Shawn,
Thank you very much for your gracious apology.
Yeah, this is long, boring, tedious, geeky stuff but... nobody's forced to read it.
As Brian said, whether or not someone flies with a backup isn't a big enough deal to justify all the keystrokes. But I enjoy understanding the science behind what we're doing and that understanding allows me to design stuff that's a little and occasionally a lot better than what everybody else is using.
And I have learned a great deal in the course of this thread.
Janni,
This is yours from 2007/08/13 20:44:51
>
I'll fly anything that does not fold up under a hook-in weight of up to 250 lb. If you need to know, I'm 215 lb.
<
I don't know if you've met Danny but I think the guesstimate and arithmetic are about right.
I weigh, at this moment, 208 pounds and hook in at about 230. I was looking for a worst case scenario and the numbers you posted fit the bill for any of the local crowd for which I have something in writing.
But, if it will get me back in your better graces I'll rewrite the offending passage.
-
Now let's multiply him by 1.5 to approximate my hook in weight...
-
Close enough for the rough pencil work.
hook-in failures
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Apologies, I've been out of town, and with limited time to follow the forums lately...
When the subtle and not-so-subtle insult/put-down count in a thread
like this starts to climb, I feel that it's time to move it to the General
Discussion forum. Not locked, still open to endless on-going argument.
But perhaps a bit less distracting to those who do not want to see all
the bickering.
MarkC
When the subtle and not-so-subtle insult/put-down count in a thread
like this starts to climb, I feel that it's time to move it to the General
Discussion forum. Not locked, still open to endless on-going argument.
But perhaps a bit less distracting to those who do not want to see all
the bickering.
MarkC
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I don't believe that is necessary. Even though Tad has called me all sorts of naughty things (and I have refrained from reciprocating) I just chalk it up to that's a natural consequence of listserve participation. Although I rarely agree with what Tad says, I really enjoy how he writes.
As for Jim Rooney--he's well known for his rather spare and direct "tell it like it is" style--but it's very rare when Jim doesn't say something that's right on target, timely and accurate.
Besides, I bet more people find this stuff informative and entertaining then are offended by it.
marc
As for Jim Rooney--he's well known for his rather spare and direct "tell it like it is" style--but it's very rare when Jim doesn't say something that's right on target, timely and accurate.
Besides, I bet more people find this stuff informative and entertaining then are offended by it.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
OK, back on the rails, albeit on the jerkwater line. Oh well, at least in this forum I'll feel more at liberty to say what I REALLY feel.
First, a little housekeeping. Upon review I discovered that on 2007/10/25 I posted my hook-in weight as being "a bit over 250 pounds". Although that was twenty pounds over what I had intended to type - based on a figure I had recorded a year or so ago - a recent spin on the digital scales indicates the typo in fact reflects the reality (don't know how I managed to screw up the earlier data). So I return to the luxury of being able to use myself as the worst case documented scenario.
My last statement directed to Janni was predicated on an assumption that he must be four foot ten and metabolically challenged. In light of new information to the contrary I am, at this time, apologizing for and reversing my previous apology. (Guess I'll never know what the hell that was all about.)
Marc,
I'm not just implying "engineering superiority" - I'm stating it. If you disagree I'd appreciate it if you would point out deficiencies and tell us how you or anyone else have/has done or could do something better. Please cite, with respect to my:
release systems - reliability, load capacity, required actuation force, ease of actuation, weight, parasitic drag penalty;
weak links - ratings graduation and availability range, reliability, durability;
glider racks - strength to weight ratio, rigidity, aerodynamics.
Brian,
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with people disagreeing with, choosing to ignore, and/or misquoting the statement that three minus two equals one.
That has been the gist of all my discussion on the hardware we're using - from releases through weak links to suspension.
A little shy of two years ago a W appointed federal judge ruled that "intelligent design" had zero place in the public school classroom. Similarly, I don't feel that creation "scientists" who have no use for anything like evidence or data have any place in these discussions. I'd be happy to see them excluded on the basis of SAT scores (that's how things work at the university) but marginalization is the best for which I can hope and shoot. Yeah - "targets" is the term that most accurately hits the nail.
JD,
(You need another "f" to be Milne compliant.)
Sorry to have taken so long to have gotten back to you but there have been some diversions.
Glad to hear that apparently I'm not the only one to wince when I see a glider secured in the conventional fashion.
I installed a loop of 5/32 inch leechline around my keel and carry my own tie-down line of the same material (so's I don't have to wonder about just how long something's been rotting in the sun). I clip a titanium snap shackle to the keel loop then run the line up from the wire, through the shackle bail, and back to the wire. (The hang strap gets tucked inside the sail.)
OK, my familiarity with these new streamlined harnesses is fuzzy at best. But I've been reading manuals and looking at photos and I think I may have conceded too much with respect to the Viper incident which Marc referenced.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to make that request), but I don't think these Viper/Myth/Rotor flavor harnesses have backup webbing passing through the carabiner. If there is only one length of webbing making the turn, then for the purposes of this discussion they are not backed up. (And even if otherwise... See below.)
The lower suspension is backed up where - due to vulnerabilities inherent in the designs - it needs to be. This situation is very much analogous to the VG backup on the glider.
My harness started out as a High Energy Racer but I've made some modifications. The suspension is essentially the same except, as I've mentioned before, I've retrofitted some wear protection at the carabiner interface. Until that wears through (which it shows no sign of doing) the main suspension webbing cannot be degraded through abrasion.
I'm not buying the one hip scenario. Unless the stitching is grotesquely bilaterally asymmetrical - having one side stitched to half or less the strength of the other - if one side goes the other is going to be instantly subjected to a double load and WILL BLOW immediately.
The best illustration I could find of what I believe is representative of your upper harness suspension is at the top of:
http://www.highenergysports.com/harnesses.htm
If I understand your description and that photograph correctly - you are not backed up.
Neither, it has recently occurred to me, am I in my Robertson nor Danny in his High Energy cocoon.
In all three instances all elements are loaded at all times that the glider isn't falling faster than you are. We can call this stuff wear protection and/or reinforcement but if we overload the suspension (which we can't) - we're gone. We don't drop down as something else of equal or greater strength takes over.
In the cases of the cocoons, the stuff below the carabiner is not the same as the stuff at the top but... The glider manufacturer does not back up his system so that some harnesses can blow through the main. All this means is that the harness suspension is (even more) overbuilt with respect to the glider.
See my "magician's knot" thread post of 2007/10/25...
>
...but there is a strap joining the sides above the keel in case my stitching or the quarter inch bolt are ever found wanting.
<
Note the "above the keel" part. That way, no matter what goes on with respect to the bolt or either or both of the tangs or associated webbing - I stay with the glider (or what's left of it).
However...
The webbing engaging the tangs has not worn and never will. The interface is well designed, smooth, and easily inspectable, the loading is insignificant when compared to the capacity, there is virtually no relative movement between the two elements, and the fabric is never exposed to UV.
Upon reading your post I pulled the quarter inch AN bolt you mentioned. It's perfectly straight and fits quite snugly into the hole of that size in a Hanson fractional drill gauge. It is, in fact, IMPOSSIBLE for this component to ever wear. The construction of the assembly (which has carried through to Wills Wing's current kingpost suspension designs) allows absolutely no relative movement between it and the four other components with which it is in contact.
The shear rating for a similar piece of hardware in stainless is about two and a half tons.
And you got me thinking...
My leading edge/cross spar junction bolt is also of the quarter inch variety. It's a whole lot harder to inspect and, along the lines of what Mike said, if that thing shears at a hundred and twenty feet things are gonna get real ugly real fast. It is not and cannot be backed up.
I don't know how to figure the shear load to which it is subjected but I'll bet Wills Wing does and selected that diameter for a similar degree of overkill. And they must be on the right track 'cause when the cross spar buckles the bolt remains intact.
The reason I've been more paranoid about the one running through the kingpost is that the "IDEA" (see Marc's summary of his conversation with Wills Wing) of falling from the glider has been scaring me more than the idea of my glider folding up - even though at the altitudes at which I spend most of my time, the former scenario might be far safer than having one shot to fire a parachute effectively clear of the twirling wreckage.
So all my little over-the-keel strap was really doing was making removal of the suspension assembly a pain in the ass 'cause the cross spar or leading edge will be gone long before either of those bolts fails anyway. It's gone.
Sorry your post had the opposite effect of what you had intended in your well meaning concern for my safety but I'm extremely grateful as, because of it, I have finally come to a fuller understanding and acceptance of Mike's statement.
More to come...
First, a little housekeeping. Upon review I discovered that on 2007/10/25 I posted my hook-in weight as being "a bit over 250 pounds". Although that was twenty pounds over what I had intended to type - based on a figure I had recorded a year or so ago - a recent spin on the digital scales indicates the typo in fact reflects the reality (don't know how I managed to screw up the earlier data). So I return to the luxury of being able to use myself as the worst case documented scenario.
My last statement directed to Janni was predicated on an assumption that he must be four foot ten and metabolically challenged. In light of new information to the contrary I am, at this time, apologizing for and reversing my previous apology. (Guess I'll never know what the hell that was all about.)
Marc,
I'm not just implying "engineering superiority" - I'm stating it. If you disagree I'd appreciate it if you would point out deficiencies and tell us how you or anyone else have/has done or could do something better. Please cite, with respect to my:
release systems - reliability, load capacity, required actuation force, ease of actuation, weight, parasitic drag penalty;
weak links - ratings graduation and availability range, reliability, durability;
glider racks - strength to weight ratio, rigidity, aerodynamics.
Brian,
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with people disagreeing with, choosing to ignore, and/or misquoting the statement that three minus two equals one.
That has been the gist of all my discussion on the hardware we're using - from releases through weak links to suspension.
A little shy of two years ago a W appointed federal judge ruled that "intelligent design" had zero place in the public school classroom. Similarly, I don't feel that creation "scientists" who have no use for anything like evidence or data have any place in these discussions. I'd be happy to see them excluded on the basis of SAT scores (that's how things work at the university) but marginalization is the best for which I can hope and shoot. Yeah - "targets" is the term that most accurately hits the nail.
JD,
(You need another "f" to be Milne compliant.)
Sorry to have taken so long to have gotten back to you but there have been some diversions.
Glad to hear that apparently I'm not the only one to wince when I see a glider secured in the conventional fashion.
I installed a loop of 5/32 inch leechline around my keel and carry my own tie-down line of the same material (so's I don't have to wonder about just how long something's been rotting in the sun). I clip a titanium snap shackle to the keel loop then run the line up from the wire, through the shackle bail, and back to the wire. (The hang strap gets tucked inside the sail.)
OK, my familiarity with these new streamlined harnesses is fuzzy at best. But I've been reading manuals and looking at photos and I think I may have conceded too much with respect to the Viper incident which Marc referenced.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to make that request), but I don't think these Viper/Myth/Rotor flavor harnesses have backup webbing passing through the carabiner. If there is only one length of webbing making the turn, then for the purposes of this discussion they are not backed up. (And even if otherwise... See below.)
The lower suspension is backed up where - due to vulnerabilities inherent in the designs - it needs to be. This situation is very much analogous to the VG backup on the glider.
My harness started out as a High Energy Racer but I've made some modifications. The suspension is essentially the same except, as I've mentioned before, I've retrofitted some wear protection at the carabiner interface. Until that wears through (which it shows no sign of doing) the main suspension webbing cannot be degraded through abrasion.
I'm not buying the one hip scenario. Unless the stitching is grotesquely bilaterally asymmetrical - having one side stitched to half or less the strength of the other - if one side goes the other is going to be instantly subjected to a double load and WILL BLOW immediately.
The best illustration I could find of what I believe is representative of your upper harness suspension is at the top of:
http://www.highenergysports.com/harnesses.htm
If I understand your description and that photograph correctly - you are not backed up.
Neither, it has recently occurred to me, am I in my Robertson nor Danny in his High Energy cocoon.
In all three instances all elements are loaded at all times that the glider isn't falling faster than you are. We can call this stuff wear protection and/or reinforcement but if we overload the suspension (which we can't) - we're gone. We don't drop down as something else of equal or greater strength takes over.
In the cases of the cocoons, the stuff below the carabiner is not the same as the stuff at the top but... The glider manufacturer does not back up his system so that some harnesses can blow through the main. All this means is that the harness suspension is (even more) overbuilt with respect to the glider.
See my "magician's knot" thread post of 2007/10/25...
>
...but there is a strap joining the sides above the keel in case my stitching or the quarter inch bolt are ever found wanting.
<
Note the "above the keel" part. That way, no matter what goes on with respect to the bolt or either or both of the tangs or associated webbing - I stay with the glider (or what's left of it).
However...
The webbing engaging the tangs has not worn and never will. The interface is well designed, smooth, and easily inspectable, the loading is insignificant when compared to the capacity, there is virtually no relative movement between the two elements, and the fabric is never exposed to UV.
Upon reading your post I pulled the quarter inch AN bolt you mentioned. It's perfectly straight and fits quite snugly into the hole of that size in a Hanson fractional drill gauge. It is, in fact, IMPOSSIBLE for this component to ever wear. The construction of the assembly (which has carried through to Wills Wing's current kingpost suspension designs) allows absolutely no relative movement between it and the four other components with which it is in contact.
The shear rating for a similar piece of hardware in stainless is about two and a half tons.
And you got me thinking...
My leading edge/cross spar junction bolt is also of the quarter inch variety. It's a whole lot harder to inspect and, along the lines of what Mike said, if that thing shears at a hundred and twenty feet things are gonna get real ugly real fast. It is not and cannot be backed up.
I don't know how to figure the shear load to which it is subjected but I'll bet Wills Wing does and selected that diameter for a similar degree of overkill. And they must be on the right track 'cause when the cross spar buckles the bolt remains intact.
The reason I've been more paranoid about the one running through the kingpost is that the "IDEA" (see Marc's summary of his conversation with Wills Wing) of falling from the glider has been scaring me more than the idea of my glider folding up - even though at the altitudes at which I spend most of my time, the former scenario might be far safer than having one shot to fire a parachute effectively clear of the twirling wreckage.
So all my little over-the-keel strap was really doing was making removal of the suspension assembly a pain in the ass 'cause the cross spar or leading edge will be gone long before either of those bolts fails anyway. It's gone.
Sorry your post had the opposite effect of what you had intended in your well meaning concern for my safety but I'm extremely grateful as, because of it, I have finally come to a fuller understanding and acceptance of Mike's statement.
More to come...
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Ooh! I just realized I can say something overtly political here.
The Bush/Cheney administration is - by far - the best this country has seen in almost seven years!
Take that you liberal, Constitution loving, tree hugging, pinko wimps.
More housekeeping...
Marc deserved a much better response to his 2007/10/31 posts.
Yeah, shit CAN happen when you throw a dolly into the equation.
1. Bridle Routing
The only I know of is the 1999/02/27 Rob Richardson fatality - primary bridle routed below a lateral dolly frame component as a result of a few stars lining up the wrong way.
Now that I think about it this accident has a LOT in common with the classic hook-in failure variety. And Marc's 1998/04/28 High Point incident is absolutely so.
A. You're properly geared up and ready to go.
B. There's a distraction (radio mounting problem) which requires a degree of gearing down (separation from glider).
C. Need I continue?
In the infinitely more serious example there was a previous attempt to get the tandem package airborne which ended after a few yards worth of rolling due to a "premature tow line release".
This should never have happened. My best reading of the report suggests that either the primary (two point) release mechanism was unreliable and/or out of adjustment (probably both) or was accidentally actuated. I'm guessing the latter was not the case.
The second nature simple routine of prepping for launch is thus disrupted and the fatal screwup is effected.
I did something similar but inconsequential 2007/09/02. Pod zipper jammed while I was on the dolly otherwise set to go. Hit the release and pulled off the runway to deal with the problem (flustered and embarrassed 'cause I hate being responsible for an idling tug and slowed launch line).
Repositioned, found that I still had the problem, said "Screw it. Clear."
About an hour later and thousands of feet higher I started wondering if I had remembered to rebuckle my harness. Oops.
Launch assistant hadn't caught it either for the same reason - Hey, we've already been through that. Right?
That's why we're never gonna further diminish the frequency of hook-in failures by being careful and watching out for each other.
But I digress...
Oh, what the hell, I'll keep digressing. In the Arizona accident the tug pilot took what he deemed to be appropriate remedial action - dumping the tow line - after noticing a left turn that wasn't getting any better and the dolly still firmly connected to the glider.
I'm not entirely sure that was the right call - The USHGA AT Guidelines call for continuance if it's just a matter of the dolly being taken up but the severity of the turn could have given the green light for the action taken.
If that was the case then I'm wondering why the decision was made and the action effected by someone 240 feet away looking in a mirror. Perhaps it was too much to ask of the glider pilot to choose between trying to maintain some degree of roll authority and taking a swat at a downtube mounted brake lever? I don't know if that was the configuration 'cause, as usual, information along those lines was not deemed sufficient to have been included in the documentation but it's worth thinking about.
And...
Maybe things would have gone better if glider end release could have been effected with no more than a flick of a wrist or relaxation of a bite at the first sign of a problem.
2. Pod Zipper Lanyards
OK, you can pull a similar trick if you don't bother to secure a pod zipper lanyard and skip the preflight.
I modified my Racer by eliminating the opening lanyard and altering the closing arrangement such that that lanyard can only extend fifteen inches (which it doesn't - 'cause I've lately taken to launching fully zipped up with the lanyard totally entombed).
I don't see any reason we need to be flying equipment in which that sort of accident is even a possibility.
3. VG Cord
That leaves the VG cord (which doesn't concern me 'cause I've got a lever instead). Gotta make sure it's stowed.
4. Dolly Stability
Gotta construct the dolly so's it safely fulfills its function. The Guidelines cover this issue.
5. Upsides
Most importantly and relevantly, it's pretty much impossible to start moving without being hooked in so's you don't go up and fall (only one instance I know of) or get dragged with your glider left behind.
You launch with your pitch set close to but a little higher than ideal and it trims to the perfect angle with little or no help from the human as things get moving.
Your wings are locked level until you've got lotsa airspeed.
Yaw either takes care of itself immediately or shortly thereafter and can be safely ignored just about all the time.
You don't have to balance seventy pounds of metal and gust vulnerable sailcloth at the proper angles whilst rapidly putting one foot in front of the other.
Launch problems attributable to dollies statistically do not exist when compared to foot launching.
This from Peter Birren, 2007/08/23,
>
IMO, a weaklink is actually -used- more often to prevent a pilot from being dragged on the ground following a blown launch.
<
gives some feel for the comparison. We don't have blown launches at Ridgely.
The Bush/Cheney administration is - by far - the best this country has seen in almost seven years!
Take that you liberal, Constitution loving, tree hugging, pinko wimps.
More housekeeping...
Marc deserved a much better response to his 2007/10/31 posts.
Yeah, shit CAN happen when you throw a dolly into the equation.
1. Bridle Routing
The only I know of is the 1999/02/27 Rob Richardson fatality - primary bridle routed below a lateral dolly frame component as a result of a few stars lining up the wrong way.
Now that I think about it this accident has a LOT in common with the classic hook-in failure variety. And Marc's 1998/04/28 High Point incident is absolutely so.
A. You're properly geared up and ready to go.
B. There's a distraction (radio mounting problem) which requires a degree of gearing down (separation from glider).
C. Need I continue?
In the infinitely more serious example there was a previous attempt to get the tandem package airborne which ended after a few yards worth of rolling due to a "premature tow line release".
This should never have happened. My best reading of the report suggests that either the primary (two point) release mechanism was unreliable and/or out of adjustment (probably both) or was accidentally actuated. I'm guessing the latter was not the case.
The second nature simple routine of prepping for launch is thus disrupted and the fatal screwup is effected.
I did something similar but inconsequential 2007/09/02. Pod zipper jammed while I was on the dolly otherwise set to go. Hit the release and pulled off the runway to deal with the problem (flustered and embarrassed 'cause I hate being responsible for an idling tug and slowed launch line).
Repositioned, found that I still had the problem, said "Screw it. Clear."
About an hour later and thousands of feet higher I started wondering if I had remembered to rebuckle my harness. Oops.
Launch assistant hadn't caught it either for the same reason - Hey, we've already been through that. Right?
That's why we're never gonna further diminish the frequency of hook-in failures by being careful and watching out for each other.
But I digress...
Oh, what the hell, I'll keep digressing. In the Arizona accident the tug pilot took what he deemed to be appropriate remedial action - dumping the tow line - after noticing a left turn that wasn't getting any better and the dolly still firmly connected to the glider.
I'm not entirely sure that was the right call - The USHGA AT Guidelines call for continuance if it's just a matter of the dolly being taken up but the severity of the turn could have given the green light for the action taken.
If that was the case then I'm wondering why the decision was made and the action effected by someone 240 feet away looking in a mirror. Perhaps it was too much to ask of the glider pilot to choose between trying to maintain some degree of roll authority and taking a swat at a downtube mounted brake lever? I don't know if that was the configuration 'cause, as usual, information along those lines was not deemed sufficient to have been included in the documentation but it's worth thinking about.
And...
Maybe things would have gone better if glider end release could have been effected with no more than a flick of a wrist or relaxation of a bite at the first sign of a problem.
2. Pod Zipper Lanyards
OK, you can pull a similar trick if you don't bother to secure a pod zipper lanyard and skip the preflight.
I modified my Racer by eliminating the opening lanyard and altering the closing arrangement such that that lanyard can only extend fifteen inches (which it doesn't - 'cause I've lately taken to launching fully zipped up with the lanyard totally entombed).
I don't see any reason we need to be flying equipment in which that sort of accident is even a possibility.
3. VG Cord
That leaves the VG cord (which doesn't concern me 'cause I've got a lever instead). Gotta make sure it's stowed.
4. Dolly Stability
Gotta construct the dolly so's it safely fulfills its function. The Guidelines cover this issue.
5. Upsides
Most importantly and relevantly, it's pretty much impossible to start moving without being hooked in so's you don't go up and fall (only one instance I know of) or get dragged with your glider left behind.
You launch with your pitch set close to but a little higher than ideal and it trims to the perfect angle with little or no help from the human as things get moving.
Your wings are locked level until you've got lotsa airspeed.
Yaw either takes care of itself immediately or shortly thereafter and can be safely ignored just about all the time.
You don't have to balance seventy pounds of metal and gust vulnerable sailcloth at the proper angles whilst rapidly putting one foot in front of the other.
Launch problems attributable to dollies statistically do not exist when compared to foot launching.
This from Peter Birren, 2007/08/23,
>
IMO, a weaklink is actually -used- more often to prevent a pilot from being dragged on the ground following a blown launch.
<
gives some feel for the comparison. We don't have blown launches at Ridgely.
You're basically saying we shouldn't launch at the mountains. Unless you can solve the footlaunch hook-in problem, I don't see any point to this discussion...mountain flying is the birthplace and half the soul of our sport. I'd rather risk the danger to my body than remove the poetry from my soul.
Brian Vant-Hull
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Nope, believe it or not, I'm getting there. That was still housekeeping.
While I'm thinking of it... There's a huge chunk missing from the Upsides section of my previous. I really like having a finger on the release trigger at all times from the point I'm about to start moving until I've got a little breathing room (and, for that matter, the duration of the tow). I'd just as soon not be supporting most of the hundred and ten pounds I take up with me in the early stages of a launch in need of aborting and be required to let go of a downtube to take a swipe at an actuator.
Anyway, what I've said so far is that if we want to eliminate hook-in failures from the towing arena we know how to do it.
What happened a month ago was maybe a freak accident. I don't know how many people you've got to drag before you get one to hold on but we've all seen that film of the airship ground crew holding onto the tether until it was too late (Goodyear Akron, 1932, California). One was able to stay on until he was set back down, the other two weren't. Unfortunate consequence of having evolved in the trees.
Would I foot launch if that were my only option for getting towed up? Yep. Would I set up a moderate or better volume tow operation without a dolly? Nope.
Naw, mountain flying was definitely not the birthplace of hang gliding - there were a lot of bugs to work out before that environment was entered. I don't know if you want to go back to Otto or so to define birth, but if you trace back along the Bills Bennett and Moyes branch (flat kites, water skiing) you can make a pretty good argument for towing.
Before you go divvying up the soul of hang gliding make sure you reserve a hefty percentage for dune flying. Mountains, towing... how I get airborne and in range of workable lift doesn't matter much to me - but Ridgely's a lot closer. Woodstock and the aforementioned feel pretty much the same when you're looking at a cloud a few hundred feet above you. That sort of thing is way cool but it doesn't hold a candle to making a bunch of low passes at Jockeys Ridge as far as the fun meter is concerned.
But back to the topic...
I think if the mountains HAD been the birthplace of hang gliding we might not be killing and mangling foot launch pilots at the rate we are. We took a very bad evolutionary turn as a consequence of the steps actually taken.
Stay with me a little longer...
While I'm thinking of it... There's a huge chunk missing from the Upsides section of my previous. I really like having a finger on the release trigger at all times from the point I'm about to start moving until I've got a little breathing room (and, for that matter, the duration of the tow). I'd just as soon not be supporting most of the hundred and ten pounds I take up with me in the early stages of a launch in need of aborting and be required to let go of a downtube to take a swipe at an actuator.
Anyway, what I've said so far is that if we want to eliminate hook-in failures from the towing arena we know how to do it.
What happened a month ago was maybe a freak accident. I don't know how many people you've got to drag before you get one to hold on but we've all seen that film of the airship ground crew holding onto the tether until it was too late (Goodyear Akron, 1932, California). One was able to stay on until he was set back down, the other two weren't. Unfortunate consequence of having evolved in the trees.
Would I foot launch if that were my only option for getting towed up? Yep. Would I set up a moderate or better volume tow operation without a dolly? Nope.
Naw, mountain flying was definitely not the birthplace of hang gliding - there were a lot of bugs to work out before that environment was entered. I don't know if you want to go back to Otto or so to define birth, but if you trace back along the Bills Bennett and Moyes branch (flat kites, water skiing) you can make a pretty good argument for towing.
Before you go divvying up the soul of hang gliding make sure you reserve a hefty percentage for dune flying. Mountains, towing... how I get airborne and in range of workable lift doesn't matter much to me - but Ridgely's a lot closer. Woodstock and the aforementioned feel pretty much the same when you're looking at a cloud a few hundred feet above you. That sort of thing is way cool but it doesn't hold a candle to making a bunch of low passes at Jockeys Ridge as far as the fun meter is concerned.
But back to the topic...
I think if the mountains HAD been the birthplace of hang gliding we might not be killing and mangling foot launch pilots at the rate we are. We took a very bad evolutionary turn as a consequence of the steps actually taken.
Stay with me a little longer...