OK, here's the foot launch proposal. I'm back over here for the time being 'cause it's important and this is where it belongs. You can forget the "hook-in failures" thread 'cept for the dolly recommendation. This is a bit long but if you're interested in preventing the next Bob, Marc, Bill, Jim, or Bill then forget what a total asshole I am, wade through it and decide on some reasons why or why not.
As discussed earlier, after about sixteen years' worth of fairly intensive use, Danny's harness suspension exhibited significant wear at its interface with the carabiner.
This, as I've said, did not occur because it was the dread fabric to metal connection. (If you want to see some real world examples... Next time you're at Ridgely check out the junction of your primary and secondary bridles (fabric to fabric) and compare it to mine (metal to fabric). I can totally guarantee you that yours will be fuzzed and mine will exhibit zero evidence of wear.) This occurred because, not for the last time, we grabbed an off-the-shelf piece of hardware and employed it in an application for which it was neither designed nor particularly well suited.
Hang gliding started, however you want to define things, behind boats and on small hills and dunes and flights initially neither lasted very long nor went very high. Aluminum carabiners were used to connect harness to glider. At some point - early Eighties, I think it was - we discovered, fortunately in the shop and over the carpet, that some of those could fatigue and fail.
If you listen to APCO Aviation:
http://www.apcoaviation.com/support.asp?section=faq
(bottom of the page) this occurred because of a couple of ill advised and poorly executed manufacturing processes but we pretty much all jumped ship and went to steel.
For a worst case solo - heavy glider converted, through structural failure, to something resembling a javelin and prolonged free fall - we need a connection that handles about 3000 pounds. I've got a little aluminum job which meets that requirement with three quarters of a ton to spare. It doesn't lock but I'm not convinced that we ever needed that feature anyway.
But since the steel stuff that was available maintained the physical dimensions of the aluminum we were using we ended up with models that handle about four fold the worst nightmare that could possibly be concocted on the drawing board at the expense of something around a six fold weight penalty.
Let's pause for a moment to define a hang glider. It's currently a fairly nice performing soaring aircraft that you can fold up and throw on (wings) and in (cockpit) the car. You've got to be able to join and separate the cockpit from the wings to maintain that definition and that is the single most dangerous inherent feature of the beast.
We have to be able to make the connection but WHERE IN HELL IS IT CARVED IN GRANITE THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT OPERATION SO GODDAM FREAKIN' BRAIN DEAD EASY THAT WE CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE EFFECTED IT WITHIN A RELEVANT TIMEFRAME?
Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the world's greatest proponents of easy. I've even got a nice auto locking carabiner so I don't even have to screw the gate closed. But for a cost of about thirty seconds on both ends of the flight operations we can:
knock a few ounces off of our hook-in weights;
totally eliminate wear at the bottom and top of our glider and harness suspension webbing respectively;
connect the aforementioned two elements of webbing in a manner which does not automatically degrade their strengths;
clean up our airflow a bit; and
at least increase the average interval between mangling and killing hook-in failure accidents from years to decades - and possibly eliminate them altogether.
Carabiners are fine in the hang gliding environments in which they were first employed. If you're working over or around water, taking short flights on training hills, scooter towing, or soaring dunes you want to be able to connect and dis- quickly, easily, frequently, safely.
Also, as previously discussed, if there's a string in front of you, you're OK if you're coming off of a platform or dolly.
But if you're foot launching in an environment in which being human can ruin your afternoon, using a carabiner is, statistically, a very stupid thing to do.
After I read Danny's wear description I started thinking that, instead of using an item of climbing equipment designed and suited for other activities, - like using one hand to secure you to a rope while the other one is busy keeping you alive - we really oughta be employing a piece of hardware designed to connect two components of one inch webbing.
Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of stuff that answers that description in a suitable strength range. But, three years ago - when I was engaged in eliminating the bulk of my backup suspension and removing the line which would maintain the link between my harness and parachute in the event of carabiner failure - I also terminated my parachute bridle at the base of my harness suspension using a six dollar 3000 pound Speed Link from Para-Gear.
Check out the pictures at the top of the stack at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerotowrelease/
They're also consolidated in the Miscellaneous set to guard against things getting scrambled down the road.
Earlier this month I decided that I will henceforth be using that little chunk of steel in lieu of a carabiner whenever I'm flying in an environment other than those I've just covered in my waiver. I'm very unlikely to derive the maximum benefit from this practice 'cause it's quite possible that all of my future launches will be from a dolly and, failing that, I've gotten pretty Pavlovian about lifting my glider, immediately prior to launch, until I feel a tug (not the Dragonfly sort).
Let's see how well I do anticipating the objections and concerns...
"It's only rated for 3000 pounds!"
Yeah. That takes our heaviest solo gliders to 9 Gs.
"It's only rated for 3000 pounds!"
How much opening shock is your parachute good for anyway?
"It's only rated for 3000 pounds!"
Alright. Get a Zipper model Yates Screamer:
http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/screamer/index.htm#1
for twenty-five bucks and install it at just up(or down)wind of your swivel. That'll give you at least another two thirds of a ton of safety margin.
"It's only rated for 3000 pounds!"
Fine. Let's make a beefier one.
"This makes connecting to the glider something of a pain in the ass."
Yeah, that's something of the point. You're more likely to remember doing it, a light is more likely to glow if you haven't, and you're going to be more likely to climb back out of your harness if something requires both your attention and mobility. And you pick up a bit of performance boost for your trouble.
"That's a bit of trouble for the performance gain."
Does your glider have tip wands?
"Ya gotta use a tool in your setup procedure."
Yeah, this bothered me too initially, but I now see it as a thinly disguised blessing. You need a little quarter inch drive 3/16 inch wide flat screwdriver bit - four and a half grams - to make the connection. You secure your harness to the the glider, then bury the bit in some storage compartment that you can't access once you're in.
"What if I land out and drop it in tall grass at dusk?"
You have a spare or two buried even deeper in your harness.
"I want to fly with main and backup suspension on my glider and route my parachute bridle up to the connection. Those three items of webbing - and my harness suspension - are all Type 18 flat. Have I got enough clearance for all the thickness of all four?"
Yeah, comfortably - but no more. If your harness suspension is amended with anything more, lose or lighten the backup.
"I won't be able to separate from my glider quickly in an emergency."
Hook knife.
"I don't want to have to cut my suspension in such an event."
Think. How many times over the course of your long flying career have you needed to quickly separate to remain safe after a mountain or any other prolonged inland flight?
"What if I'm launching alone on a windy ramp?"
Use a carabiner.
"What if a dust devil hits the launch at a bad time."
I've seen the photographs. Carabiners don't seem to help.
"I don't want to wreck my weekend with a hook knife."
Carry the other assembly proportioned for the carabiner you're gonna use at Smithsburg.
"I don't want to go to the hassle and expense of refitting my glider with the extended suspension."
But you're replacing that annually anyway - just like it says in the owner's manual. Right? (Yeah, right.)
"What if people cheat? 'Hey, lemme borrow a bit. I just need to get a map from the car real quick.'"
At least there will be someone who will be hearing an alarm and probably keeping an eye open (if for no other reason than to get his tool back).
Anything else I haven't anticipated?
Good. Then let's just ignore this and see how many mor years or months it takes for the next one of us to leave a foot launch site in a chopper or bag.
speed link
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Comp pilots routinely use harnesses that directly bolt to the glider.
No caribiner.
Drag savings. (center weight is pretty irrelevant, tip weight matters).
Makes it harder to hookup (a positive thing as you've stated).
Reduces the chances of a hookin failure.
How is this different?
Sounds like the tired old Aussie/HangCheck argument.
Jim
No caribiner.
Drag savings. (center weight is pretty irrelevant, tip weight matters).
Makes it harder to hookup (a positive thing as you've stated).
Reduces the chances of a hookin failure.
How is this different?
Sounds like the tired old Aussie/HangCheck argument.
Jim
I think you're on to something. I'm not sure what you have is necessarily the magic bullet just yet, but the idea that an easy connection to make is also an easy one to forget rings true. There's some evolutionary possibilities here. I'd prefer some scheme where the connection can only be in front of your face or attached to your harness, nothing in between. Or something like that. Nobody's really worked on this because everyone's been trying to create quick connections. Your point that this doesn't or even shouldn't be easy begins to make this workable.
I think the Aussie method helps, but it's not idiot proof. people have been known to be in the harness, then go 'oh damn' and unclip to go fix something rather than take the time to climb out. And not all harnesses are Aussiable.
I think the Aussie method helps, but it's not idiot proof. people have been known to be in the harness, then go 'oh damn' and unclip to go fix something rather than take the time to climb out. And not all harnesses are Aussiable.
Brian Vant-Hull
With a bolt on harness, you can't unclip and walk around with the harness on... it's a mandatory Aussie style.
I'm asking how this is different that that. It doesn't sound like it is.
Sounds like what you're talking about is a setup where the harness/hangstrap attachment is at the harness end? How does this put the straps in front of you?
I'm asking how this is different that that. It doesn't sound like it is.
Sounds like what you're talking about is a setup where the harness/hangstrap attachment is at the harness end? How does this put the straps in front of you?
Just to think outside the box, how about if the hang straps are made long, with the heavy carabiner on them instead of the harness. Connect something like a light bungee from the nose to the carabiner so that it is dangling in your way until attached. This may be too much interference to be workable, but it's the kind of thing that couldn't be ignored.
I like the bolted Aussie method. It would be foolproof if the bolt was structurally part of the glider so that the moment you tried to pick up you'd know you weren't attached because the glider ain't together yet. This would be as failsafe as cart towing.
Another idea might be to modify the harness so that the main strap is permanently attached to the glider, and has to be threaded through the harness and snapped together, otherwise the harness falls into two pieces in front.
The basic idea that attachment to the glider needn't be easy opens up a world of possibilities.
I like the bolted Aussie method. It would be foolproof if the bolt was structurally part of the glider so that the moment you tried to pick up you'd know you weren't attached because the glider ain't together yet. This would be as failsafe as cart towing.
Another idea might be to modify the harness so that the main strap is permanently attached to the glider, and has to be threaded through the harness and snapped together, otherwise the harness falls into two pieces in front.
The basic idea that attachment to the glider needn't be easy opens up a world of possibilities.
Brian Vant-Hull
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Uhhhh...I must be missing something here--comp harnesses have been so equipped for years--a direct bolt-on through the rocker arm AND a back-up clip in over the keel (at least that's how my matrix race is). My harness was delivered with a replacement main riser at no extra charge.
marc
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Damn. It belatedly occurred to me that, although that's not what the piece of hardware is called, "slow link" would have been a more appropriate title for this thread. Another good alternate would be "GET SCREWED!" but that would probably get me thrown off the forum again. I'll save it for the T-shirts and bumper stickers.
Anyway, like I said on 2007/11/13...
>
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.
<
but I didn't realize this configuration was as widespread as seems to be the case. I haven't noticed examples in my limited parochial excursions and so far have been unable find any illustrations of the configurations as they ship from the manufacturer.
Oh well, I'm probably not the first person to appreciate the "fringe" benefit potential either but so far a stampede to retrofit doesn't seem to have materialized. Of course, my flying over the course of the past nine seasons has been almost totally limited to an environment where it is virtually impossible to have a hook-in problem, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of my fellow Joe and Josephine Weekends also make excursions to places featuring abrupt and long drops to rock piles and I'm guessing that all of them are taking their carabiners with them.
I'm also betting that, to date, the percentage of accidents and incidents regarding hook-in failures in which carabiners were the instruments of connections has been, what, a hundred? That would make the bolt-ins (lessee - a hundred minus a hundred equals) about zero?
I note that the firmware suspensions are being referred to as "comp". We need to start thinking of and using them as "ramp" and the traditional alternative as "surf".
Yeah Brian, I had run through some of the thoughts you expressed, including bungeeing the suspension to the nose. That one would help but, like a hook check, it's subject to human frailties. At some point you gotta free it and stow the bungee, thus moving to the risk level we have at present. It would be great, however, if one's view of the valley were automatically obstructed if things weren't shipshape.
Maybe twenty, twenty-five years ago someone published an article in the magazine on a clever little device which would leave a flag flapped down at your nose unless the glider's suspension was feeling the weight of a carabiner. He wanted Wills Wing to incorporate it in their birds but they weren't interested. I think they'd have had a bigger market now if they had been.
Again - I'm recommending that we adapt the procedure of stowing the key (screwdriver bit) - before wiggling in - in the harness where you can't get at it without wiggling back out (boot, backpack). That WOULD make the Aussie method idiot - but not cheat - proof.
OK, major fly in the ointment. What harnesses are unAussieable and why? I was really hoping we could make this thing totally universal.
I don't think you can get too creative with the fundamental designs of the glider and harnesses. You need the glider to stay intact and rigid minus the harness so's you can stow the latter and tie down the former or walk the former back up the hill at Taylor's or float it back up the dune at Jockeys Ridge.
You've also got a big fleet of stuff out there already and a culture that's gonna change glacially (rotten metaphor nowadays), if at all.
You've got a lot of harnesses that have multiple lines radiating out from the attachment point which distribute the load (cocoons being the obvious examples) and you can't change that geometry a whole lot.
We don't want to be removing carabiners as options - if you're landing in high winds or flying within striking distance of sandpiper habitat you really need to be using a carabiner and you don't want to make it any harder to get at than it is now.
The idea of having the glider suspension also be the structural webbing of the harness is pretty cool, I gotta admit, but... see above.
I really think that this speed link solution is extremely close to being the magic bullet. The only way to defeat it is to cheat and doing so requires jumping through some hoops. You clean up your airflow, lighten your load, and eliminate suspension wear as fringe benefits. Pending evidence to the contrary - Anyone can retrofit for the cost in materials of the link, about three bucks worth of screwdriver bits, and one length of webbing about six inches longer than than what he's using now (and another such extended length if the sacred backup is insisted upon).
Today's review quiz question...
I finished retrofitting my glider yesterday. My original 53 kiloNewton (~ six ton) steel carabiner and the suspension that matched it went into the spares bag and was replaced by the 3000 pound speed link and longer suspension. In the current configuration I'll be putting less weight on the dolly.
I've never - since 1980 - gone aloft with more than a ton and a half of rated survivability. I'm now good for about two and a quarter tons.
How is this possible?
If you know the answer tape it to the back of a Flytec 4000 Carbon Instrument Racing Pod - bays filled with a 6030 Variometer and Garmin GPSMAP 76CSx receiver - and mail it to...
Anyway, like I said on 2007/11/13...
>
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.
<
but I didn't realize this configuration was as widespread as seems to be the case. I haven't noticed examples in my limited parochial excursions and so far have been unable find any illustrations of the configurations as they ship from the manufacturer.
Oh well, I'm probably not the first person to appreciate the "fringe" benefit potential either but so far a stampede to retrofit doesn't seem to have materialized. Of course, my flying over the course of the past nine seasons has been almost totally limited to an environment where it is virtually impossible to have a hook-in problem, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of my fellow Joe and Josephine Weekends also make excursions to places featuring abrupt and long drops to rock piles and I'm guessing that all of them are taking their carabiners with them.
I'm also betting that, to date, the percentage of accidents and incidents regarding hook-in failures in which carabiners were the instruments of connections has been, what, a hundred? That would make the bolt-ins (lessee - a hundred minus a hundred equals) about zero?
I note that the firmware suspensions are being referred to as "comp". We need to start thinking of and using them as "ramp" and the traditional alternative as "surf".
Yeah Brian, I had run through some of the thoughts you expressed, including bungeeing the suspension to the nose. That one would help but, like a hook check, it's subject to human frailties. At some point you gotta free it and stow the bungee, thus moving to the risk level we have at present. It would be great, however, if one's view of the valley were automatically obstructed if things weren't shipshape.
Maybe twenty, twenty-five years ago someone published an article in the magazine on a clever little device which would leave a flag flapped down at your nose unless the glider's suspension was feeling the weight of a carabiner. He wanted Wills Wing to incorporate it in their birds but they weren't interested. I think they'd have had a bigger market now if they had been.
Again - I'm recommending that we adapt the procedure of stowing the key (screwdriver bit) - before wiggling in - in the harness where you can't get at it without wiggling back out (boot, backpack). That WOULD make the Aussie method idiot - but not cheat - proof.
OK, major fly in the ointment. What harnesses are unAussieable and why? I was really hoping we could make this thing totally universal.
I don't think you can get too creative with the fundamental designs of the glider and harnesses. You need the glider to stay intact and rigid minus the harness so's you can stow the latter and tie down the former or walk the former back up the hill at Taylor's or float it back up the dune at Jockeys Ridge.
You've also got a big fleet of stuff out there already and a culture that's gonna change glacially (rotten metaphor nowadays), if at all.
You've got a lot of harnesses that have multiple lines radiating out from the attachment point which distribute the load (cocoons being the obvious examples) and you can't change that geometry a whole lot.
We don't want to be removing carabiners as options - if you're landing in high winds or flying within striking distance of sandpiper habitat you really need to be using a carabiner and you don't want to make it any harder to get at than it is now.
The idea of having the glider suspension also be the structural webbing of the harness is pretty cool, I gotta admit, but... see above.
I really think that this speed link solution is extremely close to being the magic bullet. The only way to defeat it is to cheat and doing so requires jumping through some hoops. You clean up your airflow, lighten your load, and eliminate suspension wear as fringe benefits. Pending evidence to the contrary - Anyone can retrofit for the cost in materials of the link, about three bucks worth of screwdriver bits, and one length of webbing about six inches longer than than what he's using now (and another such extended length if the sacred backup is insisted upon).
Today's review quiz question...
I finished retrofitting my glider yesterday. My original 53 kiloNewton (~ six ton) steel carabiner and the suspension that matched it went into the spares bag and was replaced by the 3000 pound speed link and longer suspension. In the current configuration I'll be putting less weight on the dolly.
I've never - since 1980 - gone aloft with more than a ton and a half of rated survivability. I'm now good for about two and a quarter tons.
How is this possible?
If you know the answer tape it to the back of a Flytec 4000 Carbon Instrument Racing Pod - bays filled with a 6030 Variometer and Garmin GPSMAP 76CSx receiver - and mail it to...
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
If you bought your steel ring at the hardware store and it says something like made in China or Brazil on it I would not assume that it actually tests to the rating you think it has. They've been known to fail at half the stated strength. If you're going to go that route then find "maillion rapide" links that are made in France.
Even bridges can fail.
marc
Even bridges can fail.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Boy howdie, talk about looking for a fight (and not finding it)
Well, I wasn't sure before, but now I am...
We've all been down the Aussie Vs Hookin road before.
Zzzzzzz
So what yoiu're taking 5 pages to tell us is that you've modified your harness to be a (nearly) bolt on style. Big freakin woop... so bloody innovative (rolls eyes). Comp pilots have been doing this for years. You're just using a screwdriver instead of a wrench.
What you're left with is just the tired old Aussie argument.
Failing to suck anyone into that, you're trying to suck people into a caribiner strength argument. (which people care even less about) Those horses are good and dead.
Nothing better to do than pick fights on a forum?
Sheesh
Jim
Well, I wasn't sure before, but now I am...
We've all been down the Aussie Vs Hookin road before.
Zzzzzzz
So what yoiu're taking 5 pages to tell us is that you've modified your harness to be a (nearly) bolt on style. Big freakin woop... so bloody innovative (rolls eyes). Comp pilots have been doing this for years. You're just using a screwdriver instead of a wrench.
What you're left with is just the tired old Aussie argument.
Failing to suck anyone into that, you're trying to suck people into a caribiner strength argument. (which people care even less about) Those horses are good and dead.
Nothing better to do than pick fights on a forum?
Sheesh
Jim
Tad,
It looks like that two prong deal is going to kill someone. Suppose someone just put the prongs through the webbing loops and forgets (is distracted) to snap on the end plate. They would lay down in the cart and pass the hang check. Once in flight the webbing slips off the prongs ... your dead even though you did a hang check. Or suppose the end plate is sliped on but does not engage the groves. Agian it would pass the hang check only to fail latter in the flight.
That device you show looks alot like a motorcycle chain removable link. I have put many of those on with looks like a complete installation only to come loose and throw the chain. They are so know to come loose that most motorcycle racers do not use the snap lock type anymore.
That is a poor device because it can "look" assembled but is really not.
JD
It looks like that two prong deal is going to kill someone. Suppose someone just put the prongs through the webbing loops and forgets (is distracted) to snap on the end plate. They would lay down in the cart and pass the hang check. Once in flight the webbing slips off the prongs ... your dead even though you did a hang check. Or suppose the end plate is sliped on but does not engage the groves. Agian it would pass the hang check only to fail latter in the flight.
That device you show looks alot like a motorcycle chain removable link. I have put many of those on with looks like a complete installation only to come loose and throw the chain. They are so know to come loose that most motorcycle racers do not use the snap lock type anymore.
That is a poor device because it can "look" assembled but is really not.
JD
On a slightly off-topic note...
If a forum user feels that a topic has been moved or locked inappropriately,
he or she can start a new topic any time that they like.
And if some other forum user feels that a particular topic is a bunch of
BS, he or she can simply chose not to read it, or not to reply to it.
In my rarely-invoked role of 'forum moderator', I really don't give a darn
about who starts a thread, or about who chooses to participate in the
ensuing discussion.
But! If the insult/flame/vulgarity-quotient reaches a point where I start
to worry that new pilots, or students, might be getting a very negative
impression of our sports.... Well... That's where I might decide to step in.
Bottom line: Keep it informative, keep it courteous.
MarkC
If a forum user feels that a topic has been moved or locked inappropriately,
he or she can start a new topic any time that they like.
And if some other forum user feels that a particular topic is a bunch of
BS, he or she can simply chose not to read it, or not to reply to it.
In my rarely-invoked role of 'forum moderator', I really don't give a darn
about who starts a thread, or about who chooses to participate in the
ensuing discussion.
But! If the insult/flame/vulgarity-quotient reaches a point where I start
to worry that new pilots, or students, might be getting a very negative
impression of our sports.... Well... That's where I might decide to step in.
Bottom line: Keep it informative, keep it courteous.
MarkC
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Marc,
Can you quote me whatever it was or refer me back to one of the photographs that gave you the impression that I'm discussing a "ring" from a hardware store. (What percentage of this stuff do you bother to read anyway?)
A "quick link" - in whatever language you care to use - has, despite the similarities in nomenclature, for the purposes of this discussion, close to nothing in common with the title piece of hardware. It's essentially just a screw locking carabiner minus the hinge and spring.
JD,
Thanks for reading, looking at the pictures, and coming up with some legitimate concerns. (Breath of fresh air.) Now on to hacking them up to the best of my abilities...
The speed link is a chunk of parachute equipment. Although, in its intended environment, its time aloft per use is generally going to be a lot shorter than in ours, it's generally going to be subjected to a lot more violence.
In either theater it's not going to be making U-turns at sprockets a hundred and fifty times a second. It's going to be pretty much stationary relative to the items it's connecting and subjected to breezes from light to very stiff. In our pursuits it's only going to be stressed - in normal circumstances - up to around seventeen percent of its capacity.
You are quite correct that the speed link is a more dangerous option on a cart. In that environment the carabiner connection is, for all practical purposes, one hundred percent idiot proof. I will, however, henceforth be using the speed link because of it's other advantages and to provide a data point.
OK, time out to define some terms and procedures...
The speed link separates into two components - the base and gate assembly, one and three pieces respectively.
The base consists of a top and bottom "prong" (not entirely happy with that term but can't - for the moment - come up with anything better) and a spine.
The gate assembly consists of elements which cannot (barring the use of a drill or, perhaps, brute force) be separated - the base and a locking plate and screw.
One edge of the plate is exposed and serrated so that it can be moved to the open position with one's thumb.
About three and a half revolutions turn the screw from finger tight to maximum free.
The link is oriented - for safety, aerodynamic, and practical considerations - gate fore / spine aft and serrations starboard. In unlocked configuration the top of the plate extends above the gate base.
The link is stored either on the harness suspension or separately in a bag but with the gate on and secured.
Now...
You just can't partially install the gate. It pretty much snaps into position. It's either on or it isn't.
Once the gate is engaged the plate will fall into locked position. As long as the suspension stays loaded you are safe from that point on.
If you get airborne and figure out a way to go positive/negative at about four cycles a second for a period of about five seconds, yeah, you will be able to shake the gate off the base and, if you continue those cycles a bit longer, separate yourself from the glider.
As unlikely a scenario as that is, I'm recommending that one take an extra twelve seconds and tighten the screw.
>
It looks like that two prong deal is going to kill someone.
<
Yeah, eventually a monkey taking a break from typing is gonna manage to kill himself with a speed link. I'm not convinced that we will ever have enough monkeys in this sport for the statistics to enable that scenario.
What we do know is that, even with our limited and diminishing supply, with carabiners we have, are, and undoubtedly will be killing a few at a fairly regular and predictable frequency.
The carabiner/distraction issue is very real and it's a biggie. I don't see a link scenario as being anywhere near on par.
Suiting up and buckling into a pod is a big freakin' deal. It's physically demanding, time consuming, and requires a bunch of steps. In my case, for example, I gotta:
step through the starboard leg loop;
duck under the port shoulder strap;
straighten my clothing
clear my radio wires from inside the front of the harness and plug into the mic and speaker receptacles;
close the side zipper;
engage the zipper safety and backup buckles; and
ensure the pod flaps are clear.
Sorry folks, I use the Aussie method if circumstances make it the easier option but if I'm using a carabiner and need to separate from my glider for any reason, I'm unhooking and walking.
Note/Aside:
I think that using a full hang check in a foot launch environment ("Somebody get my nose/keel, I'm going down.") on a glider/harness combo on which basetube clearance has previously been verified is an arguably dangerous waste of time.
Upon completion of such you are not ready to fly. You gotta transition to bipedal mode and pick up the glider. There's a time lag built into that process.
I'm betting that we'd be killing fewer people if we got in the habit of lifting the glider to the point of suspension tug as our last act before beginning the wait for the right puff or lull.
That's always been my procedure and it makes the un- re-suiting drill irrelevant.
But back to topic...
Let's say that there is a distraction issue at a stage of preparation which would leave the speed link connection incomplete and dangerous.
"My boyfriend just got a hacky sack stuck in his throat and needs an emergency tracheotomy. Is there a doctor at launch?"
"I saw the M*A*S*H episode - twice."
"Good enough."
"Can it wait fifteen seconds?"
"He's turning blue."
The extreme danger zone for this operation (the harness connection - not the surgery) starts when the base connects the two suspension elements and ends when the gate assembly is snapped on. That's a time span of about three seconds when you REALLY don't want to be thinking about or doing something else. An additional twelve seconds to deal with the screw makes you totally bulletproof.
I can understand and forgive hook-in failures - especially when there's extra crap floating around in the environment (tandem passenger in separate harness, tow equipment...). We're flying a configuration which is inherently very dangerous in the foot launch arena.
My glider is configured such that you can assemble it such that it looks and feels completely airworthy and can even allow you to complete a long flight yet remain a bit of tenuous friction away from killing you at any moment. Wills Wing appears to have totally eliminated the possibility from that happening in their current designs.
I think that what I'm proposing is extremely idiot resistant - it's not, however, totally complete fucking moron proof. But then - neither is driving a hang glider or Cessna anyway.
You need to follow some rules and you need to give the most critical three to fifteen seconds of your day adequate attention. If that's not possible 'cause you've got to open up somebody's throat with a Swiss army knife all you need to do is go to Plan B rules and separate the harness from the glider's suspension. That procedure sets you back about two seconds and costs you another interval of the same length to resume where you left off prior to the distraction.
As opposed to the analogous unhook versus unsuit decision there's not a whole lot of temptation or payoff for starting down the wrong path.
Brian's idea is pretty ironclad. I'd love to see something along those lines get off the ground but that's something that's gotta fly with a harness manufacturer and I'm not predicting that a lot of people will be donating their current pods to starving pilots in third world countries in order to take advantage of the safety margin.
I'm still thinking this is the best solution to retrofit and enhance the safety of the stuff most people are using now. Though the hardware is off-the-shelf the only change I would make would be to have an Allen or Torx driven screw instead of the slotted job - facilitate and take a few seconds off the operations.
With respect to Sunday's quiz question...
No, no fuzzy dice for a response having to do with carabiners. Nothing to do with them.
Anybody else? The information is all there. (Brian at least?)
Can you quote me whatever it was or refer me back to one of the photographs that gave you the impression that I'm discussing a "ring" from a hardware store. (What percentage of this stuff do you bother to read anyway?)
A "quick link" - in whatever language you care to use - has, despite the similarities in nomenclature, for the purposes of this discussion, close to nothing in common with the title piece of hardware. It's essentially just a screw locking carabiner minus the hinge and spring.
JD,
Thanks for reading, looking at the pictures, and coming up with some legitimate concerns. (Breath of fresh air.) Now on to hacking them up to the best of my abilities...
The speed link is a chunk of parachute equipment. Although, in its intended environment, its time aloft per use is generally going to be a lot shorter than in ours, it's generally going to be subjected to a lot more violence.
In either theater it's not going to be making U-turns at sprockets a hundred and fifty times a second. It's going to be pretty much stationary relative to the items it's connecting and subjected to breezes from light to very stiff. In our pursuits it's only going to be stressed - in normal circumstances - up to around seventeen percent of its capacity.
You are quite correct that the speed link is a more dangerous option on a cart. In that environment the carabiner connection is, for all practical purposes, one hundred percent idiot proof. I will, however, henceforth be using the speed link because of it's other advantages and to provide a data point.
OK, time out to define some terms and procedures...
The speed link separates into two components - the base and gate assembly, one and three pieces respectively.
The base consists of a top and bottom "prong" (not entirely happy with that term but can't - for the moment - come up with anything better) and a spine.
The gate assembly consists of elements which cannot (barring the use of a drill or, perhaps, brute force) be separated - the base and a locking plate and screw.
One edge of the plate is exposed and serrated so that it can be moved to the open position with one's thumb.
About three and a half revolutions turn the screw from finger tight to maximum free.
The link is oriented - for safety, aerodynamic, and practical considerations - gate fore / spine aft and serrations starboard. In unlocked configuration the top of the plate extends above the gate base.
The link is stored either on the harness suspension or separately in a bag but with the gate on and secured.
Now...
You just can't partially install the gate. It pretty much snaps into position. It's either on or it isn't.
Once the gate is engaged the plate will fall into locked position. As long as the suspension stays loaded you are safe from that point on.
If you get airborne and figure out a way to go positive/negative at about four cycles a second for a period of about five seconds, yeah, you will be able to shake the gate off the base and, if you continue those cycles a bit longer, separate yourself from the glider.
As unlikely a scenario as that is, I'm recommending that one take an extra twelve seconds and tighten the screw.
>
It looks like that two prong deal is going to kill someone.
<
Yeah, eventually a monkey taking a break from typing is gonna manage to kill himself with a speed link. I'm not convinced that we will ever have enough monkeys in this sport for the statistics to enable that scenario.
What we do know is that, even with our limited and diminishing supply, with carabiners we have, are, and undoubtedly will be killing a few at a fairly regular and predictable frequency.
The carabiner/distraction issue is very real and it's a biggie. I don't see a link scenario as being anywhere near on par.
Suiting up and buckling into a pod is a big freakin' deal. It's physically demanding, time consuming, and requires a bunch of steps. In my case, for example, I gotta:
step through the starboard leg loop;
duck under the port shoulder strap;
straighten my clothing
clear my radio wires from inside the front of the harness and plug into the mic and speaker receptacles;
close the side zipper;
engage the zipper safety and backup buckles; and
ensure the pod flaps are clear.
Sorry folks, I use the Aussie method if circumstances make it the easier option but if I'm using a carabiner and need to separate from my glider for any reason, I'm unhooking and walking.
Note/Aside:
I think that using a full hang check in a foot launch environment ("Somebody get my nose/keel, I'm going down.") on a glider/harness combo on which basetube clearance has previously been verified is an arguably dangerous waste of time.
Upon completion of such you are not ready to fly. You gotta transition to bipedal mode and pick up the glider. There's a time lag built into that process.
I'm betting that we'd be killing fewer people if we got in the habit of lifting the glider to the point of suspension tug as our last act before beginning the wait for the right puff or lull.
That's always been my procedure and it makes the un- re-suiting drill irrelevant.
But back to topic...
Let's say that there is a distraction issue at a stage of preparation which would leave the speed link connection incomplete and dangerous.
"My boyfriend just got a hacky sack stuck in his throat and needs an emergency tracheotomy. Is there a doctor at launch?"
"I saw the M*A*S*H episode - twice."
"Good enough."
"Can it wait fifteen seconds?"
"He's turning blue."
The extreme danger zone for this operation (the harness connection - not the surgery) starts when the base connects the two suspension elements and ends when the gate assembly is snapped on. That's a time span of about three seconds when you REALLY don't want to be thinking about or doing something else. An additional twelve seconds to deal with the screw makes you totally bulletproof.
I can understand and forgive hook-in failures - especially when there's extra crap floating around in the environment (tandem passenger in separate harness, tow equipment...). We're flying a configuration which is inherently very dangerous in the foot launch arena.
My glider is configured such that you can assemble it such that it looks and feels completely airworthy and can even allow you to complete a long flight yet remain a bit of tenuous friction away from killing you at any moment. Wills Wing appears to have totally eliminated the possibility from that happening in their current designs.
I think that what I'm proposing is extremely idiot resistant - it's not, however, totally complete fucking moron proof. But then - neither is driving a hang glider or Cessna anyway.
You need to follow some rules and you need to give the most critical three to fifteen seconds of your day adequate attention. If that's not possible 'cause you've got to open up somebody's throat with a Swiss army knife all you need to do is go to Plan B rules and separate the harness from the glider's suspension. That procedure sets you back about two seconds and costs you another interval of the same length to resume where you left off prior to the distraction.
As opposed to the analogous unhook versus unsuit decision there's not a whole lot of temptation or payoff for starting down the wrong path.
Brian's idea is pretty ironclad. I'd love to see something along those lines get off the ground but that's something that's gotta fly with a harness manufacturer and I'm not predicting that a lot of people will be donating their current pods to starving pilots in third world countries in order to take advantage of the safety margin.
I'm still thinking this is the best solution to retrofit and enhance the safety of the stuff most people are using now. Though the hardware is off-the-shelf the only change I would make would be to have an Allen or Torx driven screw instead of the slotted job - facilitate and take a few seconds off the operations.
With respect to Sunday's quiz question...
No, no fuzzy dice for a response having to do with carabiners. Nothing to do with them.
Anybody else? The information is all there. (Brian at least?)
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
-
toto's_ride
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Rockville, MD
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: speed link
We try, but you keep reminding us.Tad Eareckson wrote:...then forget what a total asshole I am...
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
-
toto's_ride
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Rockville, MD
(Choking & sputtering on corn dog) sorry, just a feeble attempt at levity. Any such warning/reminder device would soon be ignored or discarded anyway. Nobody pays any attention to their seatbelt warning lamp as it is. For most, buckling-up has become second nature. I guess the trick is to make a proper hang check second nature as well. Easier said than done.
Tim
Tim
Visualize silence
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Marc,
I'd rather not admit to how much time was involved in shooting and Photoshopping the pictures (but it was a couple of days). If it's too much trouble to click on a link it's also too much trouble to add to the bandwidth with irrelevant clutter. You really don't get to make a comment like that after your previous.
Tim,
Sorry, I had had toto's_ride mentally logged as unidentifiable newish and I just automatically assume that a post to these threads is an attack of some kind (works pretty good about 95 percent of the time).
No, I actually think the stop sign idea is great. But it has to be in green mode (up and flush) as a consequence of just the weight of the (slack) harness suspension. Otherwise it's useless and immediately becomes just as invisible as the "HOOK IN!" nose wire telltales.
I think it's quite sad that somebody went to the trouble of developing that system and publishing an article only to see it ignored and the carnage continue unabated.
After Bill was killed there was an idea that hit the forum about folk getting international orange parachute bridle covers to make the state of preparedness a little more apparent to the wire crew. Not bad. Did anyone actually follow through?
I'm thinking that part of the problem with our herd is that the people who would be most likely to go to the trouble to effect a positive safety modification are also the ones least likely to benefit from it and vice versa.
When I first started flying I sucked up all the fatality reports and was horrified when I learned about hook-in failures 'cause that just had my name all over it. I was certain my manner of death was preordained.
I later became equal as certain of quite the opposite (yeah, I know, famous last words...) 'cause I made a habit of skipping the worse than useless lie down and lifting the glider to the point of tug - second nature.
But I don't think pilot education is gonna get any better than it is now and that is nowhere near good enough.
So here's what's gonna happen...
Just as pods, faired control frames, and topless gliders have become / are becoming normal or predominant features of the landscape, so will the super clean pods which currently dominate competition flying. A bit beyond that the suspensions will evolve to bolt-on predominance. Then, half a decade or so after some sort of critical mass is attained, the herd is gonna notice that there haven't been any incidents of the glider going one way and the pilot another in a very long time. Then the light bulb will come on (and I'll spin in my grave a few more times).
If, however, a few key weekenders retrofit for the purposes of setting examples and/or picking up a little glide we can shorten the process enough to keep a few more lives from getting negatively altered, wrecked, or ended. Anyone interested in being second?
I'd rather not admit to how much time was involved in shooting and Photoshopping the pictures (but it was a couple of days). If it's too much trouble to click on a link it's also too much trouble to add to the bandwidth with irrelevant clutter. You really don't get to make a comment like that after your previous.
Tim,
Sorry, I had had toto's_ride mentally logged as unidentifiable newish and I just automatically assume that a post to these threads is an attack of some kind (works pretty good about 95 percent of the time).
No, I actually think the stop sign idea is great. But it has to be in green mode (up and flush) as a consequence of just the weight of the (slack) harness suspension. Otherwise it's useless and immediately becomes just as invisible as the "HOOK IN!" nose wire telltales.
I think it's quite sad that somebody went to the trouble of developing that system and publishing an article only to see it ignored and the carnage continue unabated.
After Bill was killed there was an idea that hit the forum about folk getting international orange parachute bridle covers to make the state of preparedness a little more apparent to the wire crew. Not bad. Did anyone actually follow through?
I'm thinking that part of the problem with our herd is that the people who would be most likely to go to the trouble to effect a positive safety modification are also the ones least likely to benefit from it and vice versa.
When I first started flying I sucked up all the fatality reports and was horrified when I learned about hook-in failures 'cause that just had my name all over it. I was certain my manner of death was preordained.
I later became equal as certain of quite the opposite (yeah, I know, famous last words...) 'cause I made a habit of skipping the worse than useless lie down and lifting the glider to the point of tug - second nature.
But I don't think pilot education is gonna get any better than it is now and that is nowhere near good enough.
So here's what's gonna happen...
Just as pods, faired control frames, and topless gliders have become / are becoming normal or predominant features of the landscape, so will the super clean pods which currently dominate competition flying. A bit beyond that the suspensions will evolve to bolt-on predominance. Then, half a decade or so after some sort of critical mass is attained, the herd is gonna notice that there haven't been any incidents of the glider going one way and the pilot another in a very long time. Then the light bulb will come on (and I'll spin in my grave a few more times).
If, however, a few key weekenders retrofit for the purposes of setting examples and/or picking up a little glide we can shorten the process enough to keep a few more lives from getting negatively altered, wrecked, or ended. Anyone interested in being second?
The problem with using the method of picking up the glider and feeling the tug as the ONLY check is that it's so simple it's as easy to forget as the even less simple carabiner attachment. I DEFINITELY would not go around referring to the standard hang check as more dangerous than nothing at all. It at least gives the people around you a chance to ask if you've done a hang check.
Incorporting the lift and tug procedure is of course a very good idea, even if no less error prone.
Anything that requires you to be free of the glider in less than 15 seconds also means your mental state will be such that you should start the launch preparations clear from the beginning, including the pre-flight.
Incorporting the lift and tug procedure is of course a very good idea, even if no less error prone.
Anything that requires you to be free of the glider in less than 15 seconds also means your mental state will be such that you should start the launch preparations clear from the beginning, including the pre-flight.
Brian Vant-Hull
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I see you now are a self-appointed censor of what is and is not appropriate in response to your flowery prose. Maybe if you pared down the innuendo and sarcastic doomsday language (carnage, what fu&*'n carnage are you talking about?) people might be able to better understand what you're trying to say. As for my use of your own language to fire back at you--what the hell do you expect--you have loaded almost every one of your posts with direct and indirect insults of my teaching acumen, solo flying and technical knowledge just because I may not agree with you. Polite doesn't work with you--so yeah, I've had enough, F%$k you too!Tad Eareckson wrote:Marc,
I'd rather not admit to how much time was involved in shooting and Photoshopping the pictures (but it was a couple of days). If it's too much trouble to click on a link it's also too much trouble to add to the bandwidth with irrelevant clutter. You really don't get to make a comment like that after your previous.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Marc,
Nope, I can't censor anything. I'd just appreciate it if people would do their homework and respond to what's been said.
Examples of the fu&*'n carnage I'm talking about include, amongst the local crowd, a bounce off the boulder pile at the Pulpit which required extensive hospitalization and a four hundred foot plunge at Whitwell which didn't.
I don't recall having commented on your teaching.
Brian,
No, I'm definitely not saying that the "standard/full" check is worse than nothing at all.
But I think I'll stick with the position that that should NEVER be thought of or considered THE check.
The problem, as I've said several posts ago, is that upon completion you are not ready to fly. And now you've got some brain circuitry that sends juice to the green light. And if there's a distraction which causes you to unclip that switch might not click back to the other position. And maybe you're radiating an infrared signal that's picked up by crew which screws up the switch positions of those folk as well.
Also with respect to people around you - if one person thinks about it before you say "clear", you're gonna live. But I've got a hypothesis that the more people you have around you the less likely the possibility of anyone catching anything.
I once read in a Glider Rider magazine that group intelligence is calculated by taking the lowest individual IQ in the group and dividing that figure by the number of people in the group. I think Bill would have been in a lot better shape at Whitwell if he had been alone or had no more than one friend to follow him off.
And personal experience leads me to disagree about a tug check being as easy to forget as a carabiner snap.
I started flying in 1980 and began at least supplementing the full down about right from the beginning.
I'm a total space case. I invariably fail to start the track log recording before the Dragonfly rolls by and can hardly ever to remember to buckle my helmet or harness. But I've NEVER forgotten the tug check before foot launching. That IS my most critical preflight item and it IS hard wired. If I can solder the connection anyone can.
I know that there are little pilot / big control frame combos that can make this check problematic but if there's enough wind the glider can be floated and a lean through is a reasonable facsimile.
Nope, I can't censor anything. I'd just appreciate it if people would do their homework and respond to what's been said.
Examples of the fu&*'n carnage I'm talking about include, amongst the local crowd, a bounce off the boulder pile at the Pulpit which required extensive hospitalization and a four hundred foot plunge at Whitwell which didn't.
I don't recall having commented on your teaching.
Brian,
No, I'm definitely not saying that the "standard/full" check is worse than nothing at all.
But I think I'll stick with the position that that should NEVER be thought of or considered THE check.
The problem, as I've said several posts ago, is that upon completion you are not ready to fly. And now you've got some brain circuitry that sends juice to the green light. And if there's a distraction which causes you to unclip that switch might not click back to the other position. And maybe you're radiating an infrared signal that's picked up by crew which screws up the switch positions of those folk as well.
Also with respect to people around you - if one person thinks about it before you say "clear", you're gonna live. But I've got a hypothesis that the more people you have around you the less likely the possibility of anyone catching anything.
I once read in a Glider Rider magazine that group intelligence is calculated by taking the lowest individual IQ in the group and dividing that figure by the number of people in the group. I think Bill would have been in a lot better shape at Whitwell if he had been alone or had no more than one friend to follow him off.
And personal experience leads me to disagree about a tug check being as easy to forget as a carabiner snap.
I started flying in 1980 and began at least supplementing the full down about right from the beginning.
I'm a total space case. I invariably fail to start the track log recording before the Dragonfly rolls by and can hardly ever to remember to buckle my helmet or harness. But I've NEVER forgotten the tug check before foot launching. That IS my most critical preflight item and it IS hard wired. If I can solder the connection anyone can.
I know that there are little pilot / big control frame combos that can make this check problematic but if there's enough wind the glider can be floated and a lean through is a reasonable facsimile.