OK - inhaaaaale.....exhaaaaale.....
Now back to incessant babbling...
-
Towing Aloft
Page 59
A weak link is required that will not break needlessly in response to moderate thermals, or pilot inputs, yet, will break at a low enough point to avoid disaster or excessive pilot panic.
For aerotowing operations, a weak link breaking strength equal to 80 to 100% of the total flying weight--the weight of the pilot and glider--is a reasonable starting point.
Page 60
For surface towing, there is debate on the recommended breaking strength for weak links. Since almost all modern surface based towing (static line, payout winch, and stationary winch) are tension controlled systems, the weak link selection is partially dependent upon the towline tensions used. A weak link that breaks between 100 to 120% of the total flying system weight is generally recommended.
(Oops, I had previously erroneously referenced that first page as 53.)
-
And again, from Modern Airmanship, referencing winch and AT respectively...
Page 793
It should break with a pull of about twice the weight of the glider.
Page 795
As in other types of launching, a weak link is required if the towline's breaking strength is more than twice the weight of the sailplane being towed.
-
Let's ignore, for the moment, that the former reference is talking about weak links about half as strong as the latter and focus on its recommendation of tweaking the strength to the mode of towing versus Modern Airmanship/FAA's two Gs no matter what the hell flavor of getting up you're using.
Anybody else bothered by this discrepancy?
Well, I can keep hoping.
The logic is...
In surface towing, whereas the object is to get the glider up in the air, the tow line is angled down away from it, i.e., pulling in a direction way less than optimal; therefore you're getting way less bang for your tension buck; therefore you need more tension to make up for the vector that's trying to pull you back into the ground.
In aerotowing the tow line is horizontal and the tension is doing a much more efficient job of opposing drag, thus allowing you to maintain airspeed and a high pitch attitude until you reach a point at which you've got a shot at continuing to go up on your own.
So, obviously, you want to use weak links proportional to the steady state tow tension of your system du jour.
Ya'd think, wouldn't ya?
WRONG.
One of several major problems with this is that around the time your weak link starts becoming useful (which it shouldn't - 'cause you should have released long before you reach that point), you're probably doing a really spectacular wingover and you don't know where the hell the winch, truck, boat, tug is gonna be relative your Center of the Universe.
Well, you can't be below boat level and still breathing and the only way you can be below winch or truck level is if there's a ravine involved but you can be in deep shit in just about any other position, attitude, or combination thereof you want to imagine. You can be straight behind a truck or straight above or below a tug, and way off to the side of any source of tension you can name.
Two... In static and stationary winch towing in the early (read critical) part of the tow, the physics and geometry are EXACTLY the same as in aerotowing. You start out with your tension source on the horizon, it stays there for a bit, then you climb a little above it. Only then do the systems start diverging. Platform launching is no guarantee against that sequence of events either. If you get a major lull in the headwind right after you hear the horn you can read the license plate real easy (btdt).
Three (again)... The sole purpose of the weak link is to break before the plane does. The plane doesn't care what the thing on the other end of the string is - Yarnell winch, Boston Whaler, Appaloosa, Toyota Tacoma, lamp post, Dragonfly - or what you were doing three seconds ago. The plane only cares about G loading.
A little more discussion with respect to Page 59...
The AT weak links recommended in the second paragraph which, on a good day and a lighter glider, fall (in theory) within the 0.8 to 1.0 G range DO break needlessly in response to moderate thermals or pilot inputs.
Addressing the two previous posts...
- If it's older it's better and safer. No reason to even look at anything else.
Nothing new there, reassuring to see the cross platform consistency.
(Kinda curious as to the point of Paragraph 5.)
I keep hearing this bullshit glider jock mantra about about new equipment and test pilots and the thought finally occurs to me... What's the fucking evidence? Somebody cite an incident of someone being unable to release as a result of the use of a piece of new tow equipment because of a defect that wasn't blindingly obvious to a really slow fifth grader on the ground beforehand. And if anyone comes up with something - fear not, I can cite a whole septic tank's worth of incidents, destruction, and death resulting from the "tried and true" junk.
And...
- A single loop of 130 Greenspot is God's perfect, immutable gift to all solo gliders from 165 pound trainers to 350 pound bladewings - 1.5 Gs for the smallest stuff, 0.7 for the top end.
- And screw your equations and the USHGA AT Guidelines.
Admirable consistency there, too. But I remain uninformed of a single aerotow that was adversely affected by an overstrength weak link. (And still no trace of the old outrage concerning premature releases. Go figure.)
Wait a minute. I get it. Making them stronger makes them more dangerous so what we really should be doing is making them weaker so they'll be safer. Yep. Nuthin' safer than a tea bag string.
So, Jim, just what is your definition of a "strong link"? Lemme guess.
Based on your previous posts it trumps USHGA and has no relation to the weight of the glider.
I got it! Anything over a loop of Miracle String! Right?
A bit more on Marc's post.
1. There's no reason that a multi-string release has to or should directly engage the weak link and subject the system to a hangup problem.
2. If you engage the multi-string through the thimble of one of my shear links instead of a loop of Miracle String you don't have the problem.
3. If you use the barrel release configuration I suggested you don't have the problem.
I don't see what you can do with a bridle assembly to make it suitable or un for reverse inflation. Seems to me you'd want to be executing that operation with zero or minimal tow line tension. Pretty sure I can predict that with as much as a pound of it you won't be going up anytime soon if you're using a bridle with an auto-release mechanism.
inhaaaaale.....exhaaaaale.....
OK, I'm ready again.
weak links
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
You still fail to answer the base question... Exactly how does towing with a _stronger_ weaklink serve to make things safer?
I'll give you a hint... it DOESN'T... it makes things less safe.
This is what I mean by your slavish devotion to definitions.
Again... exactly how does using a stronger weaklink make things safer?
Jim
I'll give you a hint... it DOESN'T... it makes things less safe.
No. That's ONE purpose of a weak link. Even if that's it's only intended purpose, it has other benefits. Where as using a stronger one only serves to make the system less safe.The sole purpose of the weak link is to break before the plane does.
This is what I mean by your slavish devotion to definitions.
Again... exactly how does using a stronger weaklink make things safer?
Jim
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Alright, I'm doing reruns now but what the hell.
I'm not primarily concerned, with respect to weak links, with making things safer - in the broken collar bones and death context of the word. I'm more concerned with making tows reliable.
You are going to have more accidents with understrength weak links. The worst I see are downtube breakers.
But from Kevin Carter a couple of years ago -
"One pilot in the Texas Open had three premature releases in a row with glider damage on all three and different degrees of pilot injury. I myself have had a low level release that caused minor injury."
and a short dissertation about the thrills of landing in wake turbulence.
So yeah, I must agree with him that the consequences of an early pop can screw up your day more than the replacement of a seventy-five dollar faired downtube - which would be plenty enough, in my estimation.
And I will also have to disagree with your assertion that stronger weak links are inherently more dangerous.
I will, however, agree with you that one can benefit from the failure of a low strength weak link. I know of at least one example of a lucky break - so to speak.
But I don't want to make things more dangerous for everyone doing his job on the end of the string so that an individual or two can fly in an incompetent manner and MAYBE get lucky. That individual or two need(s) to continue training in controlled conditions.
About the only freakin' way I can imagine one would really need a weak link is if something catastrophic happens with a winch - like a line getting buried on a spool. In the AT environment I cannot come up with a scenario in which a weak link could possibly kick in in anything approaching the speed with which a release can be actuated.
Excellent options exist for virtually instantaneous actuation. If one is comfortable with a less than optimal configuration one can probably get to a brake lever on a downtube or a barrel in front of one's shoulder with a negligible time penalty but I don't want to dumb down the weak links to increase the chance that some bozo who has opted for that safety compromise can fumble around a couple of extra critical seconds and MAYBE get lucky.
Another bad reason for dumbing down weak links is to allow folk to fly with a release that may not work. There has been no shortage of examples of Plan B execution related to the ubiquitous spinnaker shackle based assemblies.
OK - Now do me a favor and tell me stronger than What? And there has to be a for whom in that answer.
I'm only recommending that we use weak links rated to 1.4 Gs - dead center in the middle of the USHGA safety range - or, anyway, what would have been dead center in the middle of the USHGA safety range if they had their shit together enough to define a bottom end higher than zero.
Since they don't, let's go to Plan B - Towing Aloft. As I just wrote, I don't buy that you tweak weak link strength for the type of towing you're doing, but the minimum figure cited in that text is 0.8 Gs (for aerotowing). I'll buy that 'cause it's consistent with what the FAA REQUIRES as a minimum for sailplanes.
Victor and I each weigh about 310 pounds. A loop of Greenspot falls, at best, a wee bit short of 0.8 Gs. Most of the time we can get to altitude with that if we don't get beat up too bad.
BUT -
Both of us have been doing everything right in smooth air in the ballpark of a hundred feet and - POP - back in line (or, in the former's case, - POP - replace downtube - back in line).
So as far as I'm concerned, the Golden (Green) Standard is reliable to 0.4 Gs.
That leaves any glider over around 153 pounds short of the mark.
I'm not primarily concerned, with respect to weak links, with making things safer - in the broken collar bones and death context of the word. I'm more concerned with making tows reliable.
You are going to have more accidents with understrength weak links. The worst I see are downtube breakers.
But from Kevin Carter a couple of years ago -
"One pilot in the Texas Open had three premature releases in a row with glider damage on all three and different degrees of pilot injury. I myself have had a low level release that caused minor injury."
and a short dissertation about the thrills of landing in wake turbulence.
So yeah, I must agree with him that the consequences of an early pop can screw up your day more than the replacement of a seventy-five dollar faired downtube - which would be plenty enough, in my estimation.
And I will also have to disagree with your assertion that stronger weak links are inherently more dangerous.
I will, however, agree with you that one can benefit from the failure of a low strength weak link. I know of at least one example of a lucky break - so to speak.
But I don't want to make things more dangerous for everyone doing his job on the end of the string so that an individual or two can fly in an incompetent manner and MAYBE get lucky. That individual or two need(s) to continue training in controlled conditions.
About the only freakin' way I can imagine one would really need a weak link is if something catastrophic happens with a winch - like a line getting buried on a spool. In the AT environment I cannot come up with a scenario in which a weak link could possibly kick in in anything approaching the speed with which a release can be actuated.
Excellent options exist for virtually instantaneous actuation. If one is comfortable with a less than optimal configuration one can probably get to a brake lever on a downtube or a barrel in front of one's shoulder with a negligible time penalty but I don't want to dumb down the weak links to increase the chance that some bozo who has opted for that safety compromise can fumble around a couple of extra critical seconds and MAYBE get lucky.
Another bad reason for dumbing down weak links is to allow folk to fly with a release that may not work. There has been no shortage of examples of Plan B execution related to the ubiquitous spinnaker shackle based assemblies.
OK - Now do me a favor and tell me stronger than What? And there has to be a for whom in that answer.
I'm only recommending that we use weak links rated to 1.4 Gs - dead center in the middle of the USHGA safety range - or, anyway, what would have been dead center in the middle of the USHGA safety range if they had their shit together enough to define a bottom end higher than zero.
Since they don't, let's go to Plan B - Towing Aloft. As I just wrote, I don't buy that you tweak weak link strength for the type of towing you're doing, but the minimum figure cited in that text is 0.8 Gs (for aerotowing). I'll buy that 'cause it's consistent with what the FAA REQUIRES as a minimum for sailplanes.
Victor and I each weigh about 310 pounds. A loop of Greenspot falls, at best, a wee bit short of 0.8 Gs. Most of the time we can get to altitude with that if we don't get beat up too bad.
BUT -
Both of us have been doing everything right in smooth air in the ballpark of a hundred feet and - POP - back in line (or, in the former's case, - POP - replace downtube - back in line).
So as far as I'm concerned, the Golden (Green) Standard is reliable to 0.4 Gs.
That leaves any glider over around 153 pounds short of the mark.
The outright honesty in the second line and the lack of inflammables makes this the best post yet. Let's forget everything that went before and use this as a new starting point.
I don't think there's any argument that weak length strength should scale with total mass (and I'd like to see your contraption for scalable strength weak link), and again you are honest in not having a strong theoretical argument for what the number of g's should be.
I'll be lazy and ask if any of your references give a physical reason for the 0.8 to 2 g range they quote as safe. If not, constructing a reasonable physical argument could be a major contribution. You clearly have the physics down well enough (as good as anyone else in the world) to do so.
I rarely break weak links - probably because I'm light, but I don't feel my safety has been threatened by having a proportionally stronger link than a bigger guy (purely intuitive). Is anyone else worried about my proportionally stronger weak link? Scale everyone's up to match my g ratio and I think we all could be happy?
Note that since I wouldn't have to change anything, I'm automatically happy.
Back to work .... 9 am on a saturday morning and I have to say that: tells you what I'm escaping from responding to this.
I don't think there's any argument that weak length strength should scale with total mass (and I'd like to see your contraption for scalable strength weak link), and again you are honest in not having a strong theoretical argument for what the number of g's should be.
I'll be lazy and ask if any of your references give a physical reason for the 0.8 to 2 g range they quote as safe. If not, constructing a reasonable physical argument could be a major contribution. You clearly have the physics down well enough (as good as anyone else in the world) to do so.
I rarely break weak links - probably because I'm light, but I don't feel my safety has been threatened by having a proportionally stronger link than a bigger guy (purely intuitive). Is anyone else worried about my proportionally stronger weak link? Scale everyone's up to match my g ratio and I think we all could be happy?
Note that since I wouldn't have to change anything, I'm automatically happy.
Back to work .... 9 am on a saturday morning and I have to say that: tells you what I'm escaping from responding to this.
Brian Vant-Hull
BTW - not breaking the glider I would call an upper limit. I'm wondering if there's a lower limit that one could argue would actually increase safety by preventing weird geometries akin to lockouts, though you've argued lockouts don't require much force. Pulling up on the tug's tail?
Brian Vant-Hull
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Brian,
Thanks very much for weighing in again.
Hate to take issue with anything in your post but...
Paragraph 2 of my previous is my third statement of that point in this thread. Probably shoulda made that distinction prominently up front. Sunny perked up quite a bit in a discussion of this issue we had a couple of months ago as soon as he realized that I wasn't talking about saving lives.
I think the honor of the best post yet goes to Danny for the Subject line of his 2007/05/16 submission -
"Weak links are not a secondary release system..."
If folk could just really understand those eight words.
With respect to the "lack of inflammables" that was easy this time. Jim's post was a breath of fresh air compared to the mountain of cra- oops, I'm trying to be nice for a little while - stuff with which I've been having to deal.
Let's break it down a bit...
He asked me a question, disagreed with me, quoted me accurately, made one statement with which I totally agree and another erroneous one which was easily shot down, and paid me a great - though unintended - compliment.
It took me an unholy amount of time, research, and thinking to attain that "slavish devotion to definitions" and decontaminate myself from the indoctrination of decades worth of hang glider culture.
The light bulb didn't fully glow until until I was in the midst of gear fabrication some months ago and I finally got to the point of:
"Why the hell am I dumbing this thing down to do a job it's not supposed to be doing? That's what the release is for."
You use the release to release and you don't think about, count on, or use the weak link any more than you do your parachute.
Gonna throw Jim another bone - or part of one anyway.
Don't even have to use a hypothetical scenario - Robin is perfect.
He was alleged to have been using an overstrength weak link. Let's rewind the tape and dumb it down. He get's out of whack, hits the lever, nothing happens. But this time the thing pops and he bellies into the dust then get's back up and waits for a free cart. Perfectly plausible.
So we keep on using a mechanism which we always knew was problematic and hope the next guy gets lucky too.
Let's rewind the tape again, same dumbed down weak link. Spin the random number generator and this time he gets killed again anyway. Perfectly plausible too.
YOU DON'T DUMB DOWN THE WEAK LINK - YOU SMARTEN UP THE RELEASE. But we just keep rolling dice.
I actually do have a strong theoretical argument for what the number of g's should be. This theory goes as follows and begins now.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end.
No, wait, wrong tape.
The next thing I'm going to say is my theory. Ready?
It doesn't matter. Anything to keep you on tow and blow before the glider does. Huge freakin' range.
Well, not really. One real world consideration I haven't mentioned before... You don't want to overload your release mechanisms. I'm recommending that they be able to easily handle one and a half times the maximum tension the weak link will allow so let's get back down to the 0.8 to 2.0 ballpark.
In addition to the references I've cited - FAA, USHGA, and Modern Airmanship - I've come across a passage from Davis citing Donnell Hewett as recommending 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 Gs for new, experienced, and aerobatic pilots respectively. I'm not sure I buy that 'cause, as has been said ad nauseam, very low Gs are aerobatic enough to slam you into the ground and kill you.
Gotta confess though, that when I sent up Hugh on his U2 with my assembly for his first one point tow I caved to moral cowardice and incorporated a conventional weak link. He had had a history of oscillating, this was a new trick, and I wouldn't have minded seeing the line go slack early. He did fine though, and I beefed him up for the next one.
The USHGA and FAA references only state the limit(s), I already quoted everything Modern Airmanship had on the subject - which was both hardly anything and all encompassing, and Towing Aloft views weak links as a secondary release system - the concept through whose heart I'm currently trying to drive a stake.
My take on it is that - I now know what Dragonfly tow tension is and that I was able to drive through a small batch of pretty nasty shit with 1.12 Gs keeping me connected. I'm happy with a bit more than that.
If you and your Falcon weigh more than 200 pounds I wanna beef you up more than what you're happy with and reduce your break rate from rarely to never. And why should you get a free ride? I want everyone to suffer.
By contraption you mean the weak link itself? There are ten pretty good (if I do say so myself) photos up at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/
in the Secondary Components set which illustrate the shear link variations for use on a tow line and primary bridle and as a secondary bridle. The primary bridle adaptation has subsequently been overhauled to address the wrap issue but - close enough.
Thanks immensely for the endorsement. Means quite a lot coming from an ol' physics teacher who owns meteorology textbooks containing three and a half inch long formulae.
By the way... When your doctorate paperwork comes through you can issue those degrees, right? I feel I oughta get something for reinventing sailplane technology.
Correction - Back in my initial post "1.40 plus or minus .43 Gs" shoulda read "1.40 Gs plus or minus 43 percent".
P.S.
Just caught your subsequent post.
No, I don't think there's any way a weak link can possibly keep you from getting creative. But you should have a device already that takes care of that (in addition to the basetube).
I love the idea of pulling up on the tug's tail, however. If you do that down low you will automatically be off tow without having to take any other action.
Thanks very much for weighing in again.
Hate to take issue with anything in your post but...
Paragraph 2 of my previous is my third statement of that point in this thread. Probably shoulda made that distinction prominently up front. Sunny perked up quite a bit in a discussion of this issue we had a couple of months ago as soon as he realized that I wasn't talking about saving lives.
I think the honor of the best post yet goes to Danny for the Subject line of his 2007/05/16 submission -
"Weak links are not a secondary release system..."
If folk could just really understand those eight words.
With respect to the "lack of inflammables" that was easy this time. Jim's post was a breath of fresh air compared to the mountain of cra- oops, I'm trying to be nice for a little while - stuff with which I've been having to deal.
Let's break it down a bit...
He asked me a question, disagreed with me, quoted me accurately, made one statement with which I totally agree and another erroneous one which was easily shot down, and paid me a great - though unintended - compliment.
It took me an unholy amount of time, research, and thinking to attain that "slavish devotion to definitions" and decontaminate myself from the indoctrination of decades worth of hang glider culture.
The light bulb didn't fully glow until until I was in the midst of gear fabrication some months ago and I finally got to the point of:
"Why the hell am I dumbing this thing down to do a job it's not supposed to be doing? That's what the release is for."
You use the release to release and you don't think about, count on, or use the weak link any more than you do your parachute.
Gonna throw Jim another bone - or part of one anyway.
Don't even have to use a hypothetical scenario - Robin is perfect.
He was alleged to have been using an overstrength weak link. Let's rewind the tape and dumb it down. He get's out of whack, hits the lever, nothing happens. But this time the thing pops and he bellies into the dust then get's back up and waits for a free cart. Perfectly plausible.
So we keep on using a mechanism which we always knew was problematic and hope the next guy gets lucky too.
Let's rewind the tape again, same dumbed down weak link. Spin the random number generator and this time he gets killed again anyway. Perfectly plausible too.
YOU DON'T DUMB DOWN THE WEAK LINK - YOU SMARTEN UP THE RELEASE. But we just keep rolling dice.
I actually do have a strong theoretical argument for what the number of g's should be. This theory goes as follows and begins now.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end.
No, wait, wrong tape.
The next thing I'm going to say is my theory. Ready?
It doesn't matter. Anything to keep you on tow and blow before the glider does. Huge freakin' range.
Well, not really. One real world consideration I haven't mentioned before... You don't want to overload your release mechanisms. I'm recommending that they be able to easily handle one and a half times the maximum tension the weak link will allow so let's get back down to the 0.8 to 2.0 ballpark.
In addition to the references I've cited - FAA, USHGA, and Modern Airmanship - I've come across a passage from Davis citing Donnell Hewett as recommending 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 Gs for new, experienced, and aerobatic pilots respectively. I'm not sure I buy that 'cause, as has been said ad nauseam, very low Gs are aerobatic enough to slam you into the ground and kill you.
Gotta confess though, that when I sent up Hugh on his U2 with my assembly for his first one point tow I caved to moral cowardice and incorporated a conventional weak link. He had had a history of oscillating, this was a new trick, and I wouldn't have minded seeing the line go slack early. He did fine though, and I beefed him up for the next one.
The USHGA and FAA references only state the limit(s), I already quoted everything Modern Airmanship had on the subject - which was both hardly anything and all encompassing, and Towing Aloft views weak links as a secondary release system - the concept through whose heart I'm currently trying to drive a stake.
My take on it is that - I now know what Dragonfly tow tension is and that I was able to drive through a small batch of pretty nasty shit with 1.12 Gs keeping me connected. I'm happy with a bit more than that.
If you and your Falcon weigh more than 200 pounds I wanna beef you up more than what you're happy with and reduce your break rate from rarely to never. And why should you get a free ride? I want everyone to suffer.
By contraption you mean the weak link itself? There are ten pretty good (if I do say so myself) photos up at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/
in the Secondary Components set which illustrate the shear link variations for use on a tow line and primary bridle and as a secondary bridle. The primary bridle adaptation has subsequently been overhauled to address the wrap issue but - close enough.
Thanks immensely for the endorsement. Means quite a lot coming from an ol' physics teacher who owns meteorology textbooks containing three and a half inch long formulae.
By the way... When your doctorate paperwork comes through you can issue those degrees, right? I feel I oughta get something for reinventing sailplane technology.
Correction - Back in my initial post "1.40 plus or minus .43 Gs" shoulda read "1.40 Gs plus or minus 43 percent".
P.S.
Just caught your subsequent post.
No, I don't think there's any way a weak link can possibly keep you from getting creative. But you should have a device already that takes care of that (in addition to the basetube).
I love the idea of pulling up on the tug's tail, however. If you do that down low you will automatically be off tow without having to take any other action.
This all follows the same mentality as "great wheel debate".
Kinda goes like this... "get rid of your wheels... land better!"
Basically anything less than the cabling on your glider?
You've got to be kidding me!
Sure that makes it all fit into your definition of weaklinks having a "sole purpose".
That's what I mean about reality vs definitions.
You're making things less safe because your FLAWED definitions.
Go ahead and try to improve your release... whatever. Just don't tell me that weaklinks need to be stronger! That's just flat out ignorant.
Just because you think about something a lot or talk about something a LOT doesn't make you right... you can easily chase the wrong idea around for years.
Kinda goes like this... "get rid of your wheels... land better!"
Think about this...Anything to keep you on tow and blow before the glider does.
Basically anything less than the cabling on your glider?
You've got to be kidding me!
Sure that makes it all fit into your definition of weaklinks having a "sole purpose".
That's what I mean about reality vs definitions.
You're making things less safe because your FLAWED definitions.
Go ahead and try to improve your release... whatever. Just don't tell me that weaklinks need to be stronger! That's just flat out ignorant.
Just because you think about something a lot or talk about something a LOT doesn't make you right... you can easily chase the wrong idea around for years.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Jim,
I know you don't bother reading this stuff very carefully at best and usually at all but there was additional material an extremely short distance beyond the sentence you quoted.
It began - "Well, not really.", included a recommendation that we stay within the USHGA Guidelines, and concluded with a suggestion that the middle of a rational interpretation of those guidelines is perfect for yours truly.
Also, I'll save you the trouble of referring to my post of 2007/07/04 in which I stated:
"But I don't need a three G weak link 'cause if the glider has loaded up to much more than two G's the tug is probably nowhere near where I'd normally expect to find it and I'd just as soon be off tow anyway."
By the way, do you recall the author of this post from 2005/09/22:
"...don't tell us that being off tow at the wrong time is all sweet and wonderful. Yes, we prepare for it, but that doesn't make it a safe situation. It makes it a manageable situation. There are times where it's better to be on tow than off tow."
Must be another loose cannon nut case, right?
I'm assuming, since you never reciprocate the courtesy of responding to questions, that you're quite happy putting all solo gliders on the same loop of Miracle String?
So do me a favor, spread some of the venom around, contact the USHGA Towing Committee and the authors of Towing Aloft, get the former and latter to lower their 2.0 G upper and 0.8 G lower limits respectively, and peace and happiness will reign with a magnitude rivaled only by the Liberation of Iraq.
I know you don't bother reading this stuff very carefully at best and usually at all but there was additional material an extremely short distance beyond the sentence you quoted.
It began - "Well, not really.", included a recommendation that we stay within the USHGA Guidelines, and concluded with a suggestion that the middle of a rational interpretation of those guidelines is perfect for yours truly.
Also, I'll save you the trouble of referring to my post of 2007/07/04 in which I stated:
"But I don't need a three G weak link 'cause if the glider has loaded up to much more than two G's the tug is probably nowhere near where I'd normally expect to find it and I'd just as soon be off tow anyway."
By the way, do you recall the author of this post from 2005/09/22:
"...don't tell us that being off tow at the wrong time is all sweet and wonderful. Yes, we prepare for it, but that doesn't make it a safe situation. It makes it a manageable situation. There are times where it's better to be on tow than off tow."
Must be another loose cannon nut case, right?
I'm assuming, since you never reciprocate the courtesy of responding to questions, that you're quite happy putting all solo gliders on the same loop of Miracle String?
So do me a favor, spread some of the venom around, contact the USHGA Towing Committee and the authors of Towing Aloft, get the former and latter to lower their 2.0 G upper and 0.8 G lower limits respectively, and peace and happiness will reign with a magnitude rivaled only by the Liberation of Iraq.
If you wish people to read what you write, try writing LESS.
Babbling on and on about ever little detail that happens to pop into your head is not communication... it's rambling. Something you seem quite adept at.
The volume of what's written has no bearing on the validity of what's written. A fact that seems to escape you.
You state quite clearly that your idea of a "weaklink" is anything under the structural load bearing capacity of the glider or towplane.
Everything else here is based on that erroneous concept.
BTW, I know Kevie a hell of a lot better than you do dude. Please do not assume to inform me as to his towing opinions.
And as for your cracks about me being a tug pilot (and somehow less qualified to comment on hg stuff)... HAHAHA I'm a freakin hg instructor. I towed more yesterday than you've towed all year. I use this crap on a daily basis. If anyone here's less qualified to comment... It's YOU.
Babbling on and on about ever little detail that happens to pop into your head is not communication... it's rambling. Something you seem quite adept at.
The volume of what's written has no bearing on the validity of what's written. A fact that seems to escape you.
You state quite clearly that your idea of a "weaklink" is anything under the structural load bearing capacity of the glider or towplane.
Everything else here is based on that erroneous concept.
BTW, I know Kevie a hell of a lot better than you do dude. Please do not assume to inform me as to his towing opinions.
And as for your cracks about me being a tug pilot (and somehow less qualified to comment on hg stuff)... HAHAHA I'm a freakin hg instructor. I towed more yesterday than you've towed all year. I use this crap on a daily basis. If anyone here's less qualified to comment... It's YOU.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Actually Jim, there's pretty strong evidence that lotsa people ARE reading what I write. Some of them even figured out that I wasn't talking about eliminating weak links before the two month mark.
I notice that, once again, your attention span has collapsed before the "Well, not really." mark.
I have never assumed to inform anyone of Kevie's towing opinions - I just quoted him. (I also quoted you, if you haven't figured that out yet.)
OK, you're The Master, tell us - PLEASE - at least what your UPPER limit for a weak link is (it seems clear that you don't think there should be any lower limits). Caution - it might involve an equation.
I notice that, once again, your attention span has collapsed before the "Well, not really." mark.
I have never assumed to inform anyone of Kevie's towing opinions - I just quoted him. (I also quoted you, if you haven't figured that out yet.)
OK, you're The Master, tell us - PLEASE - at least what your UPPER limit for a weak link is (it seems clear that you don't think there should be any lower limits). Caution - it might involve an equation.
Hahahahahahahahaha
Oh that's just rich!
Riiiiiight... it's my attention span at issue here....
and I'm the one that's arrogant!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
No, I'm not being nice. No, I do not feel the need to be nice. You're trying to convince people to be less safe. I don't want to be on the other end of the rope when someone listening to this drivel smashes in.
I've heard it a million times before from comp pilots insisting on towing with even doubled up weaklinks (some want no weaklink). I tell them the same thing I'm telling you... suck it up. You're not the only one on the line. I didn't ask to be a test pilot. I can live with your inconvenience.
Please tell me again what's wrong with the wheel? Why you keep trying to reinvent it?
Yes, please fall back on the "I'm just saying they could be stronger" bull when you've made it quite clear that anything lower than cable (1200lb) is acceptable.
The simple fact is that you're not improving the system.
You're trying to make it more convenient and trying to convince yourself that you should be towing with a stronger weaklink.
Enjoy your delusion.
Jim
Oh that's just rich!
Riiiiiight... it's my attention span at issue here....
and I'm the one that's arrogant!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
No, I'm not being nice. No, I do not feel the need to be nice. You're trying to convince people to be less safe. I don't want to be on the other end of the rope when someone listening to this drivel smashes in.
I've heard it a million times before from comp pilots insisting on towing with even doubled up weaklinks (some want no weaklink). I tell them the same thing I'm telling you... suck it up. You're not the only one on the line. I didn't ask to be a test pilot. I can live with your inconvenience.
Please tell me again what's wrong with the wheel? Why you keep trying to reinvent it?
Yes, please fall back on the "I'm just saying they could be stronger" bull when you've made it quite clear that anything lower than cable (1200lb) is acceptable.
The simple fact is that you're not improving the system.
You're trying to make it more convenient and trying to convince yourself that you should be towing with a stronger weaklink.
Enjoy your delusion.
Jim
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Thanks Jim, that'll be all I need. (Serendipity Heaven!)
Lessee, a million times from comp pilots.
Probably none of them would nag more than a couple three times but let's make it ten to be real conservative.
That's a hundred thousand comp pilots that aren't happy flying with the pussy-ass weak links such as Lauren described.
Aw, I'm feeling nice (especially now), let's divide by a thousand and make it a hundred comp pilots.
A doubled up weak link at the end of a one point bridle translates to a tow line tension of about 400 pounds.
That puts everyone from 200 (Karen) to 500 pounds within USHGA Guidelines. The top end comp gliders only go up to about 350 pounds. So we're talking a range of 1.14 to 2.00 Gs.
So Karen, towing one point, goes up to the flight line and asks for a 2 G weak link and Jim tells her she's gonna be using a single loop of Greenspot which brings her down to 1.4.
I, 310 pounds and two point, make the same request which would buy me 1.12 Gs - below what Karen's got now - and get told "Take all your equations and stuff them. Here's your single." So I saddle up with something that puts me at 0.79 Gs if I'm lucky and 0.4 if I'm not.
Karen drives up during prime time, I go right behind her but - POP! - SHIT!, and Karen kicks my ass on the scorecard.
KAREN! You freakin' WEASEL! I am REALLY REALLY disappointed in you for capitalizing on that sleazy tactic.
So there's a hundred USHGA AT qualified comp pilots who've wanted to tow mostly towards the middle of the USHGA safe range and they've all been told to get bent. Anybody have an idea of a list? I'd like to get together with some of these folk for a few beers and a little glider talk.
Lessee, a million times from comp pilots.
Probably none of them would nag more than a couple three times but let's make it ten to be real conservative.
That's a hundred thousand comp pilots that aren't happy flying with the pussy-ass weak links such as Lauren described.
Aw, I'm feeling nice (especially now), let's divide by a thousand and make it a hundred comp pilots.
A doubled up weak link at the end of a one point bridle translates to a tow line tension of about 400 pounds.
That puts everyone from 200 (Karen) to 500 pounds within USHGA Guidelines. The top end comp gliders only go up to about 350 pounds. So we're talking a range of 1.14 to 2.00 Gs.
So Karen, towing one point, goes up to the flight line and asks for a 2 G weak link and Jim tells her she's gonna be using a single loop of Greenspot which brings her down to 1.4.
I, 310 pounds and two point, make the same request which would buy me 1.12 Gs - below what Karen's got now - and get told "Take all your equations and stuff them. Here's your single." So I saddle up with something that puts me at 0.79 Gs if I'm lucky and 0.4 if I'm not.
Karen drives up during prime time, I go right behind her but - POP! - SHIT!, and Karen kicks my ass on the scorecard.
KAREN! You freakin' WEASEL! I am REALLY REALLY disappointed in you for capitalizing on that sleazy tactic.
So there's a hundred USHGA AT qualified comp pilots who've wanted to tow mostly towards the middle of the USHGA safe range and they've all been told to get bent. Anybody have an idea of a list? I'd like to get together with some of these folk for a few beers and a little glider talk.
I'm glad you're finally starting to understand.
See you've been advocating STRONGER weaklinks than even USHGA guidelines.
I've been advocating WEAKER ones, as you've noticed here.
In fact, you're not just advocating stronger ones... you're advocating MUCH stronger ones.
Yes, this is my problem with all this.
Thanks for noticing.
Jim
See you've been advocating STRONGER weaklinks than even USHGA guidelines.
I've been advocating WEAKER ones, as you've noticed here.
In fact, you're not just advocating stronger ones... you're advocating MUCH stronger ones.
Yes, this is my problem with all this.
Thanks for noticing.
Jim
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Add her glider. Tad's g ratings are for the whole package.
Actually, unbelievable as it seems, I don't think Tad and Jim are that far apart. Tad wants to use the current number of link-g's the lightest pilots use, and scale accordingly for all the rest. Jim would prefer to use the current number of link-g's the heaviest pilots use, and I infer would like to scale accordingly down to the lightest pilots.
People go ballistic when Tad says weak links are just to protect the structure, but he then is willing to weaken it enough so that lighter pilots are within his range when using current weak links.
All the argument seems to be about which end of the scale to use that is currently in use. I really can't see what all the hyperventilation is about.
Actually, unbelievable as it seems, I don't think Tad and Jim are that far apart. Tad wants to use the current number of link-g's the lightest pilots use, and scale accordingly for all the rest. Jim would prefer to use the current number of link-g's the heaviest pilots use, and I infer would like to scale accordingly down to the lightest pilots.
People go ballistic when Tad says weak links are just to protect the structure, but he then is willing to weaken it enough so that lighter pilots are within his range when using current weak links.
All the argument seems to be about which end of the scale to use that is currently in use. I really can't see what all the hyperventilation is about.
Brian Vant-Hull
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Exactly. Tad says we go to the upper end, we say it's fine where it is. Tad says "inadvertent" breaks are malfunctions which will kill you and inconvenience him with waiting an extra 3 minutes on the flight line while he's eager to go after that huge xc flight or Manfred's world distance record; we say it's the weak link doing what it's supposed to do. (it's a wonder he tolerates tandems on the same day he's out).brianvh wrote:...All the argument seems to be about which end of the scale to use that is currently in use. I really can't see what all the hyperventilation is about.
Why are we "hyperventilating?"
Because Tad has:
1. Continued to attack us and call us names just because we don't agree with everything he says.
2. He has also insulted the integrity of several professional instructors and implied that they are deliberately putting students at risks.
3. He has donned the hat of part-time NTSB crash investigator and used anectodal accounts of spectacular accidents to bolster his arguments.
Most of all, Tad shows up and mostly just hangs out--I never hear of him flying much, and he uses outdated equipment which in itself may be contributing to HIS problems with towing. I was there at the Tow farm and when Highland first opened--if Tad ever showed up I don't remember it--but it was very infrequently.
Ironically, I've always admired Tad's creative way at looking at things, and I have seen the equipment he's made with his own hands--it is beautifully made stuff. Why can't he just quietly introduce the stuff to pilot friends and leave us to make our own minds up--rather than using weird science and hate tactics to scare us into submission? Even if Tad were right--using negativity is a poor marketing tool.
You keep bugging that dog and eventually it's going to get mad and bite you.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
I'm not defending the name calling and insults, just trying to point out that what he's saying is not as wacky or thoughtless as his often unfortunate way of selling it. I guess if I was one of the multitudes that's been insulted I wouldn't be interested in seeing it.
Isn't scaling the weak length strength to match the total mass a good idea?
If so, you can complain that with the current one-size-fits-all links either
a) light pilots have overly strong links and are a safety risk
or
b) heavy pilots have overly weak links and/or are a safety/convenience problem.
Since with the current one loop weak link system I've never heard anyone complain that light pilots have a safety issue, I asssume that this g-ratio is considered safe and we can scale up from there, thus reducing inconvenient breaks. This may be counterbalanced by the inconvenience of constructing the scalable weak links.
Marc's advice about a change in marketing style sounds good, Tad. The word is out, let it soak in on its own.
Isn't scaling the weak length strength to match the total mass a good idea?
If so, you can complain that with the current one-size-fits-all links either
a) light pilots have overly strong links and are a safety risk
or
b) heavy pilots have overly weak links and/or are a safety/convenience problem.
Since with the current one loop weak link system I've never heard anyone complain that light pilots have a safety issue, I asssume that this g-ratio is considered safe and we can scale up from there, thus reducing inconvenient breaks. This may be counterbalanced by the inconvenience of constructing the scalable weak links.
Marc's advice about a change in marketing style sounds good, Tad. The word is out, let it soak in on its own.
Brian Vant-Hull
Oh that's not what this thread's about... that's just where it's degraded to.
Tad started spouting off about putting weaklinks on the tow line, not the tow bridal.
zzzz (it's being done out there ya know and us simpletons actually considered all this stuff long before you thought of it)
As is always the case (because Tad has NO TACT), it quickly degraded into Tad blathering on and on and on and on and on.
I especially love the dire warnings of "don't trust your weaklink!"
Remember, look both ways before crossing the street!
I love hearing the towing 101 crap from someone who barely flies.
Thanks, I really didn't know all that.
I feel much safer now.
Tad started spouting off about putting weaklinks on the tow line, not the tow bridal.
zzzz (it's being done out there ya know and us simpletons actually considered all this stuff long before you thought of it)
As is always the case (because Tad has NO TACT), it quickly degraded into Tad blathering on and on and on and on and on.
I especially love the dire warnings of "don't trust your weaklink!"
Remember, look both ways before crossing the street!
I love hearing the towing 101 crap from someone who barely flies.
Thanks, I really didn't know all that.
I feel much safer now.
Seems to me that Tad has devised a system for making weak links of whatever strength we want. This is good. This could be a real advantage for light pilots who feel that the weak link is a safety issue and that they are effectively flying without one. These folks could get a Tad Industries "Minus 20". (that is greenspot minus 20lbs) The heavier folks or those who fly high performance gliders with a lot of energy retention could get a "Plus 40".
I am flying with a Tad Industries plus something. Plus a lot I suspect. It probably would not break if I came off the cart crooked and initiated a wing over. The only reason I am doing this is that I also fly with a mouth release which I feel pretty much makes the low level lockout protection function of the weak link (if indeed it performs this function) superfluous.
I think towing is really safe compared to mountain flying and that we are wrestling over minor improvements and what constitutes an improvement. I think the ability to vary our weak link strength counts as a real improvement. Now we just have to get Tad Industries to make what we need not what he thinks we need..
I am flying with a Tad Industries plus something. Plus a lot I suspect. It probably would not break if I came off the cart crooked and initiated a wing over. The only reason I am doing this is that I also fly with a mouth release which I feel pretty much makes the low level lockout protection function of the weak link (if indeed it performs this function) superfluous.
I think towing is really safe compared to mountain flying and that we are wrestling over minor improvements and what constitutes an improvement. I think the ability to vary our weak link strength counts as a real improvement. Now we just have to get Tad Industries to make what we need not what he thinks we need..
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
I don't pay much attention to the Tad freak-show, but I do disagree with Steve's comment about towing being really safe compared to mountain flying. The mere fact that there are so many more variables and mechanics involved in towing a hang glider than in launching off a mountain make towing a more complicated, and potentially, more dangerous process. There are no other humans involved when you launch of a mountain. So when you add the human-factor, the possibilities of mechanical failure, and the other variables involved, I believe towing is more dangerous. Having said that, I do both and consider the risks of both types of flying acceptable in comparison to the rewards involved.stevek wrote:I think towing is really safe compared to mountain flying and that we are wrestling over minor improvements and what constitutes an improvement. I think the ability to vary our weak link strength counts as a real improvement. Now we just have to get Tad Industries to make what we need not what he thinks we need..
JR
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
JR dude--I used to think the same way--but after 11 years of aerotowing I really wonder if the frequency of launching aerotow versus Ft launching really supports that arguement that one method is inherently more dangerous than the other. I strongly suspect not--but I can't prove it.theflyingdude wrote:I don't pay much attention to the Tad freak-show, but I do disagree with Steve's comment about towing being really safe compared to mountain flying. The mere fact that there are so many more variables and mechanics involved in towing a hang glider than in launching off a mountain make towing a more complicated, and potentially, more dangerous process. There are no other humans involved when you launch of a mountain. So when you add the human-factor, the possibilities of mechanical failure, and the other variables involved, I believe towing is more dangerous. Having said that, I do both and consider the risks of both types of flying acceptable in comparison to the rewards involved.stevek wrote:I think towing is really safe compared to mountain flying and that we are wrestling over minor improvements and what constitutes an improvement. I think the ability to vary our weak link strength counts as a real improvement. Now we just have to get Tad Industries to make what we need not what he thinks we need..
JR
marc
PS: You're wrong about a short-pack revision to the Sport 2 coming out any time soon. See all the trouble you caused on the OzReport!
Great Googly-moo!
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
I didn't say they were making a short-pack version of the Sport 2. I simply reported a conversation I had with Steve Pearson at the 2006 WW Wallaby party in which he told me that was his next project. Maybe it got moved to back-burner or wasn't feasible, but he really did tell me that.Flying Lobster wrote:JR dude--I used to think the same way--but after 11 years of aerotowing I really wonder if the frequency of launching aerotow versus Ft launching really supports that arguement that one method is inherently more dangerous than the other. I strongly suspect not--but I can't prove it.theflyingdude wrote:I don't pay much attention to the Tad freak-show, but I do disagree with Steve's comment about towing being really safe compared to mountain flying. The mere fact that there are so many more variables and mechanics involved in towing a hang glider than in launching off a mountain make towing a more complicated, and potentially, more dangerous process. There are no other humans involved when you launch of a mountain. So when you add the human-factor, the possibilities of mechanical failure, and the other variables involved, I believe towing is more dangerous. Having said that, I do both and consider the risks of both types of flying acceptable in comparison to the rewards involved.stevek wrote:I think towing is really safe compared to mountain flying and that we are wrestling over minor improvements and what constitutes an improvement. I think the ability to vary our weak link strength counts as a real improvement. Now we just have to get Tad Industries to make what we need not what he thinks we need..
JR
marc
PS: You're wrong about a short-pack revision to the Sport 2 coming out any time soon. See all the trouble you caused on the OzReport!
I have aero-towed, off and on, since the late 80's. First with Bill Bennett and John Pattison behind a trike that flew way too fast and then later at the Wallaby/Quest flight parks (and now Highland, too). I still believe that the added complexity, mechanical and human variables tend to permit more things to go wrong and, therefore, towing is somewhat more dangerous than foot-launching, but I have no statistics to prove that and consider them both acceptable risks. I used to have this discussion/debate with Bill Bennett all the time. Then he went and got himself killed to prove my point.
JR
Seems like there *are* more variables in the mountains: wind direction is more critical, obstacles at launch. Seems like we also fly in stronger conditions in the mountains - it makes the mountains work better, the gaps are easier to jump, sometimes you can get wave. But as some have pointed out, this benefit comes with risk. Strong wind shreds the thermals in the flats, so there's less incentive to fly then/there. So, if we have more incidents/accidents in the mountains (just my impression - anybody know for sure?), it may be because of the conditions we choose to accept.
My 20 cents worth (everything is getting more expensive these days).
- Hugh
My 20 cents worth (everything is getting more expensive these days).
- Hugh