[Free]

I'll answer that by saying that I invited you, Tad, to join us. There can be no greater proof in the entire universe that I intended to include unpopular speech from unpopular people.   

As the conversation turns into a critique session let me say that the last post was fairly constructive until the retarded 'rolling on the floor laughing' smilie was thrown in for extra measure. I really hate those things because it just seems like such a cheap shot. The statements being made were pretty good until it was spoiled with such a lame tag at the end.

(Furthermore)

your shotgun posting approach turns one discussion into ten. And anyone who's foolish enough (as I have been in the past) to answer those ten will be faced with ten times ten (100) more. Sir Isaac will tell you that's exponential growth and is unsustainable. That's why I've advised Peter (and everyone else) to stop playing your game.

Peter Birren, needs no one to suggest that he should ignore others. Peter is already very selective in what he chooses to reply.

Peter, also has a very selective memory. He can't seem to remember things he did in the past or who he did them to. He forgets bitching out Warren Shirtzinger because he thinks it is I that has signed up on a list he controls.

He also forgets that he made a statement about 'cutting Tad's gas line' and Tad losing ability to post (probably) on the same list. Once Tad mentioned that episode, I remembered the exchange as well. Birren did make the statement and Tad's postings disappeared.

So how about if you answer my simple question about whether or not you can see the hostility in your post? If you'll answer that question and would like to post a single question in return, then I'll be happy to try to answer it. But if you include multiple questions (direct or implied) then I'm going to ignore you and start working on implementing a more official "ignore" system for the US Hawks.

Everyone has all the "ignore" system they need without building an electronic one into the website.
Most people won't read anything more than a few lines already. Why should things be anymore dumbed down in today's society? Save that programming effort for something more productive?

When Bob established US Hawks on a free speech foundation he never intended it to include unpopular speech from unpopular people.

Tad, that statement is incorrect. Bob K. has done a much better job than anyone I know about allowing unpopular speech. It has to be stressing to do so, and when people are stressed they sometimes react in not-so constructive ways.. such as thinking about tightening down the screws on free expression. The stress level is high on both of you guys and that is working against you.

Tad is doing much better on the disemboweling.. I can see much social improvement and the cussing seems to be curtailed. It does make a difference in how people percieve the message and if the message is worth sending then it should be worth the effort to cool down the invectives.

This is simply my opinion and cuss words would not have improved it one bit!
Thanks to Bob for letting me express it.

Warren

[Bob Kuczewski]

I'm sorry, but the quote: "There can be no greater proof in the entire universe that I intended to include unpopular speech from unpopular people." just begged for a smiley. I was powerless to resist.

Peter Birren, needs no one to suggest that he should ignore others. Peter is already very selective in what he chooses to reply.

The US Hawks will be pretty useless if we don't start bringing more people on board. But people won't come here if they're expecting to be attacked and ridiculed by someone with an apparently infinite amount of time on their hands. So I'm offering my opinion that Peter need not feel compelled to answer Tad's badgering if he doesn't want to. That's my opinion, and it carries no more weight than that.

[Birren]

Peter, also has a very selective memory. He can't seem to remember things he did in the past or who he did them to. He forgets bitching out Warren Shirtzinger because he thinks it is I that has signed up on a list he controls.

Bob, unfortunately I am compelled to reply to both Warren and Tad in this particular instance.

Warren, unless you can provide a shred of proof that I bitched out WS, the above continuation of previous statements, despite my history review and clarification, would constitute slander. The last part about you signing up to one of my lists is merely a little white lie because you were signed onto the Towing List until I kicked you off due to your very personal rants with Jim Garr... you just couldn't behave yourself.

He also forgets that he made a statement about cutting Tad's gas (fuel) line and Tad losing ability to post (probably) on the same list. Once Tad mentioned that episode, I remembered the exchange as well. Birren did make the statement and Tad's postings disappeared.

Yup, I put him on "always moderate" because he was drowning out all the others. Funny thing, Tad didn't send any further posts. He's still on the list's membership roll.

[Bill Cummings]

“Tad Eareckson - 2011/09/23

WHAT PROBLEMS OF ONE POINT USING A KOCH TWO STAGE OR TWO POINT (ONE TO ONE) IS A TWO TO ONE BRIDLE SOLVING?


“Peter Birren - 2008/10/27

Imagine if you will, just coming off the cart and center punching a thermal which takes you instantly straight up while the tug is still on the ground. Know what happens? VERY high towline forces and an over-the-top lockout. You'll have both hands on the basetube pulling it well past your knees but the glider doesn't come down and still the weaklink doesn't break (.8G). So you pull whatever release you have but the one hand still on the basetube isn't enough to hold the nose down and you pop up and over into an unplanned semi-loop. Been there, done that... at maybe 200 feet agl.

Bill C. here:
I see Peter’s post above which was not intended to be the answer to the question posted by Tad as an unintended answer to Tad’s question. (I hope that makes sense!)

I’ve watched pro towing and Koch towing. I’ve also watched pilots climbing too fast near the ground and not being able to get the AOA lowered.

I realize that there are some apples and oranges going on here since we are not discussing a two to one bridle being used on a launch dolly behind a tug but it was Tad that hooked the two post together to clarify a point -- not me.

Towing from the chest area as compared to towing with a two to one bridle puts the tow operator in control of the AOA while towing with the Koch. The pilot towing with a two to one bridle solves that problem in that the pilot can lower the AOA even if the tow operator pulls too fast or even if a thermal is encountered.

The problem that is being solved is the pitch problem.

Notice that I have learned from Tad by putting up two different quotes to make a point while exonerating myself from any responsibility or making a statement that anyone can hold my feet to the fire with. (Tad aren’t you proud of me?)

[Bill Cummings]

If the AOA of the wing isn't held strongly and properly, the potential for an immediate stall at launch is increased.

“Tad,
1. Is there some kind of launch for some kind of aircraft about which that can NOT be said?

BC here: I’m confused here since there seemed to be some disagreement on this board if, being held strongly and properly can be best done with the control bar on the shoulders or with a tight hang strap. Did we come to a consensus on this or did we only agree to disagree?

2. Given identical anchor points on the keel someone flying a one to one bridle is gonna be in better shape than someone flying a two to one bridle 'cause a greater fraction (half versus a third) of the towline tension is going to hold the glider down.

BC again: Isn’t this a contributing factor to the blown dolly launch that happened to Davis S.? (one to one bridle)

[TadEareckson]

But if A breaks at 225 and B breaks at 412, which would break sooner with less residual affect on the pilot?

1. A 914 Dragonfly without the turbocharger kicked in accelerates a hang glider with about 125 pounds of thrust delivered through the towline to safely in excess of its stall speed for a crisp takeoff.

2. People have no problem at all getting killed at twenty miles per hour.

3. If someone can get killed at twenty miles per hour a millisecond prior to the failure of a 225 pound weak link - and he CAN - he can't get any more killed waiting a millisecond or the length of the runway for the 412 to blow.

4. In a power whack like Davis's:

http://ozreport.com/pub/fingerlakesaccident.shtml

- the THIS kind of "accident" in your "I know about this type of accident because it happened to me" I would predict that there would be absolutely no discernible difference whatsoever in the outcome or appearance of that richly deserved little incident whether the weak link had been 150 or 600 pounds.

It's a bit like a squirrel getting run over by an eight year old kid on a bicycle going ten miles per hour or a fully loaded logging truck going seventy. Either way - no more squirrel.

5. YES - *IF* I were being dragged down a strip helpless to release myself I would MUCH prefer to have something between the tug and me which blew at 225 - versus 412 - pounds.

Likewise if I were veering off the highway at night in a drizzle heading towards a tree I'd rather be going twenty miles per hour than sixty. But I can maintain my car and drive at sixty in manners such that the tree scenario is a virtual impossibility.

But if I put a governor on my engine that limits my speed to twenty to attempt to solve the imaginary tree problem I'm sending my probability of getting run over by an actual fully loaded logging truck going seventy through the ceiling.

And if A worked in 100% of the time (personal experience) in normal towing situations, why should B even be considered?

1. 'Cause THIS:

Manned Kiting
The Basic Handbook of Tow Launched Hang Gliding
Daniel F. Poynter
1974

"The greatest dangers are a rope break or a premature release." - Richard Johnson

didn't suddenly stop being true when Donnell published the 1981/10 edition of his Skyting newsletter with the following certifiably insane statement:

Now I've heard the argument that "Weak links always break at the worst possible time, when the glider is climbing hard in a near stall situation," and that "More people have been injured because of a weak link than saved by one." Well, I for one have been saved by a weak link and would not even consider towing without one. I want to know without a doubt (1) when I am pushing too hard, and (2) what will break when I push too hard, and (3) that no other damage need result because I push too hard.

A properly designed weak link must be strong enough to permit a good rate of climb without breaking, and it must be weak enough to break before the glider gets out of control, stalls, or collapses. Since our glider flies level with a 50 pound pull, climbs at about 500 fpm with a 130 pound pull, and retains sufficient control to prevent stalling if a weak link breaks at 200 pounds pull, we selected that value.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR_4jKLqrus

You're flying at 272 pounds using a 225 pound weak link. The total asshol*s who control the aerotow operations are putting everyone and his dog up on 130 pound Greenspot (on bridle ends) and those damnable little pieces of s*** make life absolute hell. It's no fun whatsoever doing every single launch with your heart in your throat scared to move the control bar an inch because you're likely to get dumped if you do.

http://www.vimeo.com/17472550
(red)

2. It's a breathtakingly bad idea to base standards and recommendations on some arbitrary figure or procedure because something has "worked" for ONE individual on TWO occasions.

A person who - just as he was taught by Matt Taber or Steve Wendt - always does a hang check at back of the ramp so he knows he's hooked in then moves into position, organizes his crew, waits for a good cycle, checks for traffic, says "Clear!", and launches will typically have such an OUTSTANDING record of and experience with success that the idea of verifying that he's hooked in within two seconds of launch seems totally absurd.

3. "I always get my Blood Alcohol Content up to 0.15 before I get behind the wheel because there's good evidence to indicate that a driver who's plastered - and thus relaxed - is much less likely to be seriously injured than the driver and passengers of the other vehicle when the two collide."

Yeah, using a device which takes control out of the pilot's hands may very well mitigate the severity of crashes of several flavors but you can bet the farm that it's gonna CAUSE a lot more crashes in the first place - and some of them are gonna be serious and fatal.

4. You're looking at the issue like "A" and "B" are the only means of addressing your issue. I got news for ya - A and B BOTH SUCK. You keep ignoring C - which really should be A, B, and C.

A - Use a dead-man switch.
B - Use a dead-man switch.
C - Use a dead-man switch.

Your hand moves on or comes off of the basetube and/or the string comes out from between your teeth and you're off tow. That way you can use the weak link for the purpose it has in REAL aviation...

Tost Flugzeuggeratebau

Weak links protect your aircraft against overloading.

...and spare yourself the tedium of the advanced physics and mathematics involved in determining the precise value required to blow you off tow when the s*** hits the fan in a manner such that you need to get off two seconds ago and hold you on tow when the s*** hits the fan in a manner such that you need to stay on for the next five seconds.

5. And maybe you could explain to me why anyone with an IQ up into double digits or better would NOT take advantage of that technology. ("Well, I haven't been killed yet - and neither have any of my friends recently - so what I'm doing now is obviously fine!")

Tad, have you ever been dragged on a blown foot launch with too strong of a weaklink?

1. No. The chances of blowing a foot launch tow are about ten thousand times higher than the chances of blowing a dolly or platform launch so I avoid foot launch tows like the plague.

2. If I were in an environment in which rolling launches were not practical and gonna be doing a lot of foot launches I'd develop an electrical device which blows me off tow by means of a button velcroed to my finger and expect to get a lot more bang for the buck than I would for the cost of my parachute. I prefer having control of situations myself over faith in the good intentions and timely response of a piece of fishing line.

3. Define "too strong of a weaklink" in Gs. When you've centerpunched a thermal or dust devil just coming off the ground and ore standing on your tail and going up like a rocket - a la Eric Aasletten - what weak link is "too strong"?

I have, sideways. It ain't fun.

So why didn't you release?

Some years later when more had been learned and things changed, I messed up again in similar fashion, the .8G weaklink broke and kept me from being dragged as before.

So why didn't you release?

As well, one of our newer pilots on his first day out static towing, had a wimpy, wallowing takeoff from "running into" the line. The observer called for the car to stop, pilot slid in on his belly and the weaklink broke allowing him to stop quickly without the glider doing a ground tumble.

So why didn't he release?

But I guess empiric evidence like this doesn't count for anything in your world.

No, I totally love it. Keep it coming. What it tells me is that ever since the early Eighties when the Hewett approach to towing became all the rage the concept of a hang glider pilot being able to use a RELEASE to abort a dangerous situation has become as alien and unimaginable as using a wheel landing to diminish the likelihood of breaking a downtube or arm or a hook-in check within two seconds of launch to eliminate the possibility of falling out of one's glider.

Now...

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/10/13

The weak link broke from the tow plane side. The towline was found underneath the wreck, and attached to the glider by the weaklink. The glider basically fell on the towline.

You wanna comment on THAT empirical evidence? Or do the conditions of your USHGA Safety Award preclude you from saying anything negative about understrength weak links?

[Birren]

I avoid foot launch tows like the plague.
<snip>
2. If I were in an environment in which rolling launches were not practical and gonna be doing a lot of foot launches I'd develop an electrical device which blows me off tow by means of a button velcroed to my finger and expect to get a lot more bang for the buck than I would for the cost of my parachute. I prefer having control of situations myself over faith in the good intentions and timely response of a piece of fishing line.

Well, we're right back where we were several years ago. I'll say again what I said then, that the more complex the system, (A) the more that can go wrong with it and (B) the less it'll be used because of the hassles of setup.

Most all of my comments have been relative to foot launched static line towing with a smattering of aerotowing experience (only 65 logged with all being from a dolly). Your comments are based on something else.

Mike Van Kuiken - 2005/10/13

The weak link broke from the tow plane side. The towline was found underneath the wreck, and attached to the glider by the weaklink. The glider basically fell on the towline.

You wanna comment on THAT empirical evidence? Or do the conditions of your USHGA Safety Award preclude you from saying anything negative about understrength weak links?

No, I'm not going to comment on Arlan's accident and you really ought to quit as well because neither you nor I were there. The difference is that you have no trouble talking out your a** about that which you know nothing about. I could, however, speculate on several scenarios from having spoken at great length with the tug pilot and eyewitnesses. How many of those at the site did you speak with?

[TadEareckson]

Well, we're right back where we were several years ago. I'll say again what I said then, that the more complex the system, (A) the more that can go wrong with it and (B) the less it'll be used because of the hassles of setup.

And, kids - this is INVARIABLY absolute proof that you're dealing with someone with a brain half the size of a walnut who's a really dangerous burden on society and gene pool contaminant.

If Peter were a typical designer for the stuff we use to get and stay airborne we'd all still be flying four to one standard Rogallos in swing seats and nobody would've ever heard of folding control frames, battens, reflex bridles, washout struts, double surfaces, mylar leading edge inserts, nose cones, faired kingpost and control frame tubing, kingpost suspension, variable geometry, topless gliders, pod harnesses, parachutes, flight computers, or GPS receivers - to name but a tiny sampling of items.

Most all of my comments have been relative to foot launched static line towing with a smattering of aerotowing experience (only 65 logged with all being from a dolly).

Yeah? So?

Your comments are based on something else.

Can you ELABORATE on that a little bit? Or are you worried you'll get crucified in a New York minute if you even begin?

No, I'm not going to comment on Arlan's accident and you really ought to quit as well because neither you nor I were there.

1. And yet ANOTHER never fails indicator that you're dealing with someone with a brain half the size of a walnut.

"If you weren't looking up through a telescope while the Columbia broke and burned up during reentry you couldn't POSSIBLY have any idea what went wrong and why."

2. ARLAN didn't have an ACCIDENT. Arlan ran a dangerous operation using dangerous equipment out of compliance with USHGA/FAA regulations and got his student killed in the course of a NOTHING, ROUTINE, tandem training flight. The fact that he got killed too was incidental to the real tragedy.

The difference is that you have no trouble talking out your a** about that which you know nothing about.

Yeah d*ckhead? Then why don't you start telling me what I've got wrong, disgrace me in front of my cult members, and start bringing them back to The True Path of USHGA Righteousness?

I could, however, speculate on several scenarios from having spoken at great length with the tug pilot and eyewitnesses.

Why bother? You weren't there so getting eyewitness accounts could serve no possible purpose in enhancing your understanding of the situation.

How many of those at the site did you speak with?

1. Those at the site at the time? NONE.

2. So how did what they told you off the record differ from what they put in print?

3. In other words, when were they telling the truth and when were they lying?

4. What were their reasons for lying and/or suppressing accurate information about the crash?

5. What are your reasons for not having publicized your conclusions about why this double killing took place? Did the eyewitnesses swear you to secrecy before whispering their true accounts? Or does USHGA recall your Safety Award if you don't go along with the whitewashes and coverups?

6. Ya wanna start by explaining why the front end weak link blew before the glider's - when neither aircraft was in immediate danger - when the Standard Operating Procedures state that it should be a hundred pounds over?

P.S. Bob, you wanna help him out a bit here? Tell that he should just ignore the questions to which the answers will be inconvenient? Show him how to break through walls to extract himself from the corners he's painted himself into? I'm certain he'll be eternally grateful.

[TadEareckson]

A couple of afterthoughts regarding Peter's most recent lunatic post...

1. Whenever you hear one of these brain damaged 0.8 G / 130 pound Greenspot junkies babbling on about the dangers of "stronglinks" you can be one hundred percent absolutely certain you're talking to an idiot who - for a s*** hitting the fan situation - knows that he's flying a piece of crap release system that...

Paul Tjaden - 2008/07/22

I have never had a lockout situation happen so quickly and dramatically and had no chance to release as I have always thought I could do.

Peter Birren - 2008/10/27

I know about this type of accident because it happened to me, breaking four ribs and my larynx... and I was aerotowing using a dolly. The s*** happened so fast there was no room for thought much less action.

...he'll have no chance of getting to in time to do any good;

Peter Birren - 2008/10/27

Imagine if you will, just coming off the cart and center punching a thermal which takes you instantly straight up while the tug is still on the ground. Know what happens? VERY high towline forces and an over-the-top lockout. You'll have both hands on the basetube pulling it well past your knees but the glider doesn't come down and still the weaklink doesn't break (.8G). So you pull whatever release you have but the one hand still on the basetube isn't enough to hold the nose down and you pop up and over into an unplanned semi-loop. Been there, done that... at maybe 200 feet agl.

Al Hernandez - 2010

I can't reach my CUT line 'cause I have both hands on the downtubes, and if I let go of the Coke bottle grip I will crash.

he won't be able to blow without sacrificing control of the glider; and/or

Ralph Sickinger - 2000/08/26

After towing to altitude, Sunny waved me off; I pulled on the release (hard), but nothing happened! After the second failed attempt to release, I thought about releasing from the secondary, but before I could move my hand the tug stalled and started to fall; Sunny had no choice but to gun the engine in attempt to regain flying speed, but this resulted in a sudden and severe pull on the harness and glider; I was only able to pull on the release again, while simultaneously praying for the weak link to break. The release finally opened, and I was free of the tug.

Antoine Saraf - 2011/07/13

LMFP Release
I sent 3 times this email to fly@hanglide.com without any answer !!! :

>
I recently purchased one of your Aerotow Primary Releases for use in aerotowing tandem gliders. We conduct a tandem aerotowing operation just south of Paris, France.

We have been having considerable trouble releasing when the line is under high tension. It takes considerable effort to pull the Rope-Loop release, often requiring two or three violent tugs on the loop. Obviously, this is a considerable safety concern.
<

he bought from Matt...

axo - 2009/06/20

I just kept hitting the brake lever for a few seconds in WTF mode, and the instructor used the barrel release.

Bart Weghorst - 2011/02/25

I've had it once where the pin had bent inside the barrel from excessive tow force. My weaklink was still intact. The tug pilot's weaklink broke so I had the rope. I had to use two hands to get the pin out of the barrel.

No stress because I was high.

...or Malcolm.

Paul Hurless - 2009/05/01
Reno

Adding more parts like pulleys and internally routed components makes it that much more likely that a device will fail. Simple is best.

Peter Birren - 2011/11/27

Well, we're right back where we were several years ago. I'll say again what I said then, that the more complex the system, (A) the more that can go wrong with it...

2. Whenever you hear one of these total morons babbling on about how complexity is directly related to failure rates - on a release system or anything else on a glider - ask him to cite A SINGLE ACTUAL EXAMPLE.

Zack C - 2011/01/10

When I first saw your release years ago on the Oz Report forum my impression was the same as most people's. I didn't know what the pictures were showing but it looked way more complicated than it needed to be. After seeing the problems that even the best releases on the market have and learning more about your release, however, I understand why you made it the way you did and the advantages it provides.

"I tucked and tumbled 'cause of the extra pair of sprogs."

"My VG system jammed again 'cause it has too many pulleys and internally routed lines. What a piece o' junk!"

"My glider sank out again 'cause it has too many types and numbers of battens - nose, inboard reflex, outboard fixed, undersurface, tip strut. Keeriste! What was Wills Wing thinking?!?! I'm leaving nine or ten of them in the car next time so this won't happen again."

and (B) the less it'll be used because of the hassles of setup.

"Besides, they're a real hassle at setup. Really wish I had held onto my ol' Sandpiper instead of unloading it at that garage sale for fifty bucks."

Or just ask him to look at the system and predict how a failure COULD occur. You'll never get ANYTHING in the way of a sane, plausible reply.

Whenever you hear about a Peter Birren waiting for, praying for, depending on, experiencing a weak link pop or...

Manned Kiting
The Basic Handbook of Tow Launched Hang Gliding
Daniel F. Poynter
1974

"Never take your hands off the bar." - Tom Peghiny

...doing an unplanned semi-loop in the course of proving - YET AGAIN - that some of the pioneers of this sport knew what the hell they were talking about and there is INDEED such a thing as COMMON SENSE, you've heard a report of a potentially lethal release system failure - no matter how much lipstick the perpetrator trowels on it to try to con you into believing that these things are just normal, inconsequential, inevitable costs of doing business.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Well, we're right back where we were several years ago. I'll say again what I said then, that the more complex the system, (A) the more that can go wrong with it and (B) the less it'll be used because of the hassles of setup.

This is all true. General aviation combats this complexity by adding a lot of overhead to the process (requiring an A&P mechanic to do almost any repairs on an aircraft). The more complexity we add to our aircraft, the greater the burden of maintenance to ensure that it's all working. So there's a cost-benefit tradeoff, and we allow our pilots to make the choices of which additional complexity (and costs) are worth which additional benefits. I am 100% behind allowing our pilots to make that choice.

Tad, if you want to convince people to use your system, then maybe you should focus on telling us about your system rather than trying to bash everyone who points out (A) and (B) as Peter has done.

Furthermore Tad, you must know of some pilots with brains larger than "half the size of a walnut". Why don't you convince them to use your system to get the ball rolling? I know of manufacturers that you quote with a high degree of respect. Why don't you convince them to incorporate your system?

P.S. Bob, you wanna help him out a bit here? Tell that he should just ignore the questions to which the answers will be inconvenient? Show him how to break through walls to extract himself from the corners he's painted himself into? I'm certain he'll be eternally grateful.

Peter, I do think you should pretty much ignore Tad at this point. Tad doesn't really want to make progress in this sport. If he did, then he'd be doing what I've suggested above. Furthermore, I believe Tad is motivated more by some sort of twisted revenge than by any desire to actually improve the sport. So you cannot have a calm and rational discussion with him if you're one of his chosen targets for that revenge. Additionally, Tad has far more free time on his hands than any of us, so we're all at a disadvantage when trying to debate him ... whether we're right or wrong. Tad's single-minded pursuit of revenge combined with his abundance of free time may end up being the downfall of the US Hawks forum if we don't figure out a way to deal with it. I'm open to suggestions.