Something else to argue about (AGAIN)-- Wuffos and HR

[Matthew]

Heard through the grapevine that a pilot scraped the block with his wing and hit a spectator (wuffo) at High Rock when launching using wuffos on the wires-- spectator that was hit wasn't hurt I'm told.

Anyway, if you are launching using wuffos at High Rock you are voiding the USHPA waiver and putting yourself and the wuffo in danger of serious injury. You are also violating our agreement with Washington County to only allow USHPA pilots to be involved in launch operations at High Rock. Anyone assisting in a launch is considered part of the launch.

I know there are some other interpretations of the waiver and our site regulations to justily unsafe practices of using wuffos as wire crew. However, these are nothing more than BS.

Matthew

[mcelrah]

So if you were there with an insufficient number of pilots - or your "friends" whom you had helped launch flew off and left you there without fully-qualified wirecrew - what would YOU do? Be honest, now...
- Hugh

[Danny Brotto]

Hugh

That wuffo wire crew is only part of Matthew’s report. Your illustration of being left with no crew is valid and I’m sure will lead to further discussion. However the egregious situation of hitting a spectator must be addressed.

It takes nothing to request that all spectators get behind the wing prior to moving into launch position; crouching down between pillars is not acceptable either. If the spectator balks, then politely announce that for their safety you can not launch until all spectators are clear. Peer pressure from the other spectators will then remedy the sticky wuffo. If you are too shy to ask a spectator to position himself in a manner to ensure safety, then get one of your wire crew to take care of it. If the pilot is new to HR, then please inform him of the need to clear the pillars completely. Commanding a clear flight path to effect launch is something we need be absolutely diligent about in all cases. HR lends itself to flight path incursion by spectators who want to sometimes get a little too close for a better view. We need to particularly diligent at the Rock.

Danny Brotto

[hang_pilot]

Thanks for those comments, Danny.

I'm also going to stay out of the "wuffo's on wire-crew conversation" the rhetoric here has already been well established.

I did notice the few times I flew HR this summer inconsistency in clearing the area such that there's no possible way to hit a spectator during a bad launch. Danny, David Bodner and Dan Tomlinson are excellent at this, as crew members and as pilots in charge. Sometimes they have to ask 3 times, but they make sure that there’s nobody within any path the wing could take. You think putting your glider in a tree will ruin your day, how are you going to feel about pushing a mother of three off a cliff?

Thanks for the good reminder, Matthew and Danny, that we need to do this better.

~Daniel

[Matthew]

So if you were there with an insufficient number of pilots - or your "friends" whom you had helped launch flew off and left you there without fully-qualified wirecrew - what would YOU do? Be honest, now...
- Hugh

*****

I wouldn't launch. I've done so on many occassions. Usually the people who launch early have the decency to land after a good flight and come back up to help any pilots who haven't launched. It's called cooperation.

Matthew

[Matthew]

So what's more important? Getting in a flight at High Rock or endangering a bystander and blowing a launch? If someone thinks it's more important to get in a flight even though he or she may kill someone and lose the site to the rest of the flying community, what can I say to prevent this?

Matthew

[brianvh]

To answer Hugh's question - at anywhere EXCEPT a cliff launch I'd probably get wuffo wire crew, because they are not in danger at a slope launch, though a place like Jack's could still cause a dangerous fall.

But at high rock, no way. Too dangerous for me and them. And many people may not recognize the psychological dangers until you are in the situation: if it's gusty you are not sure how much of the control problem is them and how much is the conditions. This makes it tempting (more than you may realize) to have them clear a few seconds before you launch as you attempt to balance the glider without the extra wuffo variable. The folks in Pennsylvania do this all the time, but they're not dealing with a cliff launch.

Without qualified wire crew at High Rock if there's any significant wind (more than 3 mph), I sit down and enjoy the view.

As for the insurance question, I seem to remember different responses depending on who we'd talk to. This is a complex question which the folks at USHGA are not necessarily qualified to address. I don't think we ever got a response directly from the insurance company. Aside from the direct safety factor and insurance I don't think Washington County would want us using spectators, and that's good enough for me.

[brianvh]

Actually, I'm lying. I've done it years ago, or at least planned on doing it to the point of training wuffo, but I think I've been rescued by the arrival of pilots. Only in mild conditions, but it's still a horrible idea which I like to think I've outgrown. I just don't need to fly that badly anymore so I'm less stupid.

[RedBaron]

I suggested to Richard the installation of a 2 month suspension penalty for any violation or display of bad habit that puts the pilot, the spectator or the site at risk. I think active intervention does more good than forum discussions by pilots who largely comply with the rules anyway. Still, Richard wasn't too fond of the idea since you'd probably need the USHPA on board and they apparently have a long history of doing nothing. I just think nobody takes this seriously enough until someone dies again, so I'll just wait and make my voice heard again when that happens.

[mcelrah]

I don't think Glenn participates in this forum, but was anyone present or has anyone talked to him directly that can give a short summary of what actually happened?

I would like to understand whether use of wuffo wirecrew contributed to the incident of striking a spectator with a wingtip (he didn't haul off and punch him, did he?) and if so, how.

I join Richard in being very reluctant to entertain the idea of clubs attempting to administer sanctions for what is judged to be bad behavior. Seems to me there is a mechanism for removal of ratings by who? - instructors, examiners...

I agree that wuffo crew are not preferred, but think that appropriately selected and indoctrinated non-pilot wirecrew can be safe. I wasn't aware of any agreement with Washington County specifying no wuffos. I would like to see that document.

- Hugh

[mcelrah]

OK, I have finally read the High Rock agreement with Washington County that Cragin sent to me, Richard and a couple of others. I was avoiding this because it was written by a lawyer. There is nothing explicit about pilots or wuffos as wirecrew. The question about what actually happened and whether it had to do with who was crewing still stands. At a minimum, using wuffo crew imposes a greater burden on the pilot himself to ensure that everything is safe - in addition to his natural preoccupation with keeping wings level, watching action in the trees out front, etc. One might well conclude that this is too much to expect of oneself... - Hugh

[Matthew]

Licensee agrees to have general liability insurance in the amount of at least 100,000 dollars as per the High Rock agreement.

Read you waiver and see who is covered and who is not. Wuffos do not have insurance in the amount of at least 100,000 for hang gliding.

The clubs, MHGA and CHGPA, (the licensees) do not have insurance to cover wuffos. Our insurance only covers USHPA pilots who have signed the waiver.

Wuffos are uninsured and not licensed to commint hang gliding at High Rock. Being on a wing wire even if you are not flying is considered hang gliding according to the policy.

I went through all of this with USHGA years ago and they concurred.

So you can do what's right or be a selfish bastard and do whatever the Hell you want and maybe kill a wuffo, yourself and lose High Rock for the rest of us.

I'm done on this subject. Nobody f***ing listens!

Matthew

[RedBaron]

I'm done on this subject. Nobody f***ing listens!

Does that include me also, muffin?

Nobody listens and nobody wants to do anything but run their faces on forums. I mean, it boils down to two things: You don't give a rat's ass or you think up ways to make it harder on the pilot to be

a selfish bastard

and protect the club and its sites from lawsuits. If Matthew talked Leonie into wire-crewing him off the cube and killed her, hell, I'd try to sue the crap out of the club for not taking adequate measures to prevent such a scenario. Add a track record of incompetence and you'd have a perfect little case that would probably even stand trial in liberal Germany.
I would spearhead a safety campaign if somebody f***ing listened.

[brianvh]

Given the legal disclaimer that I'm no lawyer, I think Matthew is right specifically in regard to the High Rock agreement. But let's get EXTREMELY specific: if someone sues Washington County over something the Wuffo did as wirecrew, the insurance may not be there for the county.

When someone fell off high rock many years ago, the clubs were sued as well as the county for construction of the block. A lawyer came up and was very interested to know if ANY hang gliding activity occured that day (it didn't). Even though there was no HG, the insurance still protected the county because the lawyer was sent to cover us, and it was part of the same lawsuit. The county didn't do anything and relied on our lawyer.

The wirecrew Wuffo above may be a hang gliding participant, but our insurance will not cover lawsuits related specifically to his actions. The county has no protection unless the clubs or the pilot are sued as well.

In the earlier discussion years ago the question came up as to whether the very participation of the wuffo invalidated the insurance carried by the pilot: i.e. if someone sued over the actions of the pilot (not his wirecrew) would the insurance still come to the rescue. Some people said the insurance was invalidated, others said it was still good.

I say it's a gray area we'd rather not see clarified by legal action. The chances of someone bringing a lawsuit where the use of wuffos is an issue is pretty nil on a slope launch, but at HR death or severe injury to spectators at launch is a distinct possibility.

[Matthew]

OKAY! Maybe I'm not done with this subject. Yes. Many people do f***ing listen and care. My apologies if I offended the Red Barron. Thanks for your offer of support. The best way to show support is to spread the word.

As to BVH's comments-- He has it right. A wuffo on a wing assisting a launch is a loophole-- a loophole that can sue or be sued or be the cause of suit against the club, the county or the pilot under the wing if something goes wrong. And this is a lawsuit that is not covered by our insurance and could be won.


Matthew

[davidtheamazing1]

I just want to add a point to what Hugh Said:

I agree that wuffo crew are not preferred, but think that appropriately selected and indoctrinated non-pilot wirecrew can be safe.

A significant other or friend/family member could be more trained and experienced for wirecrew than even a new pilot like myself, however for the purposes of High Rock, I also see the potential loophole in the insurance.

To solve that issue for your individual circumstance, all you need to do is sign the person(s) up for USHPA membership as a pilot member. They don't actually need to be a rated pilot to be eligible for the needed insurance. If they are family that live at the same household, you can take advantage of the family discount. Yes, it's more paperwork and more $$, but I think it's worth it to legally protect the rock as a place to fly and to protect everyone from litigious lawyers.

Speaking of litigious lawyers, is there any way from preventing their legal assistants from "doing research" in this forum? I wouldn't want some of your guy's forum statements giving lawyers any ideas or being used to justify a legal argument one way or another... perhaps that belongs in another thread?

[gtutor21157]

I'm Listening Matthew and thank you for pushing this issue..
As far as revoking ratings .. well what good will that do, a person will still fly and most likely kill themselves because they will show up at sites not being flown that day, or just traveling alittle farther to fly.. it's better in my opinion to keep the problem child close by
Just my .02

[Flying Lobster]

I need clarification--other than the problem of site-specific insurance--how does using a wuffo at HR to help wire differ from using one anywhere else?


marc

[CraginS]

"Speaking of litigious lawyers, is there any way from preventing their legal assistants from "doing research" in this forum? "

No, in fact I understand that lawyers are becoming more net savvy and actively mining online forums for information to help their cases. APparently tha twas a concern in the TTT case last year.

[RedBaron]

As far as revoking ratings .. well what good will that do, a person will still fly and most likely kill themselves because they will show up at sites not being flown that day, or just traveling alittle farther to fly.. it's better in my opinion to keep the problem child close by

It's not so much about saving the pilot's ass, you know.

I think that a robust well visible sign (preferably a head stone) discouraging spectators from wire crewing or getting too far out front would go long ways for a first remedy.

I wouldn't want some of your guy's forum statements giving lawyers any ideas or being used to justify a legal argument one way or another

The club had better take action quickly then, 'cause I'm getting tired of forum bitchin'..

[Flying Lobster]

"Speaking of litigious lawyers, is there any way from preventing their legal assistants from "doing research" in this forum? "

No, in fact I understand that lawyers are becoming more net savvy and actively mining online forums for information to help their cases. APparently tha twas a concern in the TTT case last year.

Not "was" it still is "is."

The judge did not make a pre-trial dismissal of the merits of the case in September--basically a "I got to think about this" decision from what little I've been told. Not necessarily a bad sign--but not a good one either.

marc

[Flying Lobster]

My understanding is that the the core of the problem lies potentially with site-specific insurance. In other words, since a wuffo isn't waivered (i.e. explicitly giving up rights and assuming responsibilty) coverages for site owners/operators would exclude any situation in which a pilot used someone not waivered to assist in flight activities. Don't know if this has been tested legally yet--and it raises a certain level of ambiguity as to what can be considered as "unwaivered assistance." Although I've used unwaivered assistance many times over the years--I agree that waivered pilots should be used--but the assumption of risk to land owner/operator is the same regardless which site you are flying from, as far as I can tell.

marc

[brianvh]

As far as the landowner/insurance issue goes the legalities are almost certainly the same for each site.

The difference with high rock is that if someone on the wire crew trips and falls at Bill's there's not likely to be a negligent death lawsuit.

[mcelrah]

Aw, Matthew, no reason to get hot under the collar - besides you can't stomp out of a discussion that you yourself started. Of COURSE, people are listening - look at all the posts! But you can't expect everyone to just tug their forelocks and give a cheery "aye, aye, sir" whenever you decide to lay down the law. As they say, to change people's mind's and behavior, you have to use gentle pressure, relentlessly applied. You're not going to get everyone to say "you're absolutely right, Matthew" but they may think twice about using a wuffo for wire crew after this discussion.

I'm still waiting for a statement of what actually happened at High Rock and how using wuffo wirecrew contributed to striking a non-wirecrew wuffo.

- Hugh

P.S. Seems to me a non-waivered wirecrew is a "third party" and is eligible to make a claim for death/injury under the insurance, but what do I know. That's why lawyers are so expensive - this stuff is BORING!

[markc]

I've used wuffos on a few occasions at the Pulpit and High Rock.

The temptation to do so was much stronger early in my flying career,
when my desire to fly was through the roof.

Later on, I came to realize that, for any day when I truly NEEDED
those wuffos on my wing, then the conditions were probably such
that I didn't really WANT them there, after all. That is, I would be
safer with other pilots as crew, they at least would know what to
expect in strong/cross/gusty conditions.

And then later still, I came to realize that if I used a wuffo and
"something happened", then any bad outcome would be totally
ON ME, my responsibility.

Imagine that some guy you just recruited somehow falls off a cliff
or ramp as a result of a bad launch. He happens to be a dad, brother,
uncle, whatever. Was my need to fly that day so important that I would
be willing to risk the harm that would be done to the guy's family?

No way.

I *will* (and do) still ask for a wuffo's help at the area slope launches.
My perception is that the risk of accident is much lower in those circumstances.
But if I put my money where my mouth is, perhaps I could/should stop
doing that too....

MarkC