The US Hawks should:

[TadEareckson]

Don - 2008/09/02
Long Beach

Kunio's accident was simple - he didn't perform a hang check!

I was taught to perform a "Hook-in Check" if I haven't checked in the last thirty seconds - I call it the "Joe Greblo Hook-in Check". Obviously Kunio didn't perform one of those either.

1. That is a violation of the JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH requirement. Thirty seconds is a LONG TIME.

-A. Stare at the clock on your computer for thirty seconds - or until you get bored or forget why you were doing the exercise, whichever comes first.

-B. A lot can happen in thirty seconds and that's plenty ample time for you and/or your crew to become confused about what you have and/or haven't done previously.

-C. If you can do a hook-in check within thirty seconds of launch you can do one within two seconds of launch.

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.

2. Kunio's "failure" to perform a hang check had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the disaster that followed. Hang checks used to verify connections are DANGEROUS.

3. The hook-in check IS NOT "one of those EITHER". It is THE verification that you are connected to your glider.

4. I wonder by whom Don was taught.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I was taught to perform a "Hook-in Check" if I haven't checked in the last thirty seconds - I call it the "Joe Greblo Hook-in Check".

1. That is a violation of the JUST PRIOR TO LAUNCH requirement. Thirty seconds is a LONG TIME.

Says who? King Tad?

If you can do a hook-in check within thirty seconds of launch you can do one within two seconds of launch.

No you can't because it will take more than 2 seconds to get back into launch position after doing a hook in check. So you'll have to do it again.

Then it'll take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position and you'll have to do it again.

Then it'll take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position and you'll have to do it again.

Then it'll take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position and you'll have to do it again.

Then it will take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position, and you'll begin to think that rather than preparing to launch a hang glider ... you're actually having a conversation with Tad Eareckson!!

[TadEareckson]

Responding to Bob's last two posts on the:

Peter (Link Knife) Birren

thread in addition to the last one here.

I guess that explains your escalation here on US Hawks.

MY escalation? If there's a challenge that means there's at least two people involved. So please don't characterize this as just MY escalation.

For example, in another topic you said that 30 seconds was too long between a hook-in check and a launch. You said it should be 2 seconds.

1. I prefer one to zero seconds myself.

2. I have specified no time cap for compliance with the "just prior to launch" rule.

3. But two seconds would almost certainly eliminate all failure to hook in incidents.

But you haven't used any science, math, or logic in that number because if you had, you'd know that in windy conditions it will take more than 2 seconds to transition from a safe hook-in check to being ready to launch again.

Yeah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doe_sNB1wbg
http://vimeo.com/24544780

In the REAL world I've always found the precise opposite to be true.

So by the time you're ready to launch again, you've got to perform another hook-in check. And by the time you've done that hook-in check and prepared for launch, you'll have to do another hook-in check. And by the time you've done that hook-in check and prepared for launch, you'll have to do another hook-in check ...

And meanwhile, back in the REAL world, even when you hafta lift the glider by yourself with little or no help from the wind, the people who actually do these...

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

...tend to do them as a form of idle, subconscious fidgeting while they're scoping out their launches (and checking to see that the LZ is still there).

Before long, you'll think you're having a conversation with Tad Eareckson because you'll be wasting all your time covering the same ground over and over and over and over ...

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

BFD.

Compare/Contrast with these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEhuBU64t18

nice hassle free launches in which the gliders are at all times safely down on the shoulders where the pitch control is optimized and everybody stays focused on the really important stuff 'cause the hook-in verification was taken care of ten seconds ago.

By the way, for anyone reading through all of this, I'd like to summarize what's been happening.

Concisely and unencumbered by actual quotes.

I'll try to do it more often myself in the future.

1. More often that what percentage of the time?

2. In the other percentage of the time:

-a) why weren't you doing it?
-b) what where you doing and when?
-c) what were taught to do and signed off on?

The charge:

But that wasn't good enough for Tad. He wants to force everyone to do that.

And the ACTUAL quote:

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.

I don't think that's something we should be forcing people to do - especially in windy and difficult launch situations. In those cases, a hook-in check by some other means should be allowed.

In windy and difficult conditions it is dangerous and irresponsible to launch without a crew and if you've got a crew the suspension can ALWAYS be safely tensioned.

Where we have the ACTUAL problem is with the person who is physically incapable of tensioning the suspension in air too light to float the glider.

The charge:

Tad didn't like that, but he couldn't really come up with a good excuse for requiring a "lift and tug" when there are other means of doing a hook-in check.

And an ACTUAL quote:

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/04

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.

So then he began beating the "just prior to launch" drum claiming that "just prior to launch" meant something very short like 2 seconds. Well, the only hook-in check you can do within 2 seconds is a lift and tug because a step-through-turn-and-look hook-in check requires you to step back through and lift the glider to prepare for launch. Of course all of that will take more than 2 seconds, so therefore you cannot perform that kind of hook-in check and be compliant with a 2 second rule.

And the ACTUAL quotes:

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/11

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.

Tad Eareckson - 2011/10/26

I don't need to turn. I've already preflighted the glider - including that connection. If I need to preflight that again then why stop there? Why not check the cross spar / leading edge junction bolts one more time?

And let me go on record right now as saying I will fight tooth and claw against dangerously complicating, encumbering, and slowing a hook-in check - which is THE verification of connection status and NOTHING more at the beginning of the launch sequence - with a PREFLIGHT inspection procedure - like turning and looking - which is supposed to have been completed PRIOR to the beginning of the launch sequence.

For me, the worst rule in the world is one that cannot be followed.

For me, the worst rule in the world is a totally logical, proven, and maximally effective one like:

ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded and treat it accordingly.

which is never implemented, taught, enforced, or complied with while a bunch of idiots keep blowing each others' heads off at regular intervals while discussing for decades lunatic reasons why it shouldn't be implemented, taught, enforced, or complied with.

It not only defeats its own purpose, but it also undermines people's respect for rules.

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

I've had it once where the pin had bent inside the barrel from excessive tow force.

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

WHAT respect for rules?

So I will never support a rule that cannot be adhered to in the real world.

1. No, of course not. What you WILL support is:

bobk - 2011/11/11

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

a total get-out-of-jail-free-card for anyone over the past thirty years who's flown away or had his fall broken enough by the bushes below the ramp to be able to maintain a pulse.

"I didn't do a lift and tug 'cause three years ago I thought I saw an eagle cruising the ridge and I was was afraid that if I let the glider float up enough to tighten the suspension that he'd have enough space to come through and cut my carotid artery. And I had already done a hang check at the back of the ramp ten minutes ago like Steve Wendt taught me, so why bother?"

2. The REAL world or the world you keep speculating we may find in another thirty years of we just keep looking hard enough?

But Tad is so wrapped up in trying to "defeat" me in this argument, that it's no longer about what's safe and reasonable. Instead, it's all about him trying to demonstrate his superior thinking skills in a protracted posting war.

Nobody - 2011/08/10

Bob, you're full of s***. Go learn how to launch with a tight hang strap!

This will not further the sport of hang gliding and it certainly won't help grow the US Hawks.

Certainly?

There are twenty-one double and triple digit posters on this forum to date.

I know of ten who've made noteworthy comments on this issue.

Five of us - Yours Truly, Nobody, Zack, Al, and Mike - are probably on or reasonably close to being on the same page with this stuff.

Bill is probably within easy bargaining distance.

miguel is maybe around the middle.

Rick is very problematic.

Sam's deep in Rooneyland.

And we've got some nice video of one of the twenty-one - OSCAR - doing repeated totally noncompliant launches in the near vicinity of Joe Greblo until he finally takes off unhooked and crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4JFe7rUCnc

fortunately for him in about as benign an environment as he could hope for.

I will point out, however, that Sam Kellner does NOT have this problem on the SW Texas forum because he simply banned Tad and is done with him. With every post, Tad reinforces Sam's wisdom in doing so.

And let's not forget that he no longer has problem with Nobody either. It's amazing how good you can make yourself look by arbitrarily banning ten percent of the most active membership without the slightest pretense of justification.

Do yourself a favor... Look in a mirror and see if your reflection is still detectable. If not run out and take a leisurely afternoon stroll on the beach to get your Vitamin D level back up to where it should be.

Says who? King Tad?

King Christian will work just fine for me. Or the jury of fifth graders - as long as no more of seven of them have gone through a ground school at Ridgely, Manquin, or Lookout and/or dropped acid more than a dozen times. Or anybody who can beat a garden slug in a game of chess two out of three times or better.

No you can't because it will take more than 2 seconds to get back into launch position after doing a hook in check. So you'll have to do it again.

Then it'll take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position and you'll have to do it again.

Then it'll take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position and you'll have to do it again.

Then it'll take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position and you'll have to do it again.

Then it will take another 2 seconds to get back into launch position, and you'll begin to think that rather than preparing to launch a hang glider ... you're actually having a conversation with Tad Eareckson!!

And meanwhile, back in the REAL world...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la7Ym4O38SA
http://vimeo.com/24544780

[Bill Cummings]

Building the Hawks.

As of now the FAA has not stepped in to take safety decisions out of our hands.

The USHPA obviously has satisfied the FAA with its safety procedures in so far as they haven’t stepped in to ground hang gliding until a better safety program is in place.

There is always room for improvement with regards to equipment, procedures, and practices with any endeavor we take on.

There are some among us that do not solidly believe that every one of our elected directors has placed the pilots’ interest at the top of the list of their priorities.

Recent polls show this to be the case concerning our representatives and senators at the federal level. The disapproval rate is as bad as it has ever been.

Our organization of pilots has a far better chance of influencing the direction the USHPA takes than the direction the US of A takes.

In the old days some rich ranchers in S.W. New Mexico could support and get elected someone to take the two month horse and buggy trip to Washington D.C. to look after their interests. Thread bare sod busters and squatters understandably did not have the resources’ to have their interests looked after.
In our age of communication our system of government is antiquated.

If we can vote for Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, or phone the IRS automated service to get an extension for filing taxes and be issued a confirmation number as proof why aren’t we voting on things that will let us switch between party lines? As things go now if you vote in Democrats that support your views on abortion you displace Republicans that support you views on gun rights.

I belonged to a strong union that was urging us to vote D.F.L. (Democrat, Farmer, Labor) to help out our wage, working conditions, and other interests but the Democrats were trying to pass laws to weaken the Second Amendment.

It wasn’t just these two issues. My interests zigzagged back and forth across many party platforms planks.

I would much prefer phoning in my vote on separate issues.

The U.S. Hawks could be set up to show the Feds how the will of the people makes it way into practices, and rules, etc.

[Bob Kuczewski]

The U.S. Hawks could be set up to show the Feds how the will of the people makes it way into practices, and rules, etc.

Excellent post Bill!!     

Just as you've said ... our ability to converse electronically can shorten the distance between the people and the laws that are supposedly passed on their behalf. That's exactly what I hope we can do with the US Hawks, and I look forward to the day when USHPA follows our lead.

Thanks to you Bill, and to everyone who's signed up for the US Hawks to help support us.     

[SamKellner]

Good post Bill.

I'll do all I can. Unfortunately, I fall in with the threadbare sodbusters, short on resources.

I sure agree that a lot more pilots are showing disapproval of the past two decades of poor leadership at U*.

,
Sam

[Bob Kuczewski]

From the "Peter (Link Knife) Birren" topic that Tad mentioned above:

By the way, for anyone reading through all of this, I'd like to summarize what's been happening.

Tad came along and started pushing the "lift and tug" hook-in check method. I think this is a great method, and I'm very supportive of people using that method. I'll try to do it more often myself in the future.

But that wasn't good enough for Tad. He wants to force everyone to do that. I don't think that's something we should be forcing people to do - especially in windy and difficult launch situations. In those cases, a hook-in check by some other means should be allowed.

Tad didn't like that, but he couldn't really come up with a good excuse for requiring a "lift and tug" when there are other means of doing a hook-in check. So then he began beating the "just prior to launch" drum claiming that "just prior to launch" meant something very short like 2 seconds. Well, the only hook-in check you can do within 2 seconds is a lift and tug because a step-through-turn-and-look hook-in check requires you to step back through and lift the glider to prepare for launch. Of course all of that will take more than 2 seconds, so therefore you cannot perform that kind of hook-in check and be compliant with a 2 second rule.

For me, the worst rule in the world is one that cannot be followed. It not only defeats its own purpose, but it also undermines people's respect for rules. So I will never support a rule that cannot be adhered to in the real world.

But Tad is so wrapped up in trying to "defeat" me in this argument, that it's no longer about what's safe and reasonable. Instead, it's all about him trying to demonstrate his superior thinking skills in a protracted posting war.

This will not further the sport of hang gliding and it certainly won't help grow the US Hawks. But that's where we are right now.

I will point out, however, that Sam Kellner does NOT have this problem on the SW Texas forum because he simply banned Tad and is done with him. With every post, Tad reinforces Sam's wisdom in doing so.

[Bob Kuczewski]

By the way,

I'd like to provide some insight into how Tad has used deception in his earlier post (Nov 19, 2011 1:09 pm):

The charge:

But that wasn't good enough for Tad. He wants to force everyone to do that.

And the ACTUAL quote:

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.

Tad's quote of himself may have been "an" ACTUAL quote, but it wasn't "the" ACTUAL quote that I was referring to in what he calls "The charge" above. Here's the ACTUAL quote that Tad didn't mention:

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

Tad's use of the wrong quote was deceptive because it made my original quote ("The charge"):

He wants to force everyone to do that.

appear to be inaccurate ... when it was not. People reading Tad's posts should be aware of how he "cherry picks" quotes to win arguments. I believe this is dishonest and it does a disservice to our sport and our goals.

With regard to the primary topic, Tad's "MANDATORY" rule includes the modifier "if you can physically do it". He doesn't say "if you can safely do it". There's a big difference - sometimes a life and death difference. His 2011/10/24 post mentions difficulty using lift-and-tug in "light or nonexistent air", but he doesn't want to recognize the difficulties with that technique in strong and dangerous air. That's why I've suggested that if we do adopt a "lift and tug" regulation, it must include a clause allowing pilots to use their own judgement in determining whether it's safe to use that method in each circumstance.

[Bill Cummings]

Great effort there Bob!
I can just picture you pecking away with one hand all the while the other hand with the ban button finger on it is tied behind you back.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I can just picture you pecking away with one hand all the while the other hand with the ban button finger on it is tied behind you back.

You're very observant Bill!!   To some extent, I've painted myself into a corner with my stand on free speech.  

I've come to believe that Tad is just trying to derail everything we do here and that he's got no interest in really building an alternate national hang gliding association here. So, in the best interests of the US Hawks, I should press that ban button so we can get on with our mission. But I've also stated my belief that free speech is important to ensuring that our new national hang gliding association doesn't go astray as USHPA has done. So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Your description of me pecking away (effectively limping along) with one hand ... while I've tied my own ban button behind my back is pretty accurate - painfully so!!

The US Hawks is an experiment to see if we can build a better organization than USHPA with regard to hang gliding interests. We've already discovered that spammers have to be confined to the "Free Speech Zone". Maybe there are others who need to be there as well. I really hate to do that, and I welcome any thoughts on how we can move forward effectively.

At this time, I'm thinking that maybe the "Building the US Hawks" forum should be limited to people who show that they are really interested in building a new national organization and who can use effective communication skills in doing that. How does that sound to everyone?