lift and tug - do the freakin' lift and tug the INSTANT before you commit to launch.

02. If the wind's blowing the lift and tug is being done for you.

03. If it's turbulent get the wing up as high as possible and thus into the cleanest possible air.

04. If conditions on launch are dangerous you need crew.

05. If you've got two or more crewmen you can get the suspension tight no matter what.

06. If you've got one crewman you've got someone who can verify your connection for you at the INSTANT of commitment and you've complied with the regulation.

07. If you don't have crew you can use a wuffo to verify your connection.

08. If you can't lift and tug and there's no crew or wuffos around there's no one who can rat you out for not doing a hook-in check so the only way you can get busted is to actually launch unhooked. Then you're either dead or will still be hospitalized at the time your rating suspension period is up.

09. If you're physically incapable of doing a lift and tug, there's not enough air to lift the wing, there's no one around, and you want to be safe AND legal make SOME good faith effort - a walk-through as close to the time and position of launch as safely possible for example.

10. If you're foot launch towing you're not in a dangerous situation until an engine revs up and there are virtually ALWAYS extra people around. Do a double lift and tug - real or simulated - as the ONLY acceptable signal to your driver to rev the engine. If you're tug challenged do a walk-through IMMEDIATELY before picking up the glider and simulating the double lift and tug.

Any of that unreasonable?