The US Hawks should:

[TadEareckson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Hard to believe that someone could've written that script without first reading Sam's post. But I guess time stamps don't lie.

That's exactly right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

...unless the "hookcheck" being done is a "lift and tug", and that's what Tad is trying to mandate through the back door with this regulation.

Tad Eareckson - 2011/10/24

Some people are physically incapable of lifting and tugging in light or nonexistent air. But EVERYBODY can do SOMETHING to check connection status within five or ten seconds of launch.

So what I MANDATE is this:

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

And if you've got a USHGA rating it's ALREADY mandated.

Tad's attempt to mandate this through a 5-second rule with ridiculously steep penalties goes too far.

1. You took that out of context - POSSIBLY - but not likely - inadvertently the first time.

2. I pointed out to you that you took it out of context.

3. Now you're deliberately taking it out of context.

4. That's a Rooney tactic.

5. I really resent the "back door" crap as well. I'm trying to bring the really slow, logic challenged children up to speed...

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.

...with Zack - nothing more, nothing less. But there's probably a limit to the number of brain damaged hang checkers and Aussie Methodists one can handle at any given time.

Tad seemed to back down from that when he wrote "Those were ideas thrown out for discussion - not regulations ready to be chiseled in granite."...

And now you're calling me a liar. And if someone is too stupid and/or functionally illiterate to understand the original 2011/06/05 post IN ITS ENTIRETY - a very strong possibility on this forum - my 2011/10/24 quote above is proof that I wasn't backing down from s***. And I'm letting your Little Miss Goody Two Shoes nanny state software substitute the asterisks.

I'll go on record right now as saying I do not support and will oppose ANY specific time cap. If you had a no cost opportunity to do the check two seconds before launch and it's been five since the actual you're in violation. If you did a check an hour and a half ago and circumstances made it unsafe to perform anything subsequent you're OK - BUT GOOD FREAKIN' LUCK COMING UP WITH OR DEFENDING THAT SCENARIO.

And I'll also go on record right now as staying consistent with the stated intent of the original regulation and saying that the compliant check is NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES a goddam hang check - even if you are on steroids, have popped half a dozen uppers, and managed to hop to your feet and dive off the ramp in under two seconds.

And I'm also totally cool with the:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

part of my 2011/06/05 post unless:

Somebody make a case otherwise.

So can somebody make a case otherwise? Something that can actually happen - and, preferably, HAS happened - in the REAL world?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

part of my 2011/06/05 post unless:

Somebody make a case otherwise.

So can somebody make a case otherwise? Something that can actually happen - and, preferably, HAS happened - in the REAL world?

Tad,

As usual, I can't reply to your entire post because you will escalate anything I write until it becomes unreadable. However, you've asked for someone to make a case against your proposed regulation, and I will do that. You wrote:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

There may be cases where it can "physically" be done, but doing so would increase the pilot's exposure to loss of control of the glider. So I wouldn't even consider what you've written unless it was rephrased as follows:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* the pilot believes it can be done without exposure to additional risks.

I'm not saying I would support even that without some more thought and debate, but I surely would not support what you had written originally.

[TadEareckson]

You wrote...

Yeah. And I ALSO wrote:

So can somebody make a case otherwise? Something that can actually happen - and, preferably, HAS happened - in the REAL world?

But that part just NEVER seems to get through no matter how many times I repeat it.

There may be cases where it can "physically" be done, but doing so would increase the pilot's exposure to loss of control of the glider.

Oh. There MAY be cases. Neither you nor anyone else can actually CITE any but ya just NEVER know fer sure.

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* the pilot believes it can be done without exposure to additional risks.

Translation:

Do whatever the int*rcourse you feel like.

How 'bout we put up signs at school crossings like:

Speed Limit:

75 MPH

*IF* the driver believes it can be held that low without exposing him to additional risks.

Sorry 'bout those six kids officer - but I believed I saw a diurnal werewolf with an assault rifle on a motorcycle just above the "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear." print. In retrospect I think it was probably just a Golden Retriever with stick in his mouth trotting alongside a chick on her bicycle - but ya never can be too careful. So if there's nothing else I've got a Narcotics Anonymous meeting I'm a bit late for as it is.

In REAL aviation people tend to be a lot more restricted in what they can do based upon their moronic beliefs.

This idiot:

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

BELIEVES that using a weak link over 0.4 Gs will expose him to additional risks. In REAL aviation it would be illegal to fly a weak link less than twice that and still below manufacturer recommendations at thrice. He would be protected from his own stupid Davis/Rooney based BELIEFS and the other people in line would get more airtime at less cost.

37 percent of US divers are Aussie Methodist nutjobs.

The other 99.5 percent are of the:

Preflight, Hangcheck, Know you're hooked in.

persuasion.

You can count the lift and tuggers on two hands and still have at least one finger left over to say hi to the Aussie Methodist nutjobs.

And with the "*IF* the pilot believes" clause thrown in ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING* will change.

The failure and fatality rates will stay right where they've always been, you will win, and...

Doug Hildreth - 1981/04

Just before the first step of your launch run, lift the glider and make certain that the straps become tight when you do so.

Doug Hildreth - 1988/11

I am convinced that the only thing which will make any difference in the incidence of failure to hook in is a national, local and personal conviction. Every club, every group of flyers, every "buddy," and every individual pilot must make certain that he and every other pilot launching is hooked in. There is just no question about it guys, we must become fanatical about this!

Doug Hildreth - 1990/03

The other significant increase is in failure to hook in. Typically there are about the same number of non-hook-ins in the questionnaire group, so that it is safe to say that there were at least ten failures to hook in this year. It has occurred in the tandem sector too, both pilot and passenger.

The instructional programs to assure hook-in with fifteen seconds of launch have apparently not caught up with the masses.

Doug Hildreth will continue to writhe in his grave.

P.S. I'm not even saying - at this point - it should be incorporated - just that so far I haven't heard any sane reasons for it not being.

[Bob Kuczewski]

There may be cases where it can "physically" be done, but doing so would increase the pilot's exposure to loss of control of the glider.

Oh. There MAY be cases. Neither you nor anyone else can actually CITE any but ya just NEVER know fer sure.

Every time I'm launching in a high wind and/or gusty situation I'm in one of those cases. I'm in a situation where I should be able to apply every bit of my strength to controlling the glider throughout my launch. I'm not going to fool around with letting it float away for even a second as I'm starting my launch run. I'm going to make a committed transition from running to flight without any "feeling around" for the glider to tug at my leg loops. I can only do that by knowing that I am hooked in when I start my run. That's what a hook-in check gives me.

Tad, until you can figure out a way for my crashes to end up breaking your bones, then I'm going to be the one to decide how I launch. Got it? I suspect most pilots will agree.

As for examples, with the 9 "lift and tuggers" that you claim are in the world, you don't have a statistical sample worth a hill of beans. But I do know two people who I personally witnessed get flipped on launch at Torrey. Both could have been fatal, but one walked away with a bent glider, and the other got an ambulance ride with several months of bone mending (and a bent glider). Both of them were already doing their best to control their gliders in difficult situations without the added complexity of incorporating a hook-in check into their launch sequence ... just to satisfy you and your control fetish.

[SamKellner]

[Tad, until you can figure out a way for my crashes to end up breaking your bones, then I'm going to be the one to decide how I launch. Got it? I suspect most pilots will agree.

[TadEareckson]

I'm in a situation where I should be able to apply every bit of my strength to controlling the glider throughout my launch.

1. The ASSUMPTION being that if the suspension is loaded to ten pounds you will need MORE strength to control the glider.

2. Does a competent pilot put himself in a situation in which he NEEDS every bit of his strength to control his aircraft?

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

3. How long through the process of your launch sequence do you hold the glider down to keep the suspension slack?

I'm not going to fool around with letting it float away for even a second as I'm starting my launch run.

1. Float AWAY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doe_sNB1wbg

Just how far away are you expecting it to be able to float?

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

2. If it DOES float AWAY just how good an idea is it to be continuing your launch run?

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

3. Where does it say anything about AS YOU'RE STARTING YOUR LAUNCH RUN anyway? My interpretation of that regulation is that the pilot establishes that he's hooked in JUST PRIOR to launch. Is there a DURING in there that I'm not seeing?

I'm going to make a committed transition from running to flight without any "feeling around" for the glider to tug at my leg loops.

1. If it's a nasty windy gusty situation just how far, long, fast do you expect to be running before the dreaded tug at your leg loops inevitably kicks in?

2. If it's NOT a nasty windy gusty situation how badly do you expect to be killed by doing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la7Ym4O38SA

...that?

I can only do that by KNOWING that I am hooked in when I start my run.

1. If the suspension went tight JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH would that be enough evidence to satisfy you to KNOW that you were hooked in when you started your launch run?

2. If the suspension went tight JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH and that WASN'T enough evidence to satisfy you enough to KNOW that you were hooked in when you started your launch run what do you think the probability of you falling out of your glider would be?

3. Which would you rather be wrong about - knowing you:

-a) WEREN'T hooked in; or
-b) WERE hooked in?

4. Have you ever been wrong about anything before?

5. Who's more likely to launch unhooked - someone who knows he:

-a) is hooked in; or
-b) isn't hooked in?

That's what a hook-in check gives me.

And feeling your suspension go tight JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH *ISN'T* a hook-in check?

Tad, until you can figure out a way for MY crashes to end up breaking YOUR bones, then I'm going to be the one to decide how I launch.

1. Stuff like that has been done. And you don't even need to crash the glider. Sometimes you can just knock somebody off the ramp to his death and fly away unscathed.

2. 1990/10/21. Some Hang Two bozo parked his glider WAY up in an oak WAY out at the end of a very long scary limb. Guess who spent the rest of that day risking his life to recover said bozo and his glider instead of soaring the ridge. And guess what kind of physical condition I was at the end of that miserable day.

3. I can't cite any examples from hang gliding but professional search and rescue people frequently get killed trying to extract people from the kinds of environments in which we operate.

4. I KNOW what kind of effect is experienced by a hang gliding community when somebody who KNOWS he's hooked in JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH isn't, somebody can't get a release to work in the two second window when it matters, or somebody's Dragonfly wing falls off. And I get real tired of people thinking and saying that an individual "pilot" should be free to operate any way he feels like 'cause it's HIS life.

5. I don't give much of a rat's a** how you launch. I'm mostly concerned with what people are doing and what kind of example they're setting JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH.

I suspect most pilots will agree.

It never ceases to amaze me what you can get virtually all pilots to agree on.

As for examples, with the 9 "lift and tuggers" that you claim are in the world, you don't have a statistical sample worth a hill of beans.

Yep. It's awfully hard to find newspaper headlines about hunters who always treat their guns as if they're loaded NOT blowing someone's head off each November. So who's really to say?

But I do know two people who I personally witnessed get flipped on launch at Torrey. Both could have been fatal, but one walked away with a bent glider, and the other got an ambulance ride with several months of bone mending (and a bent glider).

Sounds like they both managed to get themselves safely and securely connected to their gliders. I'm so overwhelmed with admiration that there are tears streaming down my cheeks as I write this.

Both of them were already doing their best to control their gliders in difficult situations without the added complexity of incorporating a hook-in check into their launch sequence...

1. So would it be fair to say that they were trying to launch in a high wind and/or gusty situations where they needed to be able to apply every bit of their strength - possibly a wee bit more - to controlling the glider? Seems like there should be a lesson somewhere in there but it's just not coming to me.

2. You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Both of these guys have got WAY bigger problems than the failure to hook in issue. We'll move that one down to Priority Level 15.

...just to satisfy you and your control fetish.

Got me AGAIN. I'm totally obsessive about this control issue in hang gliding. Hope I'll be able to hook my nephew up with an instructor who's similarly unbalanced. You wouldn't happen to have a list of such people who really rub you the wrong way? Or, failing that, people who you hold in the highest esteem. I can work from that angle as well.

[Nobody]

2. Does a competent pilot put himself in a situation in which he NEEDS every bit of his strength to control his aircraft?

Bob, I would really like to read your response to this simple question.

[Bill Cummings]

Posted quote by Bob K:
“Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* the pilot believes it can be done without exposure to additional risks.”

Addendum to above quote, by Bob K:
“I'm not saying I would support even that without some more thought and debate, but I surely would not support what you had written originally.”

Quote, Tad E:
“So can somebody make a case otherwise? Something that can actually happen - and, preferably, HAS happened - in the REAL world?”

More thoughts and debate partly derived from a real world happening leading to my (Bill C.) conclusion in support to Bob K’s US Hawks N.O.P.R.M. (sort of.) recommendation concerning “HOOK IN CHECK.” (With one addendum.)

Premise # 1
A pilot from Albuquerque, NM, who was about to experience a blown launch, was on the Dry Canyon launch ramp at Alamogordo, NM. I was stationed at the tail of the glider, at the ready, but not touching the glider. This pilot had an experienced nose wireman and also had two side wiremen.
Wind speed was 20 to 25 mph. This pilot had a tight hang strap and was holding in as best he could.
(Keep in mind that different gliders have different pitch pressures.)
All the launch assistants demonstrated that they were ready to grab, if necessary, but were showing “neutral” in order to allow the into-the-wind pilot to feel and balance the glider before calling his launch. In this tight hangstrap situation, the pilot was extremely light on his feet with the glider carrying most of his weight. With the glider balanced into the wind the pilot yelled “Clear.”
The nose man jumped clear but the pilot hesitated and didn’t launch immediately as he should have. The left wing tip, almost without perception, started to rise. I saw this and was thinking, “Launch! Launch! ------- Don’t launch!” As the delayed-decision pilot started to move forward, he was on his tiptoes, loosing traction and unable to aggressively power down and off the ramp. The left wing tip started to rise faster as he was slowly clawing his way forward. Four seconds later he crashed on top and to the right of launch.

Premise #2
I’m 5’-6” tall. To lift and tighten my hang strap I must raise the down tubes off of my shoulders and can then only contact the down tubes with the inside of my arms near the crook of my elbow while using the grapevine grip. This reduces the length of my levers (arms) from between shoulders and hands to the elbows and hands.
----A) A shorter lever between hands and the fulcrum equals less mechanical advantage. This reduces the force that I can apply on my glider to keep the nose down.
----B) More distance between the fulcrum and load further reduces mechanical advantage. This further reduces the force that I can apply with my arms on my glider to keep the nose down.

Premise # 3
Equipment choice changes the equation just like pilot size as compared to control frame size does. With a spaghetti harness any tension on the hang strap will be transferred to the straps under the arch of both feet drawing the leggings of the harness tight across the knees caps impeding the run.

Premise # 4
Landing vertical, with a tight hangstrap, of course, and when encountering a thermal that pushes the nose high, it is generally accepted that if you lower your hands on the down tubes it is easier to pull the control bar back to keep from stalling.
Still keep in mind that “Lift and Tug” is separate from launching strap-loose or tight yet they can be combined but don‘t need to be.

Premise # 5
Foot launching has you in the fullest upright position. With the strap tight and, depending on your glider and/or VG setting, ridged wing, flex wing, your pitch, pressure can be mild to extreme.


Conclusion: A “Lift and Tug” mandatory rule covering so many variables could expose a pilot to additional risks.

How about this:

“Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* the pilot believes it can be done without exposure to additional risks. However students and pilots must demonstrate a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.”

[Bob Kuczewski]

Excellent post Bill.

“Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* the pilot believes it can be done without exposure to additional risks. However students and pilots must demonstrate a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.”

I can support this, and I think it brings together all of the important elements that we've been discussing. It also meets (and exceeds) the current USHPA regulation which will be helpful when we begin to seek insurance.

By the way, that last point about insurance is very important. Someone is already selling insurance to USHPA. So if we can show that our regulations are either identical - or better - then we'll stand a much better chance of convincing them that we should be insured under similar terms. For that reason, we do have to be careful not to make regulations that might be interpreted as being "less safe" in any way. And in that process, we have to remember that any differences between our regulations and USHPA's will need to be clearly more safe to anyone reading who may not know much about hang gliding (like an insurance underwriter).

Tad, are you on board with what Bill has written?

[TadEareckson]

This pilot had a tight hang strap and was holding in as best he could.

Would this pilot have been able to hold in any better with a loose strap?

In this tight hangstrap situation, the pilot was extremely light on his feet with the glider carrying most of his weight.

1. In other words, he couldn't adequately/safely control his pitch.

2. If the answer to the above question was no, with a loose strap how much less of his weight would the glider be carrying and how less light on his feet would he have been?

With the glider balanced into the wind the pilot yelled "Clear."

In my neck of the woods in an AWCL situation, that means you're planning on being airborne within the coming second.

The nose man jumped clear but the pilot hesitated and didn't launch immediately as he should have.

Bingo. Can we talk about something else now?

The left wing tip, almost without perception, started to rise. I saw this and was thinking, "Launch! Launch! ------- Don't launch!" As the delayed-decision pilot started to move forward, he was on his tiptoes, loosing traction and unable to aggressively power down and off the ramp. The left wing tip started to rise faster as he was slowly clawing his way forward. Four seconds later he crashed on top and to the right of launch.

1. I am shocked. Shocked!

2. And he was pulled in as far as was possible?

3. With the wind 20 to 25, how much running on ramps do people typically need to do in that part of the country?

Landing vertical, with a tight hangstrap, of course, and when encountering a thermal that pushes the nose high, it is generally accepted that if you lower your hands on the down tubes it is easier to pull the control bar back to keep from stalling.

1. And there's also an obscure minority school of thought - to which Yours Truly subscribes - that holds that it's way WAY easier to pull the control bar back to keep from stalling if you remain prone with your hands on the basetube - and with a tight hangstrap of course.

2. And thus many of us consider it moronic to go to vertical before entering ground effect.

3. I can name you a couple people who died because they were they were vertical when they shouldn't have been and got stalled - one by a thermal, the other because of a rotor issue.

4. And it really, really, REALLY urinates (had to - "piss" is one of the Carlin Seven) me off that dildeau "instructors" operating at places like Lookout and Packsaddle are forcing students to fly vertical before rewarding them with the privilege of flying glider as it's designed to be flown.

Still keep in mind that "Lift and Tug" is separate from launching strap-loose or tight yet they can be combined but don't need to be.

PRECISELY.

And in Premise #1...

Let's say that the root of all evil WAS the tight strap launch. So with the full crew in place the nose man lets the glider float until the pilot feels ten pounds of tension, brings it back down to whatever the hell the pilot tells him to - then clear and go (assuming, of course, that the LZ is still in place).

Foot launching has you in the fullest upright position. With the strap tight and, depending on your glider and/or VG setting, ridged wing, flex wing, your pitch, pressure can be mild to extreme.

And with a loose strap?

Conclusion: A "Lift and Tug" mandatory rule covering so many variables could expose a pilot to additional risks.

1. But I haven't actually HEARD in your post any variables involved in a lift and tug JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH that actually DO expose a pilot to additional risks.

2. That original clause was NOT intended for inclusion in the regulations. It was part of a for-the-sake-of-argument discussion.

How about this:

"Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* the pilot believes it can be done without exposure to additional risks. However students and pilots must demonstrate a method of establishing that the pilot is hooked in just prior to launch."

How 'bout this:

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

And IF we wanna do something specifically about lift and tug... Amend:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

so it reads:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically and safely do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

which was my intent anyway. By "physically" I didn't mean heroic and stupid efforts.

"*IF* the pilot BELIEVES" opens up an insanely large can of totally lunatic worms and INSTANTLY renders ANY regulation, SOP, or guideline a total waste of the paper on which it's printed. And we've got way too much opinion based crap poisoning this sport and killing people as it is.

SAFELY - on the other hand - is documentable, demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable, obvious.

I can support this...

Of course you can. It's pretty much the same wording you've been promoting.

...and I think it brings together all of the important elements that we've been discussing.

Yeah. Do whatever you feel like aviation.

It also meets (and exceeds) the current USHPA regulation which will be helpful when we begin to seek insurance.

I'm pretty damn happy with the current USHPA regulation just as it is. One of the rare instances where the organization actually got something mostly right. But, of course, that's pretty ancient history. The problem was never the wording - the problem was that there was never the SLIGHTEST effort to implement or enforce it on the part of the hang gliding establishment.

And in that process, we have to remember that any differences between our regulations and USHPA's will need to be clearly more safe to anyone reading who may not know much about hang gliding (like an insurance underwriter).

1. Hang gliding doesn't know much about hang gliding. I'm thinking that someone coming in from the outside would have a much better understanding of the meaning of "just prior to launch" than any Lookout Hang Three will ever have any hope of attaining.

2. I'm not entirely sure why we need to worry so much about our regulations with respect to the insurance companies anyway. Our regulations are (supposed to be) concerned with preventing our pilots from smashing themselves harmlessly into rocks and runways and the insurance companies are mostly concerned about our unattended gliders blowing into Lamborghinis.

The weak link at the tow plane end of the towline SHOULD break with a towline tension approximately 100 lbs. greater than the glider end.

3. But if an insurance agent has half a brain or better he's gonna bolt when he starts seeing words like "should", "if", and "believes". And if he doesn't have half a brain or better I'm gonna do my utmost to clue him in.

Tad, are you on board with what Bill has written?

See above. I'd rather see nothing put down at all than a mockery being made of a solid safety rule or practice by having it contingent upon the BELIEF system of the individual "pilot".