P.S. Marc,
Can you quote from ANYTHING I've EVER written or said that could possibly be interpreted as a disparagement of your teaching or solo (or tandem) flying?
And if my writing is so defective (you seem to vacillate a bit on that point) just click on the links. Neither Brian nor JD seem to have had much trouble understanding what I'm talking about.
speed link
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I vaguely recall it was an oblique shot--something to do with instructors who tow using the present weaklinks and a supposed willingness from your point of view to put them at increased risk.Tad Eareckson wrote:P.S. Marc,
Can you quote from ANYTHING I've EVER written or said that could possibly be interpreted as a disparagement of your teaching or solo (or tandem) flying?
And if my writing is so defective (you seem to vacillate a bit on that point) just click on the links. Neither Brian nor JD seem to have had much trouble understanding what I'm talking about.
The reason I don't bother quoting you is because I don't have the willingness nor patience to put on waders that go up over my ears to wade through a field of bullshit the size of Texas.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
"I vaguely recall it was an oblique shot..." is a bit of a step back from having "have loaded almost every one of your posts with direct and indirect insults..."
If the initial statement had been valid you shouldn't have had to do much of a hazmat suit-up to find a quote.
I also think you're going to have a hard time finding any evidence of the oblique shot. The best I could do was was something you said I was saying (but wasn't).
Straying off topic for a moment...
My central point in the "weak links" thread was that those things shouldn't be popping for no reason. There is a safety spinoff to improving that situation - The more launches and landings you have, the more accidents you're gonna get. But the ratio is pretty unbalanced.
Back to track...
The goal here is to reduce the frequency of hook-in failures in foot launch environments. To date only JD has expressed some reservations concerning my retrofit recommendation. Those were quite valuable 'cause there was some stuff I hadn't considered or fully thought through. But I toyed with the hardware a bit more and ran some more connection simulations downstairs and came away still pretty satisfied with the strategy.
I appreciate your fact checking and contributions to the previous incarnation of the thread and hope you stay with this one.
Merry Christmas (really).
If the initial statement had been valid you shouldn't have had to do much of a hazmat suit-up to find a quote.
I also think you're going to have a hard time finding any evidence of the oblique shot. The best I could do was was something you said I was saying (but wasn't).
Straying off topic for a moment...
My central point in the "weak links" thread was that those things shouldn't be popping for no reason. There is a safety spinoff to improving that situation - The more launches and landings you have, the more accidents you're gonna get. But the ratio is pretty unbalanced.
Back to track...
The goal here is to reduce the frequency of hook-in failures in foot launch environments. To date only JD has expressed some reservations concerning my retrofit recommendation. Those were quite valuable 'cause there was some stuff I hadn't considered or fully thought through. But I toyed with the hardware a bit more and ran some more connection simulations downstairs and came away still pretty satisfied with the strategy.
I appreciate your fact checking and contributions to the previous incarnation of the thread and hope you stay with this one.
Merry Christmas (really).
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
The week's well up so I won't be sending out any fuzzy dice but here's how I replaced a six ton carabiner with the speed link of a quarter of that rating yet ended up with with an extra three quarters of a ton of safety margin, in case - tap tap tap - anybody's interested.
Let's start loading up the glider. It turns to scrap at about something comfortably under a ton so the speed link is not yet a factor.
My parachute is rated the same as the speed link - 3000 pounds (so the carabiner's capacity was never doing me much good).
But I installed a Zipper model Screamer:
http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/screamer/index.htm#1
just my side of the swivel and can now handle an opening shock of around 4575 - give or take about 225 - pounds.
If you don't feel like clicking - the Screamer dissipates energy by ripping stitching to the tune of about 1350 to 1800 pounds for this model.
I separated my bridle from the swivel and stitched a short strap to the lower connection. There are speed links at both ends of the Screamer to connect it to the bridle and swivel strap so - oops - contrary to what I said before, I'm picking up an ounce or two.
But that and a few bucks extra difference ain't bad for that level of extra worst case scenario margin. And the ability to separate the parachute a short distance south of the shroud lines makes the repack less of a pain.
Let's start loading up the glider. It turns to scrap at about something comfortably under a ton so the speed link is not yet a factor.
My parachute is rated the same as the speed link - 3000 pounds (so the carabiner's capacity was never doing me much good).
But I installed a Zipper model Screamer:
http://www.yatesgear.com/climbing/screamer/index.htm#1
just my side of the swivel and can now handle an opening shock of around 4575 - give or take about 225 - pounds.
If you don't feel like clicking - the Screamer dissipates energy by ripping stitching to the tune of about 1350 to 1800 pounds for this model.
I separated my bridle from the swivel and stitched a short strap to the lower connection. There are speed links at both ends of the Screamer to connect it to the bridle and swivel strap so - oops - contrary to what I said before, I'm picking up an ounce or two.
But that and a few bucks extra difference ain't bad for that level of extra worst case scenario margin. And the ability to separate the parachute a short distance south of the shroud lines makes the repack less of a pain.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Odds and ends...
In the absence of information to the contrary I'm now proceeding on the assumption that all harnesses are Aussieable. So the six dollar speed link and a suspension modification which Shawn cites as six bits above that makes this a universally applicable retrofit.
A more thorough description of my suspension 'cause it's kinda cool and, despite my elimination of the glider's backup webbing, I've got a more solid system than most out there...
Starting from the top - one strap coming off the kingpost.
Speed link.
Single strap of doubled webbing suspending my pod harness, splits to the sides just above the body thus forming an upside down "Y". From the pilot's six, looks like (monospaced font, replace periods with spaces):
.....||
.....||
.....||
..../..\
...//..\\
..//....\\
.//......\\
//........\\
I've added two lengths of webbing running laterally below/across the split.
.....||
.....||
.....||
..../..\
...//--\\
..///()\\\
.///----\\\
////....\\\\
One prong of a second link is inserted through the (), spans the three starboard layers of webbing, and engages an extension of the parachute bridle outboard of the suspension.
.....||
.....||
.....||
..../..\
...//--\\
..///()\\\()
.///----\\\\
////....\\\\\
The bridle extension is lightly stitched to the outboard side of the starboard split and harness body until it enters the starboard aft corner of the container.
A bit after that a third link connects the extension to the bridle.
At the far end of the bridle a fourth link connects to the load limiter (Screamer).
The load limiter is connected to the hip bone - I mean - lower swivel strap...
swivel
upper swivel strap
parachute shroud lines.
The upper end of the bridle and, thus, all the hardware above it is stowed in the first compartment of the staged deployment bag.
So, assuming that you are configured in a conventional manner...
If my glider suspension fails I'm gonna accelerate at thirty feet per second squared until I can hit the silk, assuming I've got enough air under me. You're gonna drop a couple of inches and keep flying.
However - If anything happens to the harness suspension between the split and the carabiner/speed link... I've still got a parachute - you're dead.
As has been discussed ad nauseam, neither of those things is ever gonna happen - but if you wanna talk backup...
Yeah, I MIGHT get smacked in the back of the helmet by the keel in the highly unlikely combination of events of my actually needing a parachute and it not getting eaten up by the glider before it can function but I've got scarier stuff to lie awake worrying about - and one of them isn't the flying career's worth of extra drag I'm going to get routing all the way up to the regular connection.
And again, my parachute can handle fifteen hundred pounds more opening shock than yours and it's a lot easier to repack - or remove for training hill or dune flying.
Note: Just read in the latest magazine about a tandem paraglider accident which ended well but there was a lot of extra anxiety as a result of a parachute opening shock issue. Although it was determined that the failure was a consequence of a botched installation I'm thinking that hearts wouldn't have been pounding as hard or long had a Screamer been incorporated.
In the absence of information to the contrary I'm now proceeding on the assumption that all harnesses are Aussieable. So the six dollar speed link and a suspension modification which Shawn cites as six bits above that makes this a universally applicable retrofit.
A more thorough description of my suspension 'cause it's kinda cool and, despite my elimination of the glider's backup webbing, I've got a more solid system than most out there...
Starting from the top - one strap coming off the kingpost.
Speed link.
Single strap of doubled webbing suspending my pod harness, splits to the sides just above the body thus forming an upside down "Y". From the pilot's six, looks like (monospaced font, replace periods with spaces):
.....||
.....||
.....||
..../..\
...//..\\
..//....\\
.//......\\
//........\\
I've added two lengths of webbing running laterally below/across the split.
.....||
.....||
.....||
..../..\
...//--\\
..///()\\\
.///----\\\
////....\\\\
One prong of a second link is inserted through the (), spans the three starboard layers of webbing, and engages an extension of the parachute bridle outboard of the suspension.
.....||
.....||
.....||
..../..\
...//--\\
..///()\\\()
.///----\\\\
////....\\\\\
The bridle extension is lightly stitched to the outboard side of the starboard split and harness body until it enters the starboard aft corner of the container.
A bit after that a third link connects the extension to the bridle.
At the far end of the bridle a fourth link connects to the load limiter (Screamer).
The load limiter is connected to the hip bone - I mean - lower swivel strap...
swivel
upper swivel strap
parachute shroud lines.
The upper end of the bridle and, thus, all the hardware above it is stowed in the first compartment of the staged deployment bag.
So, assuming that you are configured in a conventional manner...
If my glider suspension fails I'm gonna accelerate at thirty feet per second squared until I can hit the silk, assuming I've got enough air under me. You're gonna drop a couple of inches and keep flying.
However - If anything happens to the harness suspension between the split and the carabiner/speed link... I've still got a parachute - you're dead.
As has been discussed ad nauseam, neither of those things is ever gonna happen - but if you wanna talk backup...
Yeah, I MIGHT get smacked in the back of the helmet by the keel in the highly unlikely combination of events of my actually needing a parachute and it not getting eaten up by the glider before it can function but I've got scarier stuff to lie awake worrying about - and one of them isn't the flying career's worth of extra drag I'm going to get routing all the way up to the regular connection.
And again, my parachute can handle fifteen hundred pounds more opening shock than yours and it's a lot easier to repack - or remove for training hill or dune flying.
Note: Just read in the latest magazine about a tandem paraglider accident which ended well but there was a lot of extra anxiety as a result of a parachute opening shock issue. Although it was determined that the failure was a consequence of a botched installation I'm thinking that hearts wouldn't have been pounding as hard or long had a Screamer been incorporated.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
I just reread the Skysailingtowing traffic inspired by the 2007/09/22 incident (as opposed to accident) and now realize - thanks to a Peter Birren post - that there's an option which would likely mitigate the 2007/10/18 scenario if one doesn't feel like springing for a dolly. The only sacrifice with which one is stuck is a preclusion of finger-on-trigger capability and, much as I like that extra margin, it doesn't seem to be a big issue in the real world.
When using the full Hewett/skyting bridle (two/one thirds pilot/glider tension distribution) a lanyard extends back from the release - positioned between the tow line and bridle - and is anchored on the harness. If the glider goes up a little and you don't, the lanyard is pulled automatically and you and very likely your glider come out smelling like roses ('cept for the embarrassment thing).
Yeah, if you hold onto the glider you may be able to defeat the auto release and end up in a bad situation but if you understand that you're not going to get dragged the instinct to hold on may be diminished. And you could/should train for that scenario. Take it out on the grass, get a buddy on the end of a few yards of tow line to substitute for the truck and/or winch, and run through a couple of drills.
Interesting bit of trivia concerning the incident...
Marc's situation at High Point was classic. Hooked in, problem with radio - mounting, unhooks to take care of it...
In the September near miss... Not hooked in, problem with radio - won't transmit, hook-in failure serendipitously stumbled upon in the course of dealing with the malfunction.
In this case the radio was the communications device which would have signaled, "Condition green, step on it." to the tow operator.
Looks like distractions and malfunctions ain't always the enemy.
I also noted that the Bill Floyd accident was not the first time that an unhooked tow pilot held on long enough to get seriously injured. So, as long as our procedures remain the same, we shouldn't be too surprised the next time one of these happens.
When using the full Hewett/skyting bridle (two/one thirds pilot/glider tension distribution) a lanyard extends back from the release - positioned between the tow line and bridle - and is anchored on the harness. If the glider goes up a little and you don't, the lanyard is pulled automatically and you and very likely your glider come out smelling like roses ('cept for the embarrassment thing).
Yeah, if you hold onto the glider you may be able to defeat the auto release and end up in a bad situation but if you understand that you're not going to get dragged the instinct to hold on may be diminished. And you could/should train for that scenario. Take it out on the grass, get a buddy on the end of a few yards of tow line to substitute for the truck and/or winch, and run through a couple of drills.
Interesting bit of trivia concerning the incident...
Marc's situation at High Point was classic. Hooked in, problem with radio - mounting, unhooks to take care of it...
In the September near miss... Not hooked in, problem with radio - won't transmit, hook-in failure serendipitously stumbled upon in the course of dealing with the malfunction.
In this case the radio was the communications device which would have signaled, "Condition green, step on it." to the tow operator.
Looks like distractions and malfunctions ain't always the enemy.
I also noted that the Bill Floyd accident was not the first time that an unhooked tow pilot held on long enough to get seriously injured. So, as long as our procedures remain the same, we shouldn't be too surprised the next time one of these happens.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
After a bit more rereading...
It appears that the 2007/09/22 pilot WAS using a Hewett bridle. In that case the driver/reporter needn't have worried about about dragging him. And I'm thinking that if the lanyard is routed over the basetube you'll be off tow before your feet leave the ground even if you hold on.
But anyway - check out the following time line...
---
2007/09/24 11:09:25
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
2007/09/22 incident reported:
>
This is an advanced pilot that has been towing for years, but he just started foot launching with a Hewett bridle and told me that with platform launches, the "hang check" was built in. this was the FIRST time in over 20 years that he had not done a hang check.
/
\
2007/09/24 12:14:38
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
Peter Birren reports:
>
We had this happen at Bong Park once, maybe 15-18 years ago...
"Glider's up. Go! Go! Go!"
It was strange at first seeing the glider fly up but the pilot was still feet on the ground. Somebody on a backup radio called to stop the vehicle when it became obvious that something was wrong.
Events as I recall them: glider lifted, release string pulled tight and triggered the release, pilot caught the base tube and let the glider settle onto his shoulders as it lost forward momentum. No glider or pilot damage - one of the beauties of foot launch static tow...
/
\
2007/09/24 17:27:09
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
From Portugal:
>
I know of one such accident and the guy was badly hurt, he was raised some meters before leting go. Recently during our pre take-off check we spoted one pilot not hooked in.
/
\
2007/09/24 23:22:34
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
From Toronto:
>
Mais uma razao para motivar todos os pilotos a utilizarem o dolly para voos solo: nao ha possibilidade de descolar de dolly sem estar ligado a asa. Alem de todas as outras vantajens a que ja referi num mail anterior.
/
\
2007/09/28 11:47:18
chgpa - Hook-In Check at Pulpit Fly-In
>
Does anyone know how the litigation was resolved in the (ten million dollar) suit filed by Bill Priday's survivors?
/
\
2007/10/20 07:42
hanggliding - Accident Report
From Las Vegas:
>
We had a bad incident a couple of days ago out towing on a dry lake bed...
/
\
2007/10/22 05:00
hanggliding - Accident Report
From Las Vegas:
>
Normally, the other two hang glider pilots that tow here (myself and another), use a tow cart.
/
\
---
Yeah, my Portuguese sucks too so I also skimmed by that one. But yesterday my curiosity got the better of me and, after running it through a couple of web translators and connecting some dots, here's my best shot:
>
Yet one more reason to motivate all pilots to use a dolly for all tow launches: it is impossible to come off a dolly without being connected to the wing. Add it to the others I referred to in a previous note.
/
\
1. WE HAVE A DESIGN FLAW.
2. We all know that we can TOTALLY neutralize it in all tow flights.
Yet, two incidents separated by twenty-four days and about five hundred miles, the first inconsequential, the second devastating.
Right after the first there's a good discussion, the danger of a pilot hanging on is highlighted. Two fixes are presented, one cheap and almost certain, another a hundred percent bulletproof.
The definite cure is available and probably within a twenty minute drive but is nevertheless - what? - left in the garage? And somebody else is needlessly mangled.
And we have the usual apparently next to useless set-your-watch-by-it discussion about being extra careful and watching out for our fellow pilots - instead of fixing the problem.
It appears that the 2007/09/22 pilot WAS using a Hewett bridle. In that case the driver/reporter needn't have worried about about dragging him. And I'm thinking that if the lanyard is routed over the basetube you'll be off tow before your feet leave the ground even if you hold on.
But anyway - check out the following time line...
---
2007/09/24 11:09:25
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
2007/09/22 incident reported:
>
This is an advanced pilot that has been towing for years, but he just started foot launching with a Hewett bridle and told me that with platform launches, the "hang check" was built in. this was the FIRST time in over 20 years that he had not done a hang check.
/
\
2007/09/24 12:14:38
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
Peter Birren reports:
>
We had this happen at Bong Park once, maybe 15-18 years ago...
"Glider's up. Go! Go! Go!"
It was strange at first seeing the glider fly up but the pilot was still feet on the ground. Somebody on a backup radio called to stop the vehicle when it became obvious that something was wrong.
Events as I recall them: glider lifted, release string pulled tight and triggered the release, pilot caught the base tube and let the glider settle onto his shoulders as it lost forward momentum. No glider or pilot damage - one of the beauties of foot launch static tow...
/
\
2007/09/24 17:27:09
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
From Portugal:
>
I know of one such accident and the guy was badly hurt, he was raised some meters before leting go. Recently during our pre take-off check we spoted one pilot not hooked in.
/
\
2007/09/24 23:22:34
skysailingtowing - Hook in failure
From Toronto:
>
Mais uma razao para motivar todos os pilotos a utilizarem o dolly para voos solo: nao ha possibilidade de descolar de dolly sem estar ligado a asa. Alem de todas as outras vantajens a que ja referi num mail anterior.
/
\
2007/09/28 11:47:18
chgpa - Hook-In Check at Pulpit Fly-In
>
Does anyone know how the litigation was resolved in the (ten million dollar) suit filed by Bill Priday's survivors?
/
\
2007/10/20 07:42
hanggliding - Accident Report
From Las Vegas:
>
We had a bad incident a couple of days ago out towing on a dry lake bed...
/
\
2007/10/22 05:00
hanggliding - Accident Report
From Las Vegas:
>
Normally, the other two hang glider pilots that tow here (myself and another), use a tow cart.
/
\
---
Yeah, my Portuguese sucks too so I also skimmed by that one. But yesterday my curiosity got the better of me and, after running it through a couple of web translators and connecting some dots, here's my best shot:
>
Yet one more reason to motivate all pilots to use a dolly for all tow launches: it is impossible to come off a dolly without being connected to the wing. Add it to the others I referred to in a previous note.
/
\
1. WE HAVE A DESIGN FLAW.
2. We all know that we can TOTALLY neutralize it in all tow flights.
Yet, two incidents separated by twenty-four days and about five hundred miles, the first inconsequential, the second devastating.
Right after the first there's a good discussion, the danger of a pilot hanging on is highlighted. Two fixes are presented, one cheap and almost certain, another a hundred percent bulletproof.
The definite cure is available and probably within a twenty minute drive but is nevertheless - what? - left in the garage? And somebody else is needlessly mangled.
And we have the usual apparently next to useless set-your-watch-by-it discussion about being extra careful and watching out for our fellow pilots - instead of fixing the problem.
Might I suggest pictures instead of ASCII diagrams?
Not pictures of components, pictures of a completed system.
A side note...
Your contention that a bolt on harness is a magic bullet is a touch off btw. There are sites that are dangerous to fly Aussie style. The DC area is devoid of such sites, but they do exist (I fly one quite regularly).
Jim
Not pictures of components, pictures of a completed system.
A side note...
Your contention that a bolt on harness is a magic bullet is a touch off btw. There are sites that are dangerous to fly Aussie style. The DC area is devoid of such sites, but they do exist (I fly one quite regularly).
Jim
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Yeah, maybe if there's some interest in reconfiguring suspensions, I'll get motivated enough to do some more photos. But for the time being I'll just amend the diagrams with a more detailed description of that junction.
There are two more layers of strap below the split with a speed link - which anchors the parachute - between them.
In the event of deployment...
The upper strap prevents the ripping up to the apex of the stitching which keeps the main harness suspension halves together - not that that would be a bad thing - might actually be a good thing. But this way I get to worry about the integrity of that region of suspension even less.
The lower strap just helps keep the link centered. No big deal if that doesn't happen either.
So to summarize... It's not important - ignore it.
The dolly (or platform) is a magic bullet. I've never said that about a bolt (or screw) on harness - just that it comes pretty damn close in most foot launch environments and circumstances in which failure to connect would likely have serious consequences.
I'm recommending holding onto the carabiner for use at the training hill, with scooter tow, on dunes, near surf, in high winds at launch and/or landing. I can envision a site at which the glider - minus pilot - needs to be snaked into a cliff launch with a lot of turbulence and limited space at which one doesn't want to be screwing around any more than necessary upon arrival.
It's been a long time since I've stepped off the north ramp at the Pulpit but I'm thinking that it's not much fun to be suited up in winter gear and connected while you're trying to Sherpa your glider up the steep steps in a nasty rotor.
Pity - that's a launch at which you really don't want to screw up. But on the other hand - I'm guessing that hook-in failures don't occur where pilots and crews are scared half shitless to begin with anyway. I'm thinking they ONLY happen in circumstances in which everything is easy and routine and nobody's worried about much of anything. Any evidence to the contrary?
Anyway... If I've missed a scenario or two I'd be happy to have additional input. But for something safely north of ninety-five percent of the relevant eastern launches and conditions that come to mind I'm comfortable saying that bolt-on (compelled Aussie) connections will reduce hook-in failures to statistical insignificance.
There are two more layers of strap below the split with a speed link - which anchors the parachute - between them.
In the event of deployment...
The upper strap prevents the ripping up to the apex of the stitching which keeps the main harness suspension halves together - not that that would be a bad thing - might actually be a good thing. But this way I get to worry about the integrity of that region of suspension even less.
The lower strap just helps keep the link centered. No big deal if that doesn't happen either.
So to summarize... It's not important - ignore it.
The dolly (or platform) is a magic bullet. I've never said that about a bolt (or screw) on harness - just that it comes pretty damn close in most foot launch environments and circumstances in which failure to connect would likely have serious consequences.
I'm recommending holding onto the carabiner for use at the training hill, with scooter tow, on dunes, near surf, in high winds at launch and/or landing. I can envision a site at which the glider - minus pilot - needs to be snaked into a cliff launch with a lot of turbulence and limited space at which one doesn't want to be screwing around any more than necessary upon arrival.
It's been a long time since I've stepped off the north ramp at the Pulpit but I'm thinking that it's not much fun to be suited up in winter gear and connected while you're trying to Sherpa your glider up the steep steps in a nasty rotor.
Pity - that's a launch at which you really don't want to screw up. But on the other hand - I'm guessing that hook-in failures don't occur where pilots and crews are scared half shitless to begin with anyway. I'm thinking they ONLY happen in circumstances in which everything is easy and routine and nobody's worried about much of anything. Any evidence to the contrary?
Anyway... If I've missed a scenario or two I'd be happy to have additional input. But for something safely north of ninety-five percent of the relevant eastern launches and conditions that come to mind I'm comfortable saying that bolt-on (compelled Aussie) connections will reduce hook-in failures to statistical insignificance.
I'd like to hear the details of the site for which Aussie is dangerous, Jim. My imagination is limited by what I've seen, so for Tad's example of not wanting to climb up the Pulpit ramp hooked in, I'd say the conditions are unflyable if a wire crew is not enough to keep you in control on the way up the ramp.
Brian Vant-Hull
I'll give a description a shot.
Please understand, this site's been flown, year round, commercially, for 15 years. In other words, it's been flown a lot by extremely experienced pilots. Deeming it "unsafe to fly aussie" isn't a casual observation. While I agree with the assessment, it was made long before I showed up.
It is a high wind site, flown with wire crews.
It is the top of a ridge on a finger of a mountain.
There are no trees (on the mountain) and the ridge is very steep on both sides. You setup on the backside of the ridge facing the ridge with your glider anchored to the ground (we have cable anchors). You are often setting up in very strong rotor (one of the reasons for setting up facing the ridge). They used to sometimes flat rig on the front side of the ridge till they folded up too many gliders.
You often rig with the assistance of your wire crew due to the strong rotor (glider wrestling anyone?). When you are done rigging, you and the wire crew carry the glider over the lip. To say that the glider encounters the main airstream at a high angle of attack is an understatement. Nor is it a "stepping into smooth air" operation since the tail is still in strong rotor. the airstream also spilts around the finger, so things can be rather switchy too. Gliders have been thrown. They also like to try to fly as the nose hits the airstream. Aside from the precariousness of the operation in general, if you were hooked in, it would pick you up off the ground... this is a steep lip.
So, why not get in when you're over the lip and the wire crew is holding the glider? There are 5 primary takeoff spots (yup, just the primary ones). We often switch spots due to weather conditions. Carrying the glider along the ridge while being hooked in is not only difficult, it is not advisable (read, not safe). And for some spots, you have to negotiate your way over a small fence (this is NZ, there are lots of sheep). You couldn't pay me to do this while being hooked in.
Jim
Please understand, this site's been flown, year round, commercially, for 15 years. In other words, it's been flown a lot by extremely experienced pilots. Deeming it "unsafe to fly aussie" isn't a casual observation. While I agree with the assessment, it was made long before I showed up.
It is a high wind site, flown with wire crews.
It is the top of a ridge on a finger of a mountain.
There are no trees (on the mountain) and the ridge is very steep on both sides. You setup on the backside of the ridge facing the ridge with your glider anchored to the ground (we have cable anchors). You are often setting up in very strong rotor (one of the reasons for setting up facing the ridge). They used to sometimes flat rig on the front side of the ridge till they folded up too many gliders.
You often rig with the assistance of your wire crew due to the strong rotor (glider wrestling anyone?). When you are done rigging, you and the wire crew carry the glider over the lip. To say that the glider encounters the main airstream at a high angle of attack is an understatement. Nor is it a "stepping into smooth air" operation since the tail is still in strong rotor. the airstream also spilts around the finger, so things can be rather switchy too. Gliders have been thrown. They also like to try to fly as the nose hits the airstream. Aside from the precariousness of the operation in general, if you were hooked in, it would pick you up off the ground... this is a steep lip.
So, why not get in when you're over the lip and the wire crew is holding the glider? There are 5 primary takeoff spots (yup, just the primary ones). We often switch spots due to weather conditions. Carrying the glider along the ridge while being hooked in is not only difficult, it is not advisable (read, not safe). And for some spots, you have to negotiate your way over a small fence (this is NZ, there are lots of sheep). You couldn't pay me to do this while being hooked in.
Jim
So, let me see if I've got this right...
We're meant to believe that this device is a critically important thing that could be out there saving lives and that you're tirelessly trying to convince people of this?
But you can't be bothered to take a photo?
(and you limit your discussion of it to the tiny world of DC pilots)
I'm no rocket scientist, but that doesn't line up.
We're meant to believe that this device is a critically important thing that could be out there saving lives and that you're tirelessly trying to convince people of this?
But you can't be bothered to take a photo?
(and you limit your discussion of it to the tiny world of DC pilots)
I'm no rocket scientist, but that doesn't line up.
Yep, that definitely surpassed my imagination.
jimrooney wrote:I'll give a description a shot.
Please understand, this site's been flown, year round, commercially, for 15 years. In other words, it's been flown a lot by extremely experienced pilots. Deeming it "unsafe to fly aussie" isn't a casual observation. While I agree with the assessment, it was made long before I showed up.
It is a high wind site, flown with wire crews.
It is the top of a ridge on a finger of a mountain.
There are no trees (on the mountain) and the ridge is very steep on both sides. You setup on the backside of the ridge facing the ridge with your glider anchored to the ground (we have cable anchors). You are often setting up in very strong rotor (one of the reasons for setting up facing the ridge). They used to sometimes flat rig on the front side of the ridge till they folded up too many gliders.
You often rig with the assistance of your wire crew due to the strong rotor (glider wrestling anyone?). When you are done rigging, you and the wire crew carry the glider over the lip. To say that the glider encounters the main airstream at a high angle of attack is an understatement. Nor is it a "stepping into smooth air" operation since the tail is still in strong rotor. the airstream also spilts around the finger, so things can be rather switchy too. Gliders have been thrown. They also like to try to fly as the nose hits the airstream. Aside from the precariousness of the operation in general, if you were hooked in, it would pick you up off the ground... this is a steep lip.
So, why not get in when you're over the lip and the wire crew is holding the glider? There are 5 primary takeoff spots (yup, just the primary ones). We often switch spots due to weather conditions. Carrying the glider along the ridge while being hooked in is not only difficult, it is not advisable (read, not safe). And for some spots, you have to negotiate your way over a small fence (this is NZ, there are lots of sheep). You couldn't pay me to do this while being hooked in.
Jim
Brian Vant-Hull
I'll try to get a photo next time we're up there.
I'm usually dealing with passengers, but not always.
Here's some more "say what now?" stuff for ya...
It overlooks Queenstown Airport. Like you could land on the runway (if you didn't mind being arrested). Talk about solidly in airspace ;)
We share the air with 737s.
We get clearance to take off. No kidding, we have radios and talk to the airport tower. Clearance, position updates (if we're soaring) and we let them know when we land. Kinda fun keying up for surface weather conditions... who needs a windsock?
I'm usually dealing with passengers, but not always.
Here's some more "say what now?" stuff for ya...
It overlooks Queenstown Airport. Like you could land on the runway (if you didn't mind being arrested). Talk about solidly in airspace ;)
We share the air with 737s.
We get clearance to take off. No kidding, we have radios and talk to the airport tower. Clearance, position updates (if we're soaring) and we let them know when we land. Kinda fun keying up for surface weather conditions... who needs a windsock?
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
The ramp at North (Fork) Mtn near Seneca Rocks, WV is one where being hooked in prior to getting on the ramp is difficult and potentially dangerous in wind due to the steepness of the steps and narrow nature of the ramp. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, but it won't be done by me.brianvh wrote:I'd like to hear the details of the site for which Aussie is dangerous, Jim. My imagination is limited by what I've seen, so for Tad's example of not wanting to climb up the Pulpit ramp hooked in, I'd say the conditions are unflyable if a wire crew is not enough to keep you in control on the way up the ramp.
JR
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Wow--is it even flown any more, and is it structurally intact--(I remember it was kinda shaky even years ago)?theflyingdude wrote:The ramp at North (Fork) Mtn near Seneca Rocks, WV is one where being hooked in prior to getting on the ramp is difficult and potentially dangerous in wind due to the steepness of the steps and narrow nature of the ramp. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, but it won't be done by me.brianvh wrote:I'd like to hear the details of the site for which Aussie is dangerous, Jim. My imagination is limited by what I've seen, so for Tad's example of not wanting to climb up the Pulpit ramp hooked in, I'd say the conditions are unflyable if a wire crew is not enough to keep you in control on the way up the ramp.
JR
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
Yes, we flew there Labor Day Monday and everyone made it down to Seneca Rocks that day. The ramp is still a little shaky even though we did make some improvements a few years back and still look it over pretty good anytime we go there to fly.Flying Lobster wrote:Wow--is it even flown any more, and is it structurally intact--(I remember it was kinda shaky even years ago)?theflyingdude wrote:The ramp at North (Fork) Mtn near Seneca Rocks, WV is one where being hooked in prior to getting on the ramp is difficult and potentially dangerous in wind due to the steepness of the steps and narrow nature of the ramp. I'm not suggesting it can't be done, but it won't be done by me.brianvh wrote:I'd like to hear the details of the site for which Aussie is dangerous, Jim. My imagination is limited by what I've seen, so for Tad's example of not wanting to climb up the Pulpit ramp hooked in, I'd say the conditions are unflyable if a wire crew is not enough to keep you in control on the way up the ramp.
JR
marc
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
No, Jim, you're nowhere near the vicinity of getting this right.
The material upon which you are commenting was a side issue addressing dampening opening shock load in a worst case scenario (and cleaning up the airflow a bit more).
It is in no way critically important 'cause:
1. Non aerobatic hang gliders need parachutes something close to never; and
2. When we do need them the gliders are usually spinning so fast that about half the time (?) there is no opening shock cause they've been eaten well before that gets to happen (may have a thought or two on that later).
With respect, however, to the central topic...
I don't know how you want to define "critically important".
If you look at foot launch hook-in failures in terms of a percentage launches they're minuscule. If you look at them with respect to the percentage of local pilots who get killed or majorly fucked up - It's huge (yeah, something along the magnitude of one percent is huge). And Marc getting beat up on a shallow rocky slope and his glider having a wing snapped in half is not totally insignificant either.
But I'll leave it to the individual readers to decide whether this issue is as critically important as we always say it is right after somebody gets his shin bones driven out the bottoms of his feet.
Yeah. I can be bothered to take a photo. I posted half a dozen high quality photos on my web site immediately prior to my initiation of this thread and provided the link in the first post. The problem is not that I can't be bothered to take a photo. The problem is that the two most prolific responders on this thread can't be bothered to look at them - or read the material more thoroughly than a quick skim of every third paragraph - before commenting.
I don't need to shoot the whole system. All the speed link does is replace the carabiner. And you need to add six inches of webbing to the glider suspension to make up the three inch difference between the spans of the original and replacement hardware. I can think of better ways to use pixels.
Also... I'm not tirelessly trying to convince people of squat. One tries to convince people that his brand of cigarette has a cooler, more refreshing taste than somebody else's. I'm (once again and with extremely limited success) tiredly trying to get people to think.
1. Is what we're doing now working?
2. If we keep doing the same things should we expect to get better results?
3. Can we totally eliminate hook-in failures by eliminating foot launch towing and have even more fun?
4. Can we greatly reduce the incidence of hook-in failures at appropriate slope launches through the use of bolt-on connections?
See Answer Key at end of transmission.
If anyone feels (at the zenith or nadir of some particular mood swing) that the points I'm making are, in fact, valid and not getting sufficient airplay then one should have something from a freedom to an obligation to voice them in other and/or wider fora. This is about as much fun as I feel like dealing with for the time being.
Conversely, if one feels the opposite, then that effort should be put into cutting them apart. To date only JD has voiced concerns along those lines and I think I've addressed them quite adequately.
Brian,
I'm extremely communist at launches like the Pulpit's north ramp, Woodstock, Hyner... I thinks it's real nice - especially in the winter - when someone who isn't suited up and loaded for bear gets in the control frame and maneuvers the glider to launch position with help on the wires as necessary. That way the pilot doesn't arrive at what's likely to be the most critical part of his day tired, out of breath, and possibly roasting.
I'll guessing that when the glider is secured by a wire crew on a windy ramp or slope launch position before the pilot arrives that we don't have hook-in failure potential. In that scenario more individual intelligence and less group stupidity are in play. The pilot IS going to connect and every member of the crew IS waiting for and focused on that action.
Here's a little snippet from Geoff Mumford posted two days after Bob's boulder bounce -
>
Regardless of what we've done in the past, it may be that we should agree to hook in only when we get the glider on the ramp (both at the Pulpit and High Rock). On stronger days it may not be safe to hook in below and walk it up.
<
So, again, the point... The bad news is that (compelled/bolt-on) Aussie is not a great idea for all foot launch circumstances. The good news is that such circumstances are not the ones at which you're likely to have a hook-in failure anyway.
I don't believe it's ever happened there but... Henson Gap is a classic death trap - the lighter the air the more so. Pool table plateau, beautiful setup area, level walk to the top of the radial ramp, self launchable. Deep valley rimmed with vertical escarpments. Great site for a bolt-on connection.
Answer Key
1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
The material upon which you are commenting was a side issue addressing dampening opening shock load in a worst case scenario (and cleaning up the airflow a bit more).
It is in no way critically important 'cause:
1. Non aerobatic hang gliders need parachutes something close to never; and
2. When we do need them the gliders are usually spinning so fast that about half the time (?) there is no opening shock cause they've been eaten well before that gets to happen (may have a thought or two on that later).
With respect, however, to the central topic...
I don't know how you want to define "critically important".
If you look at foot launch hook-in failures in terms of a percentage launches they're minuscule. If you look at them with respect to the percentage of local pilots who get killed or majorly fucked up - It's huge (yeah, something along the magnitude of one percent is huge). And Marc getting beat up on a shallow rocky slope and his glider having a wing snapped in half is not totally insignificant either.
But I'll leave it to the individual readers to decide whether this issue is as critically important as we always say it is right after somebody gets his shin bones driven out the bottoms of his feet.
Yeah. I can be bothered to take a photo. I posted half a dozen high quality photos on my web site immediately prior to my initiation of this thread and provided the link in the first post. The problem is not that I can't be bothered to take a photo. The problem is that the two most prolific responders on this thread can't be bothered to look at them - or read the material more thoroughly than a quick skim of every third paragraph - before commenting.
I don't need to shoot the whole system. All the speed link does is replace the carabiner. And you need to add six inches of webbing to the glider suspension to make up the three inch difference between the spans of the original and replacement hardware. I can think of better ways to use pixels.
Also... I'm not tirelessly trying to convince people of squat. One tries to convince people that his brand of cigarette has a cooler, more refreshing taste than somebody else's. I'm (once again and with extremely limited success) tiredly trying to get people to think.
1. Is what we're doing now working?
2. If we keep doing the same things should we expect to get better results?
3. Can we totally eliminate hook-in failures by eliminating foot launch towing and have even more fun?
4. Can we greatly reduce the incidence of hook-in failures at appropriate slope launches through the use of bolt-on connections?
See Answer Key at end of transmission.
If anyone feels (at the zenith or nadir of some particular mood swing) that the points I'm making are, in fact, valid and not getting sufficient airplay then one should have something from a freedom to an obligation to voice them in other and/or wider fora. This is about as much fun as I feel like dealing with for the time being.
Conversely, if one feels the opposite, then that effort should be put into cutting them apart. To date only JD has voiced concerns along those lines and I think I've addressed them quite adequately.
Brian,
I'm extremely communist at launches like the Pulpit's north ramp, Woodstock, Hyner... I thinks it's real nice - especially in the winter - when someone who isn't suited up and loaded for bear gets in the control frame and maneuvers the glider to launch position with help on the wires as necessary. That way the pilot doesn't arrive at what's likely to be the most critical part of his day tired, out of breath, and possibly roasting.
I'll guessing that when the glider is secured by a wire crew on a windy ramp or slope launch position before the pilot arrives that we don't have hook-in failure potential. In that scenario more individual intelligence and less group stupidity are in play. The pilot IS going to connect and every member of the crew IS waiting for and focused on that action.
Here's a little snippet from Geoff Mumford posted two days after Bob's boulder bounce -
>
Regardless of what we've done in the past, it may be that we should agree to hook in only when we get the glider on the ramp (both at the Pulpit and High Rock). On stronger days it may not be safe to hook in below and walk it up.
<
So, again, the point... The bad news is that (compelled/bolt-on) Aussie is not a great idea for all foot launch circumstances. The good news is that such circumstances are not the ones at which you're likely to have a hook-in failure anyway.
I don't believe it's ever happened there but... Henson Gap is a classic death trap - the lighter the air the more so. Pool table plateau, beautiful setup area, level walk to the top of the radial ramp, self launchable. Deep valley rimmed with vertical escarpments. Great site for a bolt-on connection.
Answer Key
1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
Wow, so this is what I get when I try to be civil?
Oh well, very nice. Enjoy being pissed. I don't care.
As they often say here on the internet....
Pics or it didn't happen.
I did "bother" to look at your pics. They're cryptic at best. How would I know they were component shots otherwise? Wasting pixels? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Riiiiight. Pics or it didn't happen pal.
I bring up the Oz Forum cuz I seriously believe you fear peer review.
It's easy to rant and rave here on this group because most here are very civil and there's no moderation. Not so over at Oz. There are also very highly qualified individuals lurking there. I honestly think you're afraid.
But of course you'll have an excuse for not going there.
Jim
Oh well, very nice. Enjoy being pissed. I don't care.
As they often say here on the internet....
Pics or it didn't happen.
I did "bother" to look at your pics. They're cryptic at best. How would I know they were component shots otherwise? Wasting pixels? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Riiiiight. Pics or it didn't happen pal.
I bring up the Oz Forum cuz I seriously believe you fear peer review.
It's easy to rant and rave here on this group because most here are very civil and there's no moderation. Not so over at Oz. There are also very highly qualified individuals lurking there. I honestly think you're afraid.
But of course you'll have an excuse for not going there.
Jim
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Dammit Jim--if Tad goes over there he's likely to do a mind-meld with Warren and then it's all over--the world will be doomed to a massive Google-weak-link matrix-conspiracy pilot carnage meltdown with mankind's only salvation through our Lord Ron Paul.jimrooney wrote:Wow, so this is what I get when I try to be civil?
Oh well, very nice. Enjoy being pissed. I don't care.
As they often say here on the internet....
Pics or it didn't happen.
I did "bother" to look at your pics. They're cryptic at best. How would I know they were component shots otherwise? Wasting pixels? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Riiiiight. Pics or it didn't happen pal.
I bring up the Oz Forum cuz I seriously believe you fear peer review.
It's easy to rant and rave here on this group because most here are very civil and there's no moderation. Not so over at Oz. There are also very highly qualified individuals lurking there. I honestly think you're afraid.
But of course you'll have an excuse for not going there.
Jim
PLEEEEASE stop it!
marc
Great Googly-moo!
... I've been "close to never" (i.e. under canopy) twice, just trying to fly straight and level. ... just lucky, I guess.Tad Eareckson wrote:...
1. Non aerobatic hang gliders need parachutes something close to never; and ...
And coincidentally, I have failed to hook in ... not once, but ... twice.
So y'all - 'bolt on' your mnemonic (or other) devices ... whatever they need to be.
For instance, mine is: I will not pick up my glider and move it unless I am hooked in.
'Spark ( counting my blessings )
p.s. maybe this will help you to remember not to forget ...
...
My friend Bill has lost both his legs from forgetting to hook in.
"Is what we're doing now working?"
I asked my girl-friend and she said yes. Phew!
"If we keep doing the same things should we expect to get better results?"
Depends on the "thing" you're doing. Yes if your car ain't broken in yet. No if we're talking about my previous relationship.
"Can we totally eliminate hook-in failures by eliminating foot launch towing and have even more fun?"
In my previous relationship, we indeed tried that and totally eliminated hook-in failures, but we ended up having no fun at all, so the correct answer here is no.
"Can we greatly reduce the incidence of hook-in failures at appropriate slope launches through the use of bolt-on connections?"
Interesting. How big a bolt at what slope angle are we talking?
I asked my girl-friend and she said yes. Phew!
"If we keep doing the same things should we expect to get better results?"
Depends on the "thing" you're doing. Yes if your car ain't broken in yet. No if we're talking about my previous relationship.
"Can we totally eliminate hook-in failures by eliminating foot launch towing and have even more fun?"
In my previous relationship, we indeed tried that and totally eliminated hook-in failures, but we ended up having no fun at all, so the correct answer here is no.
"Can we greatly reduce the incidence of hook-in failures at appropriate slope launches through the use of bolt-on connections?"
Interesting. How big a bolt at what slope angle are we talking?
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Jim,
I stand corrected. However...
Your request for photos instead of diagrams followed and pertained to my description of the parachute suspension system - which has - for all intents and purposes - nothing to do with the bolt-on option which is the central topic of this thread.
In response to that request I gave a more detailed description of the diagramed junction.
Given the context, your response - whether you intended it so or not - pertained to the discussion of that junction.
And yeah, again, with respect to the critical issue, I had already bothered to take six photos - all of quality and detail far above and beyond the call of duty. I don't know how much less cryptic I could have made them but try instead going (back) to:
http://www.para-gear.com/templates/para ... &parent=34
I was able to do that and realize the potential of a chunk of hardware designed to connect two one inch webbing components with no further illustration or explanation so it should be a breeze for you.
Now, to complete the image, envision your hang strap descending three inches farther below your keel than it does now.
Do you really need to see photographs of longer lengths of webbing? (Is anyone else having trouble with this concept?)
If none of that makes any sense get Brian, JD, or, I imagine, just about anybody else who's been following this discussion to explain it to you.
If you still can't make any sense of ones and zeros in any form you are perfectly free to click "add to basket" and experiment with the 3D version.
Yeah, I'm terrified of peer review. That's why I've spent the past couple of months learning everything I could about suspension, incidents and accidents related to it, developing and defining solutions, modifying my equipment, publicizing recommendations, and addressing every scrap of feedback that's come my way - even though it's an issue that has zero bearing on my own safety.
Wassamatta? Not enough quality talent in this forum to evaluate the proposals? Is the average literacy level better elsewhere? (Gawd, I hope so.) Aren't you sufficiently qualified?
No, I'm not in the least afraid of peer review. The problem is that the crap to peer review ratio seems to be at least ten to one regardless of the forum within which one involves oneself. And if the Land of Oz has fifty times the participation of this local scene I'm gonna have to deal with fifty times the manure. So, ya see my position?
The other problem is - I don't have a whole lot of peers with respect to some of my little niche issues. If I did a lot of these developments would have been a lot more widespread a lot earlier and somebody else would have thought of them first.
So, again, why don't YOU go global and do something to improve the safety record? Photograph your new speed link with webbing and post less cryptic views. Or is it more fun and less trouble to just stick around here and sit on the fence and/or disparage someone else's efforts?
Anyway... So far, here, we've got something of a consensus that this modification will make things safer.
>
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.
<
>
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.
<
Anybody got any better ideas?
Here's what it says in the USHGA Pilot Proficiency System requirements for all four practical ratings:
-
With EACH flight, demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in JUST PRIOR to launch.
-
>
I will not pick up my glider and move it unless I am hooked in.
<
Fine. That technique may well have served to preclude personal catastrophe for three decades' worth of a very high rate of launching.
It does not, however, fulfill the requirement.
Neither, as I've discussed before, does lying down in the harness prior to a foot launch.
I'm way too stupid to remember if I am, in fact, still hooked in between the time I've moved the glider to launch position and/or stood and lifted the glider and committed. When I'm about to stroll into the air fifty feet over a boulder pile I don't want to know that I was hooked in fifteen yards away and/or seconds ago - I wanna know I'm hooked in NOW!
The requirement - with which I heartily agree - says "JUST PRIOR". To me that means "JUST PRIOR". The just priorest I can make things is to induce a tug before a foot starts moving down the slope (or, if necessary, in the direction of the string tension).
If you've got a harness capable of having its suspension screwed up and/or you need to check clearance for some reason - go down, by all means. For most of us (regular glider/pod combo, single strap suspension) that doesn't accomplish much and it doesn't fulfill the requirement. And the problems that it best serves to reveal are not ones likely to get you hurt or killed.
I'd be very interested to hear of a hook-in failure incident ANYWHERE EVER involving a pilot who customarily performed a tug check.
Very sorry, but not terribly surprised, to hear the medical update. Maybe that WILL serve to sear a few synapses into useful circuitry.
Janni,
Thanks very much for your efforts in addressing this problem and helping to make this a safer sport.
I stand corrected. However...
Your request for photos instead of diagrams followed and pertained to my description of the parachute suspension system - which has - for all intents and purposes - nothing to do with the bolt-on option which is the central topic of this thread.
In response to that request I gave a more detailed description of the diagramed junction.
Given the context, your response - whether you intended it so or not - pertained to the discussion of that junction.
And yeah, again, with respect to the critical issue, I had already bothered to take six photos - all of quality and detail far above and beyond the call of duty. I don't know how much less cryptic I could have made them but try instead going (back) to:
http://www.para-gear.com/templates/para ... &parent=34
I was able to do that and realize the potential of a chunk of hardware designed to connect two one inch webbing components with no further illustration or explanation so it should be a breeze for you.
Now, to complete the image, envision your hang strap descending three inches farther below your keel than it does now.
Do you really need to see photographs of longer lengths of webbing? (Is anyone else having trouble with this concept?)
If none of that makes any sense get Brian, JD, or, I imagine, just about anybody else who's been following this discussion to explain it to you.
If you still can't make any sense of ones and zeros in any form you are perfectly free to click "add to basket" and experiment with the 3D version.
Yeah, I'm terrified of peer review. That's why I've spent the past couple of months learning everything I could about suspension, incidents and accidents related to it, developing and defining solutions, modifying my equipment, publicizing recommendations, and addressing every scrap of feedback that's come my way - even though it's an issue that has zero bearing on my own safety.
Wassamatta? Not enough quality talent in this forum to evaluate the proposals? Is the average literacy level better elsewhere? (Gawd, I hope so.) Aren't you sufficiently qualified?
No, I'm not in the least afraid of peer review. The problem is that the crap to peer review ratio seems to be at least ten to one regardless of the forum within which one involves oneself. And if the Land of Oz has fifty times the participation of this local scene I'm gonna have to deal with fifty times the manure. So, ya see my position?
The other problem is - I don't have a whole lot of peers with respect to some of my little niche issues. If I did a lot of these developments would have been a lot more widespread a lot earlier and somebody else would have thought of them first.
So, again, why don't YOU go global and do something to improve the safety record? Photograph your new speed link with webbing and post less cryptic views. Or is it more fun and less trouble to just stick around here and sit on the fence and/or disparage someone else's efforts?
Anyway... So far, here, we've got something of a consensus that this modification will make things safer.
>
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.
<
>
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.
<
Anybody got any better ideas?
Here's what it says in the USHGA Pilot Proficiency System requirements for all four practical ratings:
-
With EACH flight, demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in JUST PRIOR to launch.
-
>
I will not pick up my glider and move it unless I am hooked in.
<
Fine. That technique may well have served to preclude personal catastrophe for three decades' worth of a very high rate of launching.
It does not, however, fulfill the requirement.
Neither, as I've discussed before, does lying down in the harness prior to a foot launch.
I'm way too stupid to remember if I am, in fact, still hooked in between the time I've moved the glider to launch position and/or stood and lifted the glider and committed. When I'm about to stroll into the air fifty feet over a boulder pile I don't want to know that I was hooked in fifteen yards away and/or seconds ago - I wanna know I'm hooked in NOW!
The requirement - with which I heartily agree - says "JUST PRIOR". To me that means "JUST PRIOR". The just priorest I can make things is to induce a tug before a foot starts moving down the slope (or, if necessary, in the direction of the string tension).
If you've got a harness capable of having its suspension screwed up and/or you need to check clearance for some reason - go down, by all means. For most of us (regular glider/pod combo, single strap suspension) that doesn't accomplish much and it doesn't fulfill the requirement. And the problems that it best serves to reveal are not ones likely to get you hurt or killed.
I'd be very interested to hear of a hook-in failure incident ANYWHERE EVER involving a pilot who customarily performed a tug check.
Very sorry, but not terribly surprised, to hear the medical update. Maybe that WILL serve to sear a few synapses into useful circuitry.
Janni,
Thanks very much for your efforts in addressing this problem and helping to make this a safer sport.
Quoting Tad:
"I'll guessing that when the glider is secured by a wire crew on a windy ramp or slope launch position before the pilot arrives that we don't have hook-in failure potential. In that scenario more individual intelligence and less group stupidity are in play. The pilot IS going to connect and every member of the crew IS waiting for and focused on that action. "
So you want a full wire crew to wait around right on launch while all the bolting (as opposed to carabinering) is going on? I thought all of this would happen prior to an Aussie-style launch where the pilot attaches the harness, checks it, then climbs in to carry it to launch. It's a nice thought that every launch would be delayed a couple minutes while the pilot bolts in right there, but I'm afraid this hasn't got a snowball's chance of being adopted.
I CAN see the idea adopted of the glider with hooked in harness being carried up by wire crew, then joined by pilot, but on a windy day you've gotta really trust your friends with your stuff....
I don't think making a big hue and cry about eliminating footlaunch towing has any point on this listserver. We just don't do it here. That issue needs to be taken somewhere else.
"I'll guessing that when the glider is secured by a wire crew on a windy ramp or slope launch position before the pilot arrives that we don't have hook-in failure potential. In that scenario more individual intelligence and less group stupidity are in play. The pilot IS going to connect and every member of the crew IS waiting for and focused on that action. "
So you want a full wire crew to wait around right on launch while all the bolting (as opposed to carabinering) is going on? I thought all of this would happen prior to an Aussie-style launch where the pilot attaches the harness, checks it, then climbs in to carry it to launch. It's a nice thought that every launch would be delayed a couple minutes while the pilot bolts in right there, but I'm afraid this hasn't got a snowball's chance of being adopted.
I CAN see the idea adopted of the glider with hooked in harness being carried up by wire crew, then joined by pilot, but on a windy day you've gotta really trust your friends with your stuff....
I don't think making a big hue and cry about eliminating footlaunch towing has any point on this listserver. We just don't do it here. That issue needs to be taken somewhere else.
Brian Vant-Hull