excommunication

[Tad Eareckson]

I don't fly a lot and how well I do it is irrelevant. But what I've gotten pretty good at is stepping back, taking a look at the big picture, asking what we're doing that's really stupid, and finding and usually engineering a fix.

Seven years ago I realized we had a significant and blindingly obvious breach in AT security. I patched it, announced it, and, of course, was totally ignored. Several pilots got mangled. About four and half years after my proposal somebody who flies a lot - and thus gets listened to - realized the same weakness and implemented the same fix. Now it's universally adopted in two point configuration and everybody's a little safer. Better late than never.

We've been killing and mangling hang gliding pilots through hook-in failures ever since the sport evolved to the point at which a harness was incorporated and as long as the equipment remains the same and humans aren't better genetically engineered we're gonna keep doing it at the same unacceptable rate we are now.

Within the towing sphere the problem is only relevant with respect to foot launch operations. Ya wanna totally eliminate it from there? I've already put forth the proposal which will do it.

Since last writing, as a consequence of the recent discussion I've come up with another very good proposal which should REALLY mitigate the statistics at the vertical sites. And it doesn't involve watching each other's backs - the effectiveness of that approach was demonstrated pretty dramatically at Whitwell two years ago.

I've been busy with the needle and thread and my glider and harness are ready to go. I'm lighter and cleaner and the very minor downsides are also the very major upsides. I believe that in a decade or so - if we haven't all roasted by then - there will be a lot of suspensions around that look a lot like mine does now. I'm certain I'm not the first person to implement something like this but, for sure, the advantages have been not begun to have been appreciated.

I'm trying to make another couple of omelettes from which everyone can benefit, I'm having to do it under fire, and I'm getting very little cover from the folk who know who knows what he's talking about and who doesn't.

Now...

Let's say B wants A shut down. Maybe he's afraid that A has a lot better understanding of the theory and physics of flying than he does and feels threatened. B racks up tons of flying and uses the inordinate cachet that gives him to try to undermine and silence A.

So he doesn't bother to read what A is saying or respond to any of the questions put forth 'cause his reading comprehension, math, and science skills ain't that good anyway and if he responds he's toast. He just spews a lot of abuse in response to whatever A says.

He manages to degrade an academic discussion into something ugly and thereby gets it shunted off to some dingy little backwater where it will get ignored and the readership never gets a solid realization of which ideas stand up and which crumble. Success!

Talk about hijacking threads? How 'bout hijacking, vandalizing, and rolling the charred remains into the lake?

Slick move, bad day for the First Amendment.

Mark, I've been saying that nobody is forced to read this stuff but the thought occurs to me that that's not quite right. I guess the moderator kinda gets caught in the crossfire. Sorry 'bout that.

But -

The Nielsen Ratings were edging quadruple digits when the "hook-in failures" topic got bumped to the wrong side of the tracks. So if people were tired of the bickering the mouse clicks weren't representing the sentiment.

I hope that folk aren't tuning in 'cause they think this is even better than Jerry Springer. This is supposed to be about ideas and they should be open to unfettered public scrutiny and stand or fall on their merits.

I've got a mostly consensus with Marc so far on the arithmetic and it appears we share the conviction that the topic belongs where it started.

[Flying Lobster]

"I've got a mostly consensus with Marc so far on the arithmetic and it appears we share the conviction that the topic belongs where it started."

Mostly--partially--sometimes...be careful how you use your creative connotations. I do agree that there are useful sides to these discussions--but I can also see that people grow tired of the implied engineering superiority over in-the-field year's of experience.

Just like our good friend Warren in the OzReport you start out with some good premises but then your combative and condescending delivery understandably ticks alot of people off--thereby subverting the effectiveness of the very message you're trying to deliver.

marc

[brianvh]

Tad - Marc said it exactly like it is in the last paragraph, the only reason I'm chipping in is so you know it's not just his opinion. The high viewership was largely the Jerry Springer effect, and you are the determining factor in that equation whether you see it or not. Hard to say whether that aids in getting your message out or thwarts its. Probably both.

The ultimate message that we should focus at least as much attention on the harness as on the hangstrap is a good one and I'm personally glad you have reminded people to pay some attention to this.

[jimrooney]

Drama Queen.

Marc's spot on.
But that won't matter because like any good religious finatic, logic and reason are minor inconvienences on the quest to martyrdom.
Simply being persecuted doesn't make you right. It makes you persecuted.

Why is this discussion here and not over in the "General Discussion"?... the space specifically for rants-and-raves (as stated in the description) which this clearly is? Right bigger audience.

Drama Queen
Sincerely,
Mr A

[deveil]

and

now

and

and

i can't imagine how many have their head in their hands, chuckling wryly (can one do that?)

then

and we'll all ffinally be spared

[deveil]

besides, i do seem to provide an essential service, as everyone seems to intuitively know that things have gone Way 'south' when i post in these threads. but please don't hate me, just because i'm irreverent!

[Tad Eareckson]

Marc,

I don't follow the Oz Report as regularly as I should. I don't know who Warren is. Can you save me a search and point me in an illustrative direction?

Years of in-the-field experience doing what? Do years of experience as a beltway commuter, cab driver, or NASCAR champion qualify one to design, build, and certify a brake, air bag, or suspension system? Do you really want Maverick designing the hydraulic systems for the F-14? (By the way, when a certain Ridgely tug pilot wanted a better brake system a couple of years ago he asked you-know-who to punch out a copy of one of my designs.)

And do five years' worth of flying trump Wills Wing's thirty-four years of design experience?

THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT EVERYBODY KEEPS STUDIOUSLY IGNORING (thanks for phoning and getting the corroborating statement). Is everybody afraid of getting dropped in sink if it's addressed?

Also - betcha ten bucks that if we step up to a flight line at Ridgely, Wallaby, or Quest I can point to some aspect of EVERY release system moving forward that was first implemented by yours truly.

Brian,

With respect to the Springer effect... I don't think you have any way of actually knowing that but, I'm afraid, that's likely the case.

Whatever. That's certainly not the way I wanted things to go but if, as a result, just one freak show fan say's "Oh. Yeah. I'm not really backed up." and cleans up his act before he gets to the stage in that incident described by Betty Pfeiffer it will have been more than worth all the flying fur.

I'd actually go with, all things being equal, one needs to pay WAY MORE attention to the harness - even if you're dumb enough to fly without a backup - that IS the weak link.

Statistically though, this sort of thing doesn't seem to be a problem. The glider and harness folk overbuild the hell out of the suspension systems so they can have the hell abused out of them and still maintain a ridiculous margin.

I took my new suspension assembly to Hudson Trail Outfitters a couple of days ago and asked to speak to a rock nerd to try to get a feel for how much of a threat the UV degradation issue - my chronic and nagging unknown fear - really is. He showed me the considerably heavier nylon webbing that is used for anchoring and is left on the rocks baking in direct sunlight for months on end and I came away with an extrapolation that it's hardly a blip on the radar screen.

The backup suspension issue which has chewed up so many ones and zeros lately has just been a huge diversion from the core topic which is (was) - hook-in failures.

OK, you seem to think that I'm an obnoxious, socially retarded, anal retentive geek? Well DUH...

But you probably also know that, many opinions to the contrary, my logic, math, and science are totally solid. It would REALLY help if you'd shoot me down if I'm wrong but back me up when I'm right and under attack. Something on the order of "Any reasonable person has to admit the weak link strength should scale with tow mass." is a lot better way of moderating a discussion than pulling the plug on it.

As I indicated earlier, I plan on launching a proposal that we take a look at the way we're doing business with respect to the rate at which we're willing to mangle and kill the idiots - read humans - who get off the ground without being connected to their gliders.

In addition to death and taxes I'm sure of two things - I'll be attacked and my recommendation will be ignored - for a long time.

If you want to help prevent or, at least, greatly delay the onset of another Bill Priday and/or Floyd an occasional "No, _____, he didn't say that." and "Actually, the science does support that statement." will go a long way to keep things less Springer and more Lehrer.

[Flying Lobster]

Warren? he calls himself "FreeUSHGA." I'm a little worried that you two may pair up and overthrow the world order--but what the heck, have fun.

marc

[deveil]

"OK, you seem to think that I'm an obnoxious, socially retarded, anal retentive geek? Well DUH... "

just make that your standard sign-off statement ( ) and enlist a pre-publication editor and you'd be totally lovable !
(i think it's the humility aspect that makes it work. hmmm, maybe i could make that work for me also. . . hmmmm )

oh yeah, i've already tried it, maybe it doesn't really help.

i.e.

[brianvh]

Tad - I did back you up (no pun intended).

I'm still not sure if referring to people who disagree with you as <paraphrase> moronic idiots </paraphrase> helps or hurts the distribution of your message. Certainly doesn't help your targets accept it, even if the Springer effect increases the audience. Maybe it would improve the situation if we thought of being put down by you as the equivalent of being insulted by Don Rickles.