From Tad:
"The carabiner has an auto locking gate. We have absolutely zero use for a locking gate. It only makes the glider more dangerous - in two ways. It makes it harder to separate from the glider in an emergency and it can damage the bridle of the parachute of those pilots who have adapted the bizarre practice of configuring the carabiner backwards."
Unless the spring fails I see no reason for the locking gate either. But then you say it makes it harder to separate from the glider in an emergency. Ummm...isn't pulling out an allen wrench even worse? Not a good argument in favor of the 'quick connect' system.
Of course the danger of training yourself to use the Aussie system is when you are in your harness, you've taught yourself everything's okay. That's why the redudancy of lifting the glider to feel the strap tighten is good.
Hook-in Failure discussion
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Re: Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot.
Brian Vant-Hull
The aussie system.
I use the aussie system of hooking the harness into the glider first. Being a bit of an airhead I decided shortly after learning to fly that I could eliminate my risk of going off unhooked with this method and that it was worth the trouble.
I also make it a habit to have the person giving me my hangcheck check out the entire sequence including legstraps, parachute pins, etc. One day my hangcheck partner caught the fact that I had missed one of the leg loops. Getting into the harness after getting into the harness at the steep slope at Woodstock is a pain in the rear. I wouldnt' have missed the leg loop had I hooked into the harness first.
The morale of the story is nothing is foolproof and redundant backups is smart.
----
By the way, at the risk of getting Tad going again, I think that if he can actually achieve something on the order of a 1% improvement in the sink rate of a glider by using a rigid suspension system it might be worth investigating by the world class pilots who depend upon such subtle advantages. Tad, if you could learn to sluff off your ranting and arm waving and focus on the experimentally testable parts of your argument without a lot of extraneous fluff, you might get an audience.
Dan T
I also make it a habit to have the person giving me my hangcheck check out the entire sequence including legstraps, parachute pins, etc. One day my hangcheck partner caught the fact that I had missed one of the leg loops. Getting into the harness after getting into the harness at the steep slope at Woodstock is a pain in the rear. I wouldnt' have missed the leg loop had I hooked into the harness first.
The morale of the story is nothing is foolproof and redundant backups is smart.
----
By the way, at the risk of getting Tad going again, I think that if he can actually achieve something on the order of a 1% improvement in the sink rate of a glider by using a rigid suspension system it might be worth investigating by the world class pilots who depend upon such subtle advantages. Tad, if you could learn to sluff off your ranting and arm waving and focus on the experimentally testable parts of your argument without a lot of extraneous fluff, you might get an audience.
Dan T
Re: Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot.
Hahahahahahahaha. I don't know what's worse.Come on people, if you are going to respond to this topic, then make it worth
reading, along the lines of Brian's and Ed's replies.
orf you don't think you'll get significantly better performance with the Dacron suspension webbing - use it because it's UV resistant and thus safer.If you don't think the speed link will make you significantly safer - use it because you'll get better performance.
orAnd now with the parent off to work if the baby nods off and isn't making any noises, it's all too easy to let it slip the mind.
Let's see. Discussion of the Aussie method for the umpteenth time, idiotic performance claims, it's not the pilot's fault as it's not the parents' fault and Tad is right on everything and all this is worth reading? Pathetic!Tad;I think you are right on all points.
#1 Rogue Pilot
Ensurring Hooked-In Launches - A Systems Design Approach
Chris came closer than anyone to addressing the issue when he said,
But then he veered off course with
Training of the people to use the "right" procedures is significant, but not a primary issue. First, you have to design the parts and procedures together, taking into account human factors (both physical and psychological) to optimize the effectiveness of the overall system and MINIMIZE the complexity of the procedures and attendant training.
David is correct: falling back on "it's a training issue" is a terrible practice, used mostly by engineers and designers who did a crappy job of designing in the proper human factors considerations.
When designing for safety it is essential to design the physical devices and the human interaction and procedures together. Only when that is completed do you address training. Truly safe designs incorporate features that make the "right" procedures a natural part of using the devices. Safe procedures should not be dependent on people making conscious choices to follow their formal training, especially when other factors such as pressure (rush) to act, external environment, distractions, etc. are predictably likely to interfere with either deciding to follow the procedures or actually following them.
(Note that in the case of unhooked launches, we have seen many examples of both cases - sometimes pilots have decided not to follow the procedures; sometimes they have intended to do so, but became distracted and failed to do so.)
So far, with our standard construction of harness mains, carabiners, and hang loops, we do not have an integrated SYSTEM of parts, people, and procedures that guarantees no unhooked launches. Tad, as buttressed by Brian, is right that we need a new system design to eliminate unhooked launches. I'm not sure what the best design would be. However, I can guaranty it will only work if it fully integrates all aspects of the three Ps and takes into account the many priorities of the pilots and the varied environments in which we fly.
Batman wrote: what we need to focus on is Training, Techniques, & Procedures (TTPs).
But then he veered off course with
From a system engineering and system design viewpoint, he (and we, the HG community) still are not where we need to be. The "system that works when used properly" does not refer to just the physical structure of the carabiner and hang loops. The system is made up the integrated whole combination of the physical hardware pieces, the person using the pieces, and the procedures the person uses; System = Parts + People + Procedures.Instead of changing a system that works when used properly, what needs to be changed is how a pilot is trained to make this not happen.
Training of the people to use the "right" procedures is significant, but not a primary issue. First, you have to design the parts and procedures together, taking into account human factors (both physical and psychological) to optimize the effectiveness of the overall system and MINIMIZE the complexity of the procedures and attendant training.
David is correct: falling back on "it's a training issue" is a terrible practice, used mostly by engineers and designers who did a crappy job of designing in the proper human factors considerations.
When designing for safety it is essential to design the physical devices and the human interaction and procedures together. Only when that is completed do you address training. Truly safe designs incorporate features that make the "right" procedures a natural part of using the devices. Safe procedures should not be dependent on people making conscious choices to follow their formal training, especially when other factors such as pressure (rush) to act, external environment, distractions, etc. are predictably likely to interfere with either deciding to follow the procedures or actually following them.
(Note that in the case of unhooked launches, we have seen many examples of both cases - sometimes pilots have decided not to follow the procedures; sometimes they have intended to do so, but became distracted and failed to do so.)
So far, with our standard construction of harness mains, carabiners, and hang loops, we do not have an integrated SYSTEM of parts, people, and procedures that guarantees no unhooked launches. Tad, as buttressed by Brian, is right that we need a new system design to eliminate unhooked launches. I'm not sure what the best design would be. However, I can guaranty it will only work if it fully integrates all aspects of the three Ps and takes into account the many priorities of the pilots and the varied environments in which we fly.
Cragin
Douglas.Cragin(AT)iCloud(DOT)com
Weather - https://sites.google.com/site/hgweather/
Flying - http://craginsflightblog.blogspot.com/
Kay's Stuff- http://kayshappenings.blogspot.com/
GO to 50 https://sites.google.com/site/hgmemories/Home/50th
Douglas.Cragin(AT)iCloud(DOT)com
Weather - https://sites.google.com/site/hgweather/
Flying - http://craginsflightblog.blogspot.com/
Kay's Stuff- http://kayshappenings.blogspot.com/
GO to 50 https://sites.google.com/site/hgmemories/Home/50th
Re: Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot.
Reasons why we need carabiners:
1) Convenience (yes, it's a valid reason)
2) Water landing
3) Launching at sites, although few in numbers, that don't bode well with the Aussie method
Every pilot can take steps to make the risk essentially zero. Every pilot can buy harnesses that bolt directly to the glider. Every pilot can use padlocks instead of 'biners and throw the keys away. We're got the methods, we've got the equipment. This is a phantom debate perpetuated by people who can't be bothered educating themselves about what's out there to minimize the risk.
1) Convenience (yes, it's a valid reason)
2) Water landing
3) Launching at sites, although few in numbers, that don't bode well with the Aussie method
Every pilot can take steps to make the risk essentially zero. Every pilot can buy harnesses that bolt directly to the glider. Every pilot can use padlocks instead of 'biners and throw the keys away. We're got the methods, we've got the equipment. This is a phantom debate perpetuated by people who can't be bothered educating themselves about what's out there to minimize the risk.
#1 Rogue Pilot
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot.
Interesting response by Craigin. Much as I regret jumping back into a "bridge to nowhere" conversation, I'd like to point out that Tad's bone (skeleton, actually) of contention is the entire connection system from harness to keel.
As for developing a system that incorporates as many varied conditions as possible, it's precisely the one that exists outside that realm of engineered possibilities that's eventually going to get somebody.
As a practical point, as far as training goes it's virtually impossible to instill the "Ausie" method early on (much as I wish I could) because most training harnesses cannot be ingressed or egressed while clipped to the glider. So this becomes a topic of "one day, when you grow up to fly a pod..."
As for quicklinks, in the early days paragliders came equipped with them, but were eventually superceded by carabiners for several reasons. For one, the angled gate locks were found to be highly abrasive on webbing loops. Two, unless tightened hard--in which case they are very difficult to later loosen, the locking mechanism was very prone to "unlocking" itself. This can easily happen with threads down or with slight vibration--I personally had quicklinks unlock themselves while being platform towed--the vibrations transmitted through the system were enough to get the screw gate to open. Very scary to be hanging by a small oval gate with questionable strength with very little to keep your suspension strap from slipping off. Lastly, these things are now mass-produced in China and elsewhere--and despite the rated strength stamped on them I would be VERY suspicious of these stated strengths. I go with equipment specifically manufactured for the purpose.
The discussion about "overkill" on the webbing suspension is the one that gets my goat the most. I have spent much of my long "recreational life" relying on various nylon suspension mediums to keep me alive and feel that the advice towards minimalism is a scary one.
Nylon webbing, just like your glider's dacron sail, is not simply a stated strength which vastly exceeds the load capability of the glider's frame--unless you have a lifetime supply of them and change them out every time you fly. In reality, they degrade in strength quite rapidly, depending upon variations such as exposure to UV and abrasion/rubbing. Looked at that way, it is not unreasonable to build in "overkill" anticipating that the average pilot is not going to change their hang strap or harness main every few months. A faded strap that is several years old can easily loose half it's load bearing strength, but more importantly will be more vulnerable to abrasion and cutting. The analogy to climber's protection is not a very accurate one--more appropriate would be to compare a suspension system to a static top-rope anchor, which never really sustains impact forces but is subject to wear over surfaces and continous body-weight loads. These have been known to fail, and a climber relying on a single anchor loop would be considered crazy.
So when I go fly, and I look up at my suspension system, and contemplate a single loop of thin poly hand sewn with floss to be the only thing between me and a free-fall into eternity, would I fly with an engineer's confidence or be worried sick until I safely land on the ground?
I'd never launch to begin with.
marc
As for developing a system that incorporates as many varied conditions as possible, it's precisely the one that exists outside that realm of engineered possibilities that's eventually going to get somebody.
As a practical point, as far as training goes it's virtually impossible to instill the "Ausie" method early on (much as I wish I could) because most training harnesses cannot be ingressed or egressed while clipped to the glider. So this becomes a topic of "one day, when you grow up to fly a pod..."
As for quicklinks, in the early days paragliders came equipped with them, but were eventually superceded by carabiners for several reasons. For one, the angled gate locks were found to be highly abrasive on webbing loops. Two, unless tightened hard--in which case they are very difficult to later loosen, the locking mechanism was very prone to "unlocking" itself. This can easily happen with threads down or with slight vibration--I personally had quicklinks unlock themselves while being platform towed--the vibrations transmitted through the system were enough to get the screw gate to open. Very scary to be hanging by a small oval gate with questionable strength with very little to keep your suspension strap from slipping off. Lastly, these things are now mass-produced in China and elsewhere--and despite the rated strength stamped on them I would be VERY suspicious of these stated strengths. I go with equipment specifically manufactured for the purpose.
The discussion about "overkill" on the webbing suspension is the one that gets my goat the most. I have spent much of my long "recreational life" relying on various nylon suspension mediums to keep me alive and feel that the advice towards minimalism is a scary one.
Nylon webbing, just like your glider's dacron sail, is not simply a stated strength which vastly exceeds the load capability of the glider's frame--unless you have a lifetime supply of them and change them out every time you fly. In reality, they degrade in strength quite rapidly, depending upon variations such as exposure to UV and abrasion/rubbing. Looked at that way, it is not unreasonable to build in "overkill" anticipating that the average pilot is not going to change their hang strap or harness main every few months. A faded strap that is several years old can easily loose half it's load bearing strength, but more importantly will be more vulnerable to abrasion and cutting. The analogy to climber's protection is not a very accurate one--more appropriate would be to compare a suspension system to a static top-rope anchor, which never really sustains impact forces but is subject to wear over surfaces and continous body-weight loads. These have been known to fail, and a climber relying on a single anchor loop would be considered crazy.
So when I go fly, and I look up at my suspension system, and contemplate a single loop of thin poly hand sewn with floss to be the only thing between me and a free-fall into eternity, would I fly with an engineer's confidence or be worried sick until I safely land on the ground?
I'd never launch to begin with.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Been out of reach of a connection for several days. Depending upon your viewpoint - sorry or you're welcome.
Ed,
Congratulations on independently coming up with an idea that others have kicked around following one or another of our previous disasters. Lemme see if can recall some of the reasons which contributed to it never getting off the ground and/or come up with some of my own.
If you had that thing whining all the time in the setup area that the harness wasn't connected to the glider you or someone nearby would soon do to it what I once saw David Letterman do to the parked car with anti-theft alarm going off (it wasn't pretty).
That means you'd have to arm it at some point. Now you've got a human back in the equation. So you might just as well hook the harness to the glider and go Aussie as throw a switch.
Cars generate and store their own electricity and need it to start the engine without forcing you through some sort of hoop. With gliders you'd have to worry about the battery and the false sense of security it could give when dead.
And you could do the job a lot simpler as was proposed in the magazine a long time ago - if there's no carabiner weighting the suspension there's a flag popped down at the nose. That was a good system but nobody ever used it because they were never gonna need it.
Brian,
Yeah, pulling out an Allen wrench is a helluva lot harder. It's way more of a pain in the ass than pulling it out to secure the connection before the flight.
My point about the carabiner is that a locking mechanism has nothing but downsides - weight, drag, price, potential danger to the parachute bridle, complication and delay of the separation from the glider - and you sure don't want to be using one on the dunes. Sand does nothing to enhance the operation and Jockeys Ridge is no place for the Aussie method anyway.
Yeah - The Allen wrench has that downside. The upsides are weight, price, won't/can't damage or degrade webbing, compels the Aussie method, and requires an effort you WILL remember doing or not before flight.
If you're flying around surf and/or Grizzlies you might want to consider using a carabiner. If you're in a REAL emergency you might want to consider hook knifing your suspension over all other options. I just don't think those situations come up often enough to be worth talking about.
Anybody got one? I sure don't.
P.S. Even if the spring fails (which it doesn't) you're gonna have a REAL hard time getting loose from the glider while aloft.
Matthew,
Doing a "hang" check is standard protocol like incorporating backup suspension is. The USHGA SOPs say nothing about it. They do require that you to establish that you are hooked in immediately prior to flight. Works for me.
David,
First paragraph - yeah.
Second...
Keep a carabiner in the bag - I do.
I also have a set of short loops of webbing.
Using combinations of these loops, speed links, the carabiner I can change my height over a basetube to just about anything I need.
I also designed and put together a kingpost suspension assembly that I can adjust to accommodate anything you can put under it.
We also have the ladder suspension option available.
I don't see the LZ issue as a big problem for non Chris Starbuck sorts of people. The performance nuts are already committing themselves to that post flight restriction.
Dan,
The totally black and white issue of release performance lends itself perfectly to experimental testing but that data hasn't made much of a dent.
The only way you're gonna get meaningful data on this issue is to get a lot more bolt-on suspensions flying for a long time and see which foot launchers are getting killed and which aren't. About all we can do at this stage is think this through as best we can, put stuff in the air, and get some impressions and educated guesses.
P.S. I may not yet have anybody making equipment changes but it does seem that I have an audience.
Cragin,
Yep.
Janni,
This debate is actually being perpetuated by the people who HAVE bothered to educate themselves about what's out there to minimize the risk. Many of the ones who didn't are dead and the survivors are all at great risk. We debaters are working on behalf of family members of the former who don't want the deaths of their kin to be as meaningless as they are now and of the latter so that they don't have to get phone calls or watch their dads crushed to lifeless pulps on the beautiful scenery below.
Lauren may have been righter than I had hoped.
Marc,
Again...
Nobody is talking about QUICK LINKS. They are in no way related to this discussion. Please go back and check the references.
Your discussion concerning webbing does not really belong in this topic either but - what the hell - I'll respond to it here anyway.
Even when we had those idiot no-skid strips glued to our keels and abrading or one inch tubular nylon hang loops like there was no tomorrow - nobody ever fell from his glider or into a backup loop 'cause the webbing failed.
As was a major point of my other recent topic - mountaineering has WAY less relevance to our sport than most people think. Hang gliding webbing - despite the abuse it gets from people baking it in the sun and trying to cut through it with abraded polypropylene tie-down ropes that have taken on the characteristics of barbed wire - DOES NOT FAIL. Never has, never will.
The reason you're paranoid about the webbing you're looking up at is because you're thinking ends with your line of sight. If you start contemplating the quarter inch bolt which is the only thing maintaining the relationship between your cross spar and your leading edge then it will finally dawn on you that you really do need to have full confidence in someone else's engineering.
Now perhaps we can return to dealing with the real, clear, and present threat instead of the imaginary ones?
Ed,
Congratulations on independently coming up with an idea that others have kicked around following one or another of our previous disasters. Lemme see if can recall some of the reasons which contributed to it never getting off the ground and/or come up with some of my own.
If you had that thing whining all the time in the setup area that the harness wasn't connected to the glider you or someone nearby would soon do to it what I once saw David Letterman do to the parked car with anti-theft alarm going off (it wasn't pretty).
That means you'd have to arm it at some point. Now you've got a human back in the equation. So you might just as well hook the harness to the glider and go Aussie as throw a switch.
Cars generate and store their own electricity and need it to start the engine without forcing you through some sort of hoop. With gliders you'd have to worry about the battery and the false sense of security it could give when dead.
And you could do the job a lot simpler as was proposed in the magazine a long time ago - if there's no carabiner weighting the suspension there's a flag popped down at the nose. That was a good system but nobody ever used it because they were never gonna need it.
Brian,
Yeah, pulling out an Allen wrench is a helluva lot harder. It's way more of a pain in the ass than pulling it out to secure the connection before the flight.
My point about the carabiner is that a locking mechanism has nothing but downsides - weight, drag, price, potential danger to the parachute bridle, complication and delay of the separation from the glider - and you sure don't want to be using one on the dunes. Sand does nothing to enhance the operation and Jockeys Ridge is no place for the Aussie method anyway.
Yeah - The Allen wrench has that downside. The upsides are weight, price, won't/can't damage or degrade webbing, compels the Aussie method, and requires an effort you WILL remember doing or not before flight.
If you're flying around surf and/or Grizzlies you might want to consider using a carabiner. If you're in a REAL emergency you might want to consider hook knifing your suspension over all other options. I just don't think those situations come up often enough to be worth talking about.
Anybody got one? I sure don't.
P.S. Even if the spring fails (which it doesn't) you're gonna have a REAL hard time getting loose from the glider while aloft.
Matthew,
Doing a "hang" check is standard protocol like incorporating backup suspension is. The USHGA SOPs say nothing about it. They do require that you to establish that you are hooked in immediately prior to flight. Works for me.
David,
First paragraph - yeah.
Second...
Keep a carabiner in the bag - I do.
I also have a set of short loops of webbing.
Using combinations of these loops, speed links, the carabiner I can change my height over a basetube to just about anything I need.
I also designed and put together a kingpost suspension assembly that I can adjust to accommodate anything you can put under it.
We also have the ladder suspension option available.
I don't see the LZ issue as a big problem for non Chris Starbuck sorts of people. The performance nuts are already committing themselves to that post flight restriction.
Dan,
The totally black and white issue of release performance lends itself perfectly to experimental testing but that data hasn't made much of a dent.
The only way you're gonna get meaningful data on this issue is to get a lot more bolt-on suspensions flying for a long time and see which foot launchers are getting killed and which aren't. About all we can do at this stage is think this through as best we can, put stuff in the air, and get some impressions and educated guesses.
P.S. I may not yet have anybody making equipment changes but it does seem that I have an audience.
Cragin,
Yep.
Janni,
This debate is actually being perpetuated by the people who HAVE bothered to educate themselves about what's out there to minimize the risk. Many of the ones who didn't are dead and the survivors are all at great risk. We debaters are working on behalf of family members of the former who don't want the deaths of their kin to be as meaningless as they are now and of the latter so that they don't have to get phone calls or watch their dads crushed to lifeless pulps on the beautiful scenery below.
Lauren may have been righter than I had hoped.
Marc,
Again...
Nobody is talking about QUICK LINKS. They are in no way related to this discussion. Please go back and check the references.
Your discussion concerning webbing does not really belong in this topic either but - what the hell - I'll respond to it here anyway.
Even when we had those idiot no-skid strips glued to our keels and abrading or one inch tubular nylon hang loops like there was no tomorrow - nobody ever fell from his glider or into a backup loop 'cause the webbing failed.
As was a major point of my other recent topic - mountaineering has WAY less relevance to our sport than most people think. Hang gliding webbing - despite the abuse it gets from people baking it in the sun and trying to cut through it with abraded polypropylene tie-down ropes that have taken on the characteristics of barbed wire - DOES NOT FAIL. Never has, never will.
The reason you're paranoid about the webbing you're looking up at is because you're thinking ends with your line of sight. If you start contemplating the quarter inch bolt which is the only thing maintaining the relationship between your cross spar and your leading edge then it will finally dawn on you that you really do need to have full confidence in someone else's engineering.
Now perhaps we can return to dealing with the real, clear, and present threat instead of the imaginary ones?
Re: Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot.
Why not just keep the carabiner in your hand when unhooked? If that's too awkward then make a length of string (preferably of a bright color) in a loop that you can attach and use instead. Maybe even make it a bit short to keep it just awkward enough that picking up the glider is possible but awkward/uncomfortable to do with it around your thumb. Plus it makes finding your carabiner easy when it's unhooked =P I'm sure the aussie method works well but I don't know if at some point I would be frustrated I forgot something and just unhook anyway. Maybe someone already suggested this I just don't remember reading/hearing about it.
Re: Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot.
Or even better it could be elastic so that it always tugged at your hand.
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
As an Aussie advocate, my reply would be that if you are in such a rush that you have to unhook, you are not in an appropriate mental state to launch.
Many people do have the rule that if they unhook they keep the biner in their hand, and even constantly murmer "I'm not hooked in...I'm not hooked in...". These are the non-Aussie pilots. This also highlights the danger of the Aussie method, if somehow you DO unhook, you have no built in safeguards to make sure you remember it.
Many people do have the rule that if they unhook they keep the biner in their hand, and even constantly murmer "I'm not hooked in...I'm not hooked in...". These are the non-Aussie pilots. This also highlights the danger of the Aussie method, if somehow you DO unhook, you have no built in safeguards to make sure you remember it.
Brian Vant-Hull
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
If it's true that we are all at
This discussion is also hampered by the fact that we usually don't learn about the exact circumstance that led to the pilot's FTHI accident. Were they flying in a group or alone? Were they depressed, drugged or going through a painful life episode (divorce, financial worries, sickness)? Was there a history of behavioral conduct unreconcilable with the demands of aviation? Or were they just regular HG pilots who happened to be absent-minded at the wrong place at the wrong time? I'd much prefer listening to pilots who survived FTHI and the measures they have taken to make it a one-time boner.
, if it's true that our methods are fundamentally flawed and if it's true that it can happen to anyone, then why does it not happen more often and why do you guys still fly with carabiners? Has a female pilot ever forgotten to hook in? I've logged about 200 mountain flights and not even come close to forgetting to check, let alone forgetting to hook in. I have in 2 years of intensive mountain flying not witnessed one case where a pilot did. So multiply that number by 10 and you have 2000 mountain flights. One case, had there been one, would translate into a 0.05% chance for the club people in 2 years or a 0.025 % chance per year or 0.0025% per pilot per year. We've had 2 deaths as a direct result of FTHI worldwide in the last 5 years, which means the odds are orders of magnitude smaller. Your chance to die in a plane accident in 2004 was 1/1,000,000. For the sake of my argument, I will say that your odds to die from FTHI are in the same vicinity. I do not object to pilots changing their methods and equipment as I do not object to regular folks suffering from *fear of flying* paranoia.great risk
This discussion is also hampered by the fact that we usually don't learn about the exact circumstance that led to the pilot's FTHI accident. Were they flying in a group or alone? Were they depressed, drugged or going through a painful life episode (divorce, financial worries, sickness)? Was there a history of behavioral conduct unreconcilable with the demands of aviation? Or were they just regular HG pilots who happened to be absent-minded at the wrong place at the wrong time? I'd much prefer listening to pilots who survived FTHI and the measures they have taken to make it a one-time boner.
#1 Rogue Pilot
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
All I know is the way I was trained. In my mind from day one is " Hooked in, Pitch, Balance and Clear" Richard taught me that and said that is the rule to live by and the rest you will learn. I can say that when we fly here, the CHGPA members always chime in with "Are you hooked in?" and not just from one person, also "Did you do a hang check?". I just respond yes, yes and yes, sometimes you will hear "Who did it?" and someone always speaks up. I am thankful we have a great community here and could not ask for more.
Gene
Gene
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
I know for sure of 3 cases in our immediately community in the last 10 years, and I think there have been more.
Marc Fink can talk about his, which fortunately was on a slope launch and he could roll to safety.
Bob Gillesie was in a rush to fly on what looked like a great day, and had two highly experienced pilots on wire crew. Because he was highly experienced as well, nobody questioned him when he started going up launch.
Bill Priday had a history of not doing hang checks, and pushed his way up front, waving off those who offered to give him a hang check.
I'd say 60 active pilots, => (3 failures)/{(60 pilots)(10 years)} = 1/200 chance of hook in failure per pilot per year. 20 year career, 10% chance of a hook in failure. It can be improved.
It's a bit different every time. The discussion surrounding Bill's failure focussed on a history of turning down hang checks. Earlier discussions focussed on situations that interrupt the launch routine. That's why I say if you are so rushed you have to unhook instead of climb out of your harness, you are not in a mental state to launch. That hasn't prevented me from launching in bad circumstances, but I hope I'm getting better.
Hopefully Marc will come online and describe what happened to him. I remember hearing of a case where an aussie pilot unhooked and so ended up launching unhooked, don't know if that was him.
Marc Fink can talk about his, which fortunately was on a slope launch and he could roll to safety.
Bob Gillesie was in a rush to fly on what looked like a great day, and had two highly experienced pilots on wire crew. Because he was highly experienced as well, nobody questioned him when he started going up launch.
Bill Priday had a history of not doing hang checks, and pushed his way up front, waving off those who offered to give him a hang check.
I'd say 60 active pilots, => (3 failures)/{(60 pilots)(10 years)} = 1/200 chance of hook in failure per pilot per year. 20 year career, 10% chance of a hook in failure. It can be improved.
It's a bit different every time. The discussion surrounding Bill's failure focussed on a history of turning down hang checks. Earlier discussions focussed on situations that interrupt the launch routine. That's why I say if you are so rushed you have to unhook instead of climb out of your harness, you are not in a mental state to launch. That hasn't prevented me from launching in bad circumstances, but I hope I'm getting better.
Hopefully Marc will come online and describe what happened to him. I remember hearing of a case where an aussie pilot unhooked and so ended up launching unhooked, don't know if that was him.
Brian Vant-Hull
-
Lauren Tjaden
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:27 pm
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
David,
You said "Think of having just landed in the LZ. You want to move your glider. You either have to move it while still hooked in, or you move it after you "disrobe." Not the easiest way to move the glider. Anything else?"
The obvious downside that comes to my mind is a situation where a pilot needs to unhook quickly; for instance, when landing in water, or in high winds. In high winds I often pull the glider nose down immediately after landing and then unhook before moving (for safety, of course), all while holding the nose wires with one hand. I have also been blown over after landing in high winds, and being able to unhook quickly was important.
That being said, launching unhooked claims many lives, and I would agree that no matter how careful one is, it is always a possiblity. Being bolted in would eliminate these accidents.
Lauren
You said "Think of having just landed in the LZ. You want to move your glider. You either have to move it while still hooked in, or you move it after you "disrobe." Not the easiest way to move the glider. Anything else?"
The obvious downside that comes to my mind is a situation where a pilot needs to unhook quickly; for instance, when landing in water, or in high winds. In high winds I often pull the glider nose down immediately after landing and then unhook before moving (for safety, of course), all while holding the nose wires with one hand. I have also been blown over after landing in high winds, and being able to unhook quickly was important.
That being said, launching unhooked claims many lives, and I would agree that no matter how careful one is, it is always a possiblity. Being bolted in would eliminate these accidents.
Lauren
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
This number is of course way too high since we didn't have 150 hook-in-failures / 3000 pilots in the US in the last 10 years.I'd say 60 active pilots, => (3 failures)/{(60 pilots)(10 years)} = 1/200 chance of hook in failure per pilot per year. 20 year career, 10% chance of a hook in failure. It can be improved.
Of course you can go back 10-20 years, pick a bad year and claim FTHI claims many lives and come up with stats that may be even higher than 10% per flying career.
Even if it was 1/200 per pilot per year, what does that really mean? If the average pilot gets 25 mountain flights per year, your chance would be 1/5000 per flight or 0.0002%. Based on Tad's, Brian's, Lauren's and other pilots' assumption that FTHI is matter of chance you can bring this up to 100% if you just fly enough. In other words, every time we launch we roll the dice. Or, our previous flight has increased our chances to forget for our next flight. But that's not how it works. There's a lot of selection at work that keeps this number down. To name a few: Training, knowledge, awareness, hang checks, wire-crew etc. Every time you launch all bets are off and your chance to forget is still 0.0002%.
Can/should this be improved? Sure, what can/should not be improved? Does 0.0002% prove that our methods of hooking in are fundamentally wrong? No. Does it demonstrate that everybody is at great risk of dying from FTHI? No. It actually shows that the carabiner method is, everything considered, a very elegant and safe solution.
While Tad inflates risks and safety (or performance) gains to the point where they become lies he also raises awareness. That's a good thing. It can be a bad thing if pilots all of a sudden start flying with phony speed links or god knows what, which may or may not fail after a year's time of continuous use. Take HG seriously, stay focussed, cut the crap and you'll be just fine.
#1 Rogue Pilot
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Sorry 'bout the response lags. I'm now back at my slow but steady wire.
Dan,
Oops, realized the next day that the thrust of your last paragraph was the stretch issue.
That's gonna start happening as soon as just one hot competitor who also has a brain goes "Oh yeah...".
Mark,
The topic of this thread was "Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot." Although the initial post referenced a discussion of a fatality it was never an accident report.
The discussion I started directly addressed the topic and is, essentially, being careful out there isn't fixing the problem. Let's, instead, try actually fixing the problem - for something new and different.
Kirk,
My feeling is that if you throw something annoying/inconvenient into the pot people aren't gonna do it.
I myself am not an Aussie fanatic 'cause my own method is to adhere to the USHGA SOPs and I'm one hundred percent confident that - consequently - I will never have a problem.
Woodstock, good breeze coming in. I prefer to set and suit up in whatever godforsaken little patch to which I'm able to lay claim then have a couple of helpful souls carry and guide my glider through the maize of trees, rocks, and rattlesnakes to the launch pad where I connect and go. Saves me a lot of roasting in my harness and energy reserves I'd rather have available for starting my launch run.
I need other reasons to go Aussie - something along the lines of... It's easier to get into my harness with the glider lifting it a bit or it's something of a pain in the ass to make a bolt-on connection while suited up.
Part of a bolt-on system's safety spin-off is that it encourages Aussie - I'd lose that in the above scenario. But I'm still left with a big chunk of you're much more aware of your done it / haven't status.
Brian,
Last sentence of your 09/15 post - Yeah, that's why you follow the SOPs no matter what you've used or done prior to launch.
Gene,
You can answer:
Yeah, I'm hooked in.
Yeah, I did a hang check.
Mike held my nose while I went down for a hang check.
None of those responses is great evidence that you are, in fact, hooked in.
EVERYBODY who starts his launch run honestly believes he his hooked in.
Of the tiny number of individuals who aren't some actually have performed checks. Looking at the run of local crowd incidents between 1998/01/10 and the present, a quarter of them did a check. The problem was that he did it at a point in his preflight procedures at which it was totally irrelevant and, apparently, had never flown in compliance with the requirements of the Pilot Proficiency System which cover everything from Hang I on. I wonder if he's doing so now?
I've shifted my thinking a bit in the course of this discussion.
The Aussie method is - generally speaking - a better way of doing business but...
There are those - myself included - who do not feel it is safe and/or appropriate in all circumstances so it's never gonna become as universal as - for example - dive recovery features on gliders.
As Brian pointed out... If you cheat using that method - and humans are prone to cheating - you've got this brain circuitry telling you that if you're in your harness you're connected to your glider.
Bolt-on / speed link encourage Aussie but the main reasons you use them are 'cause they're:
designed to do the job;
cleaner and lighter; and
idiot resistant.
The way to beat this thing is to follow the SOPs. You use the speed link to cut some slack for the folk who don't before you start beating them with tire irons to get them compliant.
Lauren,
Thanks for weighing in.
Yeah, there are conditions and circumstances in which the ability to separate quickly and easily is a major plus. If those are anticipated - go ahead and use the carabiner.
You've had all that desert experience that's a big missing chunk of my background but in all of my eastern US mountain and flatlands flying I can't recall of an instance in which I landed and having to exit the harness first would have been a problem.
I have, however, managed to wind up turtled on the dunes a few times and in those circumstances a carabiner is no quick ticket to restoring one's dignity.
The pilot has to grab something to climb and put considerable slack in the suspension before he can start thinking about going anywhere. And even after that there must be a hand available to open and disengage the carabiner.
I recall an incident in which a person landed in ankle deep water and was never seen again. In that era he would almost certainly have been using a nonlocking aluminum carabiner but he still was unable to clear himself from the glider before the next wave came along.
I don't imagine the percentage of people using bolt-on suspension is yet very high but - on the other hand - thems what are are likely to be your major air junkies flying a lot and in a wide range of geography and associated local conditions. As of yet I'm not hearing much in the way of problems which carabiners would mitigate.
Note: The speed link has an advantage that - with a small, clean, cheap modification to your glider suspension - you can easily switch back and forth to/from the carabiner as situations may compel.
Janni,
No, we are definitely not all at great risk of hook-in failures. Amend that sentence with:
of losing another community member in the not too distant future
and you'll have what I was thinking at the time and had intended to say. As that statement was completely at odds with what I wrote on 2008/09/07 it would have been nice to have been given the benefit of the doubt rather than being accused of deliberate distortion or worse but thanks for catching the error. Apologies for my carelessness.
Anyway...
There's nothing phony about the speed link. It's specifically designed to fulfill the function of connecting one inch webbing to one inch webbing. It's a three thousand pound piece of skydiving hardware doing a three hundred pound job. You can fly it a hundred thousand hours and still use it to rip the glider apart. A twelve G component is never going to be the weak link in a system intended for max two or three G use.
Worry about something else if you must. I would recommend the leading edges, cross spars, keel, and side wires, i.e., components that actually do fail in scenarios other than those created by of one's fevered imagination. If none of the real stuff satisfies you the try going with the phony quarter inch bolt Wills Wing uses for kingpost suspension - it's got a sixteenth of an inch less going for it in the way of diameter.
I would have been elated to see people all of a sudden start flying with phony speed links when I first proposed doing so ten months ago 'cause that period encompassed another blue moon cycle.
On the topic of convenience...
People are generally willing to kiss a lot of convenience bye-bye for the sake of performance. Convenient gliders have no undersurface battens and fewer cambered ones, conventional tips (no wands), round control frame components, and straight basetubes. Replacing a starboard downtube is real easy 'cause there's no VG to worry about threading and they're easier to throw back on the car 'cause they weigh a lot less.
I believe I recently heard you expressing interest in acquiring a bolt-on pod for performance reasons. You'll get better performance going that route than a speed link will yield but it'll be more of a pain 'cause you've gotta connect at two points versus one.
The speed link will take a minute more out of your day than will a carabiner but you'll probably get more than your money's worth back 'cause of the weight and drag reduction (yeah, another inflated performance claim).
There's nothing elegant about using a
47 - if you're me
85 - if you're Karen
G steel - which means locking - carabiner on an aircraft designed with the above loading in mind. That's just plain wacko.
I caved to the conventional "wisdom" of the day and went with one of those monstrosities but the disproportionality ALWAYS rubbed me the wrong way.
You want elegant? Go to a bolt-on system on a topless.
You want retrofit elegant? Go to my kingpost Dacron suspension - minus the backup - and speed link with the parachute bridle terminating at the Y split. The crap - stretch, UV vulnerability, placebo, drag, and weight - has been cut and everything's fine.
Let's take another look at Kunio's accident.
He had a fifty G steel carabiner with a locking gate, six thousand pound shock absorbing suspension webbing, doubled and partially backed up, with a parachute bridle routed in the breeze to optimize the pitch of the glider upon deployment.
The carabiner allowed the harness to be connected or disengaged instantly with little effort and half a thought.
Neither the insane overkill strength of the system along with its placebo redundancy nor the convenience of the carabiner operation did him any good whatsoever. And if his parachute bridle had been anchored where mine is - given enough air - the brakes would have kicked in six feet higher than his configuration allowed.
Although it's still possible he would have been killed had he substituted a speed link - I really doubt it. Its operation demands two hands, a little effort, a tool, thirty seconds, and a bit of focus.
Dan,
Oops, realized the next day that the thrust of your last paragraph was the stretch issue.
That's gonna start happening as soon as just one hot competitor who also has a brain goes "Oh yeah...".
Mark,
The topic of this thread was "Lets be careful out there folks. Lost a HG pilot." Although the initial post referenced a discussion of a fatality it was never an accident report.
The discussion I started directly addressed the topic and is, essentially, being careful out there isn't fixing the problem. Let's, instead, try actually fixing the problem - for something new and different.
Kirk,
My feeling is that if you throw something annoying/inconvenient into the pot people aren't gonna do it.
I myself am not an Aussie fanatic 'cause my own method is to adhere to the USHGA SOPs and I'm one hundred percent confident that - consequently - I will never have a problem.
Woodstock, good breeze coming in. I prefer to set and suit up in whatever godforsaken little patch to which I'm able to lay claim then have a couple of helpful souls carry and guide my glider through the maize of trees, rocks, and rattlesnakes to the launch pad where I connect and go. Saves me a lot of roasting in my harness and energy reserves I'd rather have available for starting my launch run.
I need other reasons to go Aussie - something along the lines of... It's easier to get into my harness with the glider lifting it a bit or it's something of a pain in the ass to make a bolt-on connection while suited up.
Part of a bolt-on system's safety spin-off is that it encourages Aussie - I'd lose that in the above scenario. But I'm still left with a big chunk of you're much more aware of your done it / haven't status.
Brian,
Last sentence of your 09/15 post - Yeah, that's why you follow the SOPs no matter what you've used or done prior to launch.
Gene,
You can answer:
Yeah, I'm hooked in.
Yeah, I did a hang check.
Mike held my nose while I went down for a hang check.
None of those responses is great evidence that you are, in fact, hooked in.
EVERYBODY who starts his launch run honestly believes he his hooked in.
Of the tiny number of individuals who aren't some actually have performed checks. Looking at the run of local crowd incidents between 1998/01/10 and the present, a quarter of them did a check. The problem was that he did it at a point in his preflight procedures at which it was totally irrelevant and, apparently, had never flown in compliance with the requirements of the Pilot Proficiency System which cover everything from Hang I on. I wonder if he's doing so now?
I've shifted my thinking a bit in the course of this discussion.
The Aussie method is - generally speaking - a better way of doing business but...
There are those - myself included - who do not feel it is safe and/or appropriate in all circumstances so it's never gonna become as universal as - for example - dive recovery features on gliders.
As Brian pointed out... If you cheat using that method - and humans are prone to cheating - you've got this brain circuitry telling you that if you're in your harness you're connected to your glider.
Bolt-on / speed link encourage Aussie but the main reasons you use them are 'cause they're:
designed to do the job;
cleaner and lighter; and
idiot resistant.
The way to beat this thing is to follow the SOPs. You use the speed link to cut some slack for the folk who don't before you start beating them with tire irons to get them compliant.
Lauren,
Thanks for weighing in.
Yeah, there are conditions and circumstances in which the ability to separate quickly and easily is a major plus. If those are anticipated - go ahead and use the carabiner.
You've had all that desert experience that's a big missing chunk of my background but in all of my eastern US mountain and flatlands flying I can't recall of an instance in which I landed and having to exit the harness first would have been a problem.
I have, however, managed to wind up turtled on the dunes a few times and in those circumstances a carabiner is no quick ticket to restoring one's dignity.
The pilot has to grab something to climb and put considerable slack in the suspension before he can start thinking about going anywhere. And even after that there must be a hand available to open and disengage the carabiner.
I recall an incident in which a person landed in ankle deep water and was never seen again. In that era he would almost certainly have been using a nonlocking aluminum carabiner but he still was unable to clear himself from the glider before the next wave came along.
I don't imagine the percentage of people using bolt-on suspension is yet very high but - on the other hand - thems what are are likely to be your major air junkies flying a lot and in a wide range of geography and associated local conditions. As of yet I'm not hearing much in the way of problems which carabiners would mitigate.
Note: The speed link has an advantage that - with a small, clean, cheap modification to your glider suspension - you can easily switch back and forth to/from the carabiner as situations may compel.
Janni,
No, we are definitely not all at great risk of hook-in failures. Amend that sentence with:
of losing another community member in the not too distant future
and you'll have what I was thinking at the time and had intended to say. As that statement was completely at odds with what I wrote on 2008/09/07 it would have been nice to have been given the benefit of the doubt rather than being accused of deliberate distortion or worse but thanks for catching the error. Apologies for my carelessness.
Anyway...
There's nothing phony about the speed link. It's specifically designed to fulfill the function of connecting one inch webbing to one inch webbing. It's a three thousand pound piece of skydiving hardware doing a three hundred pound job. You can fly it a hundred thousand hours and still use it to rip the glider apart. A twelve G component is never going to be the weak link in a system intended for max two or three G use.
Worry about something else if you must. I would recommend the leading edges, cross spars, keel, and side wires, i.e., components that actually do fail in scenarios other than those created by of one's fevered imagination. If none of the real stuff satisfies you the try going with the phony quarter inch bolt Wills Wing uses for kingpost suspension - it's got a sixteenth of an inch less going for it in the way of diameter.
I would have been elated to see people all of a sudden start flying with phony speed links when I first proposed doing so ten months ago 'cause that period encompassed another blue moon cycle.
On the topic of convenience...
People are generally willing to kiss a lot of convenience bye-bye for the sake of performance. Convenient gliders have no undersurface battens and fewer cambered ones, conventional tips (no wands), round control frame components, and straight basetubes. Replacing a starboard downtube is real easy 'cause there's no VG to worry about threading and they're easier to throw back on the car 'cause they weigh a lot less.
I believe I recently heard you expressing interest in acquiring a bolt-on pod for performance reasons. You'll get better performance going that route than a speed link will yield but it'll be more of a pain 'cause you've gotta connect at two points versus one.
The speed link will take a minute more out of your day than will a carabiner but you'll probably get more than your money's worth back 'cause of the weight and drag reduction (yeah, another inflated performance claim).
There's nothing elegant about using a
47 - if you're me
85 - if you're Karen
G steel - which means locking - carabiner on an aircraft designed with the above loading in mind. That's just plain wacko.
I caved to the conventional "wisdom" of the day and went with one of those monstrosities but the disproportionality ALWAYS rubbed me the wrong way.
You want elegant? Go to a bolt-on system on a topless.
You want retrofit elegant? Go to my kingpost Dacron suspension - minus the backup - and speed link with the parachute bridle terminating at the Y split. The crap - stretch, UV vulnerability, placebo, drag, and weight - has been cut and everything's fine.
Let's take another look at Kunio's accident.
He had a fifty G steel carabiner with a locking gate, six thousand pound shock absorbing suspension webbing, doubled and partially backed up, with a parachute bridle routed in the breeze to optimize the pitch of the glider upon deployment.
The carabiner allowed the harness to be connected or disengaged instantly with little effort and half a thought.
Neither the insane overkill strength of the system along with its placebo redundancy nor the convenience of the carabiner operation did him any good whatsoever. And if his parachute bridle had been anchored where mine is - given enough air - the brakes would have kicked in six feet higher than his configuration allowed.
Although it's still possible he would have been killed had he substituted a speed link - I really doubt it. Its operation demands two hands, a little effort, a tool, thirty seconds, and a bit of focus.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
A few odds and ends from this thread...
-
>
We wouldn't be flying if it wasn't dangerous.
<
I guess I must be even more of an anomaly/freak than I believed 'cause I woulda thunk that somebody else woulda jumped all over this - but I'll go ahead and use the royal we anyway.
There are a whole bunch of reasons we fly and if danger is a requirement for the mix the individual who finds it so needs an antipsychotic drug regimen more than a bladewing.
The main reason we fly is to have fun and the bulk of the flying around these parts isn't dangerous - the takeoffs and landings are. And if you use wheels for both of those operations the risk goes way down.
Once we've developed a bit of skill we can safely do lots of cool, exciting stuff - climbing in a crowded swirling kettle of gliders, skimming the dunes, aerobatics, snatching the prize bag off the traffic cone (provided you keep your hand BEHIND the basetube) - and get our little adrenalin fixes.
Flying becomes dangerous when we put ourselves in situations which are beyond our control. I've been there. Sometimes I've been been able to effect a strategic withdrawal, others I've been spat out of them and been able to make a full recovery, once I did permanent damage. Those sorts of things are not fun regardless of whether or not you and/or your glider come out smelling like a rose. If rolling dice is how you get your thrills I recommend Atlantic City or Vegas.
But if risk is your drug of choice it's REAL easy to increase the danger level in this sport. Just start getting rid of preflight inspections, helmets, wheels, stability mechanisms, weak links, center of mass towing, tension limiters, hook-in checks, glider certification, the Pilot Proficiency System, meteorological limitations, windsocks, traffic rules... and fly really slow all the time you're near the surface.
-
Brian,
I've thought a lot about your concept for making the entire suspension integral with the glider such that the act of buckling the harness halves together is the guarantee that you're connected. I was even toying with the idea of designing and building a prototype. But currently I'm not thinking that approach is very workable - at least not for the nice clean pod sorts of harnesses in which most folk are interested.
The problem I see is that you're not directly supported by the suspension - it links to some sort of frame which supports a network of webbing which supports you. To make that concept work you'd have to make a high strength connection or two over your back then thread extension webbing around the sides to terminations at the buckle halves.
And if you wanted to incorporate this concept in an adjustable pitch harness you'd have to introduce some slack in the webbing runs between the anchor point(s) and buckle - which would mean that the buckle would be there just for show.
I'm thinking that the complexity of design and extra setup hassle would be deal killers for this one.
-
As I've said before, the reason I've never considered myself at risk for launching unhooked is 'cause somewhere back near the beginning of my flying career I made it an inviolable rule never to launch without first lifting the glider until I felt the tug.
Once in 1982 on the dunes I thought I was clipped in and prepared to launch but the glider just kept floating up higher and higher. Oops.
Another time - maybe fifteen years ago - I made a few passes in high winds over the sand and discovered that I had failed to fully engage the suspension. The nose of the carabiner was resting on the center of the webbing and the gate was thus jammed partially open. Note to self - make sure you hear the click.
It's recently dawned on me that it's possible that the vast majority of the victims and survivors of hook-in failures may have been great at doing HANG checks but likely that none of them ever developed a practice of doing HOOK-IN checks at the appropriate time.
I won't do hang checks. I've got a single strap coming up from my pod and my clearance from the basetube won't have changed since last time. They don't tell me anything and they're a waste of time and energy.
I think this and other great communities need to learn what's important and what isn't and refocus accordingly.
-
>
We wouldn't be flying if it wasn't dangerous.
<
I guess I must be even more of an anomaly/freak than I believed 'cause I woulda thunk that somebody else woulda jumped all over this - but I'll go ahead and use the royal we anyway.
There are a whole bunch of reasons we fly and if danger is a requirement for the mix the individual who finds it so needs an antipsychotic drug regimen more than a bladewing.
The main reason we fly is to have fun and the bulk of the flying around these parts isn't dangerous - the takeoffs and landings are. And if you use wheels for both of those operations the risk goes way down.
Once we've developed a bit of skill we can safely do lots of cool, exciting stuff - climbing in a crowded swirling kettle of gliders, skimming the dunes, aerobatics, snatching the prize bag off the traffic cone (provided you keep your hand BEHIND the basetube) - and get our little adrenalin fixes.
Flying becomes dangerous when we put ourselves in situations which are beyond our control. I've been there. Sometimes I've been been able to effect a strategic withdrawal, others I've been spat out of them and been able to make a full recovery, once I did permanent damage. Those sorts of things are not fun regardless of whether or not you and/or your glider come out smelling like a rose. If rolling dice is how you get your thrills I recommend Atlantic City or Vegas.
But if risk is your drug of choice it's REAL easy to increase the danger level in this sport. Just start getting rid of preflight inspections, helmets, wheels, stability mechanisms, weak links, center of mass towing, tension limiters, hook-in checks, glider certification, the Pilot Proficiency System, meteorological limitations, windsocks, traffic rules... and fly really slow all the time you're near the surface.
-
Brian,
I've thought a lot about your concept for making the entire suspension integral with the glider such that the act of buckling the harness halves together is the guarantee that you're connected. I was even toying with the idea of designing and building a prototype. But currently I'm not thinking that approach is very workable - at least not for the nice clean pod sorts of harnesses in which most folk are interested.
The problem I see is that you're not directly supported by the suspension - it links to some sort of frame which supports a network of webbing which supports you. To make that concept work you'd have to make a high strength connection or two over your back then thread extension webbing around the sides to terminations at the buckle halves.
And if you wanted to incorporate this concept in an adjustable pitch harness you'd have to introduce some slack in the webbing runs between the anchor point(s) and buckle - which would mean that the buckle would be there just for show.
I'm thinking that the complexity of design and extra setup hassle would be deal killers for this one.
-
As I've said before, the reason I've never considered myself at risk for launching unhooked is 'cause somewhere back near the beginning of my flying career I made it an inviolable rule never to launch without first lifting the glider until I felt the tug.
Once in 1982 on the dunes I thought I was clipped in and prepared to launch but the glider just kept floating up higher and higher. Oops.
Another time - maybe fifteen years ago - I made a few passes in high winds over the sand and discovered that I had failed to fully engage the suspension. The nose of the carabiner was resting on the center of the webbing and the gate was thus jammed partially open. Note to self - make sure you hear the click.
It's recently dawned on me that it's possible that the vast majority of the victims and survivors of hook-in failures may have been great at doing HANG checks but likely that none of them ever developed a practice of doing HOOK-IN checks at the appropriate time.
I won't do hang checks. I've got a single strap coming up from my pod and my clearance from the basetube won't have changed since last time. They don't tell me anything and they're a waste of time and energy.
I think this and other great communities need to learn what's important and what isn't and refocus accordingly.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
I've been doing some more thinking about this issue since last post and have been out on the Oz Report forum (if anyone wants to see what I had to say there) and have come around to:
Yeah - Chris is totally right with respect to the main thrust of this problem. The best approach is procedural and the individual must be the focus.
Equipmentwise - there's NEVER gonna be a perfect, one size fits all, engineering fix.
Looking back at some of the post Bill Priday discussion...
Hang gliding ain't scuba diving and is inherently incompatible with any sort of buddy system approach and watching out for each other - in the traditional sense - ain't gonna do it neither.
-
chga Steve K. Re: Launch procedures
1998 Jan 12 22:02 EST
chga@idbdnet.com
judymcc@ix.netcom.com (Judy McCarty)
CC:
skinsley@DGS.dgsys.com
Steve Kinsley, who almost launched unhooked once, forwards his thoughts:
"Devising a procedure that is proof against distractions and is appropriate in every situation is difficult. I favor hooking in before moving up to the ramp but I don't think there is a single, best answer. And I suspect any grand schemes to force wire crews or pilots to do things in a particular order will just increase the hassle factor and not affect safety. Let me suggest two things: 1. Do a final dip or back step until you feel the strap tighten as part of picking up the glider to launch. 2. Most importantly, concentrate on what you are doing and refuse to be hurried or distracted."
-
chga hooking in
1998 Jan 29 15:05 EST
chga@idbdnet.com
judymcc@ix.netcom.com (Judy McCarty)
...
I don't do New Year's resolutions, but this year I have some January 29th resolutions:
...
3.) To personally implement the ushga standard: "with each flight, pilot demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in *just prior* to launch." Over the past month many pilots have talked about what they do to assure that they launch hooked in. Some *always* hook the harness in to the glider before suiting up. Others always hook in *before* going to launch. Ok, so those methods don't work for me. But what *would* work for me is to do something every time right before I launch. I suspect I will need different methods for different sites, but this is something I believe I should be doing better.
-
Re: chga hooking in
1998 Feb 01 20:59 EST
chga@idbdnet.com
skinsley@DGS.dgsys.com (Steve Kinsley)
I would like to second Judy's hook in post. I particularly like the emphasis on implementing the USHGA standard of verifying that you are hooked in just prior to launch. In practice, that means a visual check or a tug on the harness lines after ALL CHECKLIST ITEMS (including a hang check) have been completed. I started doing that after my near launch unhooked from High Rock several years ago. It works. I think I have a reasonable claim to being the worlds most scatter-brained living hang glider pilot. But I can say that I don't think I am going to get my lunch by failing to hook in. You should be able to say the same. I have special knowledge when it comes to forgetting things. So trust me here. You need to do this.
-
Hooking In
stevek
2005/10/02 02:45:48
I already see where the anger and grief take us. We need to do hang checks, double hang checks. And who was on Bill's wire crew? How could they let that happen?
When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check. I often do not see pilots doing a hook in check. Why should they? They just did a hang check and they are surrounded by friends who will make sure this box is checked.
But what if there is no hang check and you are used to one?
DO A HOOK IN CHECK. you need a system that you do every time regardless of how many hang checks you have been subjected to that assures you are hooked in.
-
As is evidenced by Gene's 2008/09/17 post - the problem is that we still do not understand that a hang check is not a hook-in check. As the hang check is generally practiced and understood it is - in fact - the enemy of the hook-in check. The term "hang check" has no more place in a discussion of hook-in failures than "weak link" does in one concerning the dangers of lockout.
Just so's I don't sound too conciliatory... The locking steel carabiner is an insanely overbuilt piece of crap for the relevant application and more people would be alive if the use of bolt on suspensions and the speed link had been more widespread. But any case in which such suspension would have or will make a difference is just a symptom of a broken system. If you are following the SOPs of every rating you've had since Hang I it doesn't matter how or when you are connecting yourself to the glider. This is where our focus must be.
With respect to the "watch out for each other" refrain we always hear after one of these...
-
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
-
If you verify that a pilot is hooked in at launch you will ensure that he survives that launch.
If you ensure that he operates in compliance with the SOPs you will greatly improve his odds of never falling prey to that deadly oversight for the remainder of his flying career.
Brian,
Historical corrections...
Bob was in no rush to launch and had a three man crew.
Yeah - Chris is totally right with respect to the main thrust of this problem. The best approach is procedural and the individual must be the focus.
Equipmentwise - there's NEVER gonna be a perfect, one size fits all, engineering fix.
Looking back at some of the post Bill Priday discussion...
Hang gliding ain't scuba diving and is inherently incompatible with any sort of buddy system approach and watching out for each other - in the traditional sense - ain't gonna do it neither.
-
chga Steve K. Re: Launch procedures
1998 Jan 12 22:02 EST
chga@idbdnet.com
judymcc@ix.netcom.com (Judy McCarty)
CC:
skinsley@DGS.dgsys.com
Steve Kinsley, who almost launched unhooked once, forwards his thoughts:
"Devising a procedure that is proof against distractions and is appropriate in every situation is difficult. I favor hooking in before moving up to the ramp but I don't think there is a single, best answer. And I suspect any grand schemes to force wire crews or pilots to do things in a particular order will just increase the hassle factor and not affect safety. Let me suggest two things: 1. Do a final dip or back step until you feel the strap tighten as part of picking up the glider to launch. 2. Most importantly, concentrate on what you are doing and refuse to be hurried or distracted."
-
chga hooking in
1998 Jan 29 15:05 EST
chga@idbdnet.com
judymcc@ix.netcom.com (Judy McCarty)
...
I don't do New Year's resolutions, but this year I have some January 29th resolutions:
...
3.) To personally implement the ushga standard: "with each flight, pilot demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in *just prior* to launch." Over the past month many pilots have talked about what they do to assure that they launch hooked in. Some *always* hook the harness in to the glider before suiting up. Others always hook in *before* going to launch. Ok, so those methods don't work for me. But what *would* work for me is to do something every time right before I launch. I suspect I will need different methods for different sites, but this is something I believe I should be doing better.
-
Re: chga hooking in
1998 Feb 01 20:59 EST
chga@idbdnet.com
skinsley@DGS.dgsys.com (Steve Kinsley)
I would like to second Judy's hook in post. I particularly like the emphasis on implementing the USHGA standard of verifying that you are hooked in just prior to launch. In practice, that means a visual check or a tug on the harness lines after ALL CHECKLIST ITEMS (including a hang check) have been completed. I started doing that after my near launch unhooked from High Rock several years ago. It works. I think I have a reasonable claim to being the worlds most scatter-brained living hang glider pilot. But I can say that I don't think I am going to get my lunch by failing to hook in. You should be able to say the same. I have special knowledge when it comes to forgetting things. So trust me here. You need to do this.
-
Hooking In
stevek
2005/10/02 02:45:48
I already see where the anger and grief take us. We need to do hang checks, double hang checks. And who was on Bill's wire crew? How could they let that happen?
When Bob Gillisse got hurt I suggested that our local institution of the hang check is more the problem than the solution. I still believe that. It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check. I often do not see pilots doing a hook in check. Why should they? They just did a hang check and they are surrounded by friends who will make sure this box is checked.
But what if there is no hang check and you are used to one?
DO A HOOK IN CHECK. you need a system that you do every time regardless of how many hang checks you have been subjected to that assures you are hooked in.
-
As is evidenced by Gene's 2008/09/17 post - the problem is that we still do not understand that a hang check is not a hook-in check. As the hang check is generally practiced and understood it is - in fact - the enemy of the hook-in check. The term "hang check" has no more place in a discussion of hook-in failures than "weak link" does in one concerning the dangers of lockout.
Just so's I don't sound too conciliatory... The locking steel carabiner is an insanely overbuilt piece of crap for the relevant application and more people would be alive if the use of bolt on suspensions and the speed link had been more widespread. But any case in which such suspension would have or will make a difference is just a symptom of a broken system. If you are following the SOPs of every rating you've had since Hang I it doesn't matter how or when you are connecting yourself to the glider. This is where our focus must be.
With respect to the "watch out for each other" refrain we always hear after one of these...
-
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
-
If you verify that a pilot is hooked in at launch you will ensure that he survives that launch.
If you ensure that he operates in compliance with the SOPs you will greatly improve his odds of never falling prey to that deadly oversight for the remainder of his flying career.
Brian,
Historical corrections...
Bob was in no rush to launch and had a three man crew.
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
Hang check, Hook in check? Seems to me that you are actually attached to the glider. If you unhook then you negate the system. Start over. Like I said before, HPBC (happy pilots bring cash) Hooked in, Pitch, Balance and Clear.
I hope the guy you teach to fish likes fish.
Gene
I hope the guy you teach to fish likes fish.
Gene
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Here's the difference, Gene...
>
Richard Hays
2005/10/07 01:07:30
Hook in training starts on day one...
I have a drill I use with my students on their first day or two of training. I teach them how to hook in. Then how to lay down and then the walk thru. The usual stuff. But then...after they're hooked in, I'll ask them the obvious: "Are you hooked in"?. They'll look me straight in the eye and say "Yes". I then ask them..."would you bet your life on that?"
At that moment...they will then turn around and visually check. Then I ask them again "Are you hooked in??" They will then turn around...look again...and then respond yes.
...
<
What Richard was trying to teach you, unsuccessfully apparently, was HPBC - i.e., follow the rules which entitle you to the rating which allows you to fly at most of the sites around these parts.
What you seem to find acceptable - if not, in fact, preferable - is HCRFPUGPBC (hopping cottontail rabbits frequently paw under great pyramids before copulating). Hang Check, Regain Footing, Pick Up Glider, Pitch, Balance, Clear. I'm guessing you're of this persuasion 'cause you've got such a great memory that you need the challenge of the extended mnemonics and procedures.
Note: The above sequence is routinely amended with stuff like:
proceed to launch line
wait for potatoes
carry up to ramp
put glider down on chocks
wait for cycle
pick up glider again...
but things were already getting a bit unwieldy.
My memory - however - sucks. Big time. I walk into the kitchen and end up standing there 'cause I can't remember what motivated me to get out of the reclining chair in the living room five seconds ago. In this situation I usually just scoop some more ice cream 'cause that's a pretty safe bet and I don't want to have totally wasted the trip. No big deal.
But when I'm standing on the edge of a cliff do I wanna trust a shit memory like that to accurately recall a hang check that may have occurred as much as SIX TIMES that length of time in the distant past? FUCK NO! I'm gonna lift the glider until it stops immediately before my feet start moving.
So maybe I'm missing something... What's the objection to doing this final check? Too lazy?
I can't believe there's anybody out there lazier than I am but if that's the problem - SKIP THE HANG CHECK. What - of major significance - is the hang check telling you that the hook-in check won't?
I got this theory that the overwhelming majority of the people getting killed, hurt, or lucky are hang check people and ZERO percent of the hook-in check folk are getting smashed on the rocks. Anybody got any amusing anecdotes indicative of anything to the contrary?
>
Richard Hays
2005/10/07 01:07:30
Hook in training starts on day one...
I have a drill I use with my students on their first day or two of training. I teach them how to hook in. Then how to lay down and then the walk thru. The usual stuff. But then...after they're hooked in, I'll ask them the obvious: "Are you hooked in"?. They'll look me straight in the eye and say "Yes". I then ask them..."would you bet your life on that?"
At that moment...they will then turn around and visually check. Then I ask them again "Are you hooked in??" They will then turn around...look again...and then respond yes.
...
<
What Richard was trying to teach you, unsuccessfully apparently, was HPBC - i.e., follow the rules which entitle you to the rating which allows you to fly at most of the sites around these parts.
What you seem to find acceptable - if not, in fact, preferable - is HCRFPUGPBC (hopping cottontail rabbits frequently paw under great pyramids before copulating). Hang Check, Regain Footing, Pick Up Glider, Pitch, Balance, Clear. I'm guessing you're of this persuasion 'cause you've got such a great memory that you need the challenge of the extended mnemonics and procedures.
Note: The above sequence is routinely amended with stuff like:
proceed to launch line
wait for potatoes
carry up to ramp
put glider down on chocks
wait for cycle
pick up glider again...
but things were already getting a bit unwieldy.
My memory - however - sucks. Big time. I walk into the kitchen and end up standing there 'cause I can't remember what motivated me to get out of the reclining chair in the living room five seconds ago. In this situation I usually just scoop some more ice cream 'cause that's a pretty safe bet and I don't want to have totally wasted the trip. No big deal.
But when I'm standing on the edge of a cliff do I wanna trust a shit memory like that to accurately recall a hang check that may have occurred as much as SIX TIMES that length of time in the distant past? FUCK NO! I'm gonna lift the glider until it stops immediately before my feet start moving.
So maybe I'm missing something... What's the objection to doing this final check? Too lazy?
I can't believe there's anybody out there lazier than I am but if that's the problem - SKIP THE HANG CHECK. What - of major significance - is the hang check telling you that the hook-in check won't?
I got this theory that the overwhelming majority of the people getting killed, hurt, or lucky are hang check people and ZERO percent of the hook-in check folk are getting smashed on the rocks. Anybody got any amusing anecdotes indicative of anything to the contrary?
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
All I read is, blah - blah - blah. Do the Hook-in check and man up. Even if it is the 7th time. If memory is the problem stop getting ice cream. All I know is that we need each other to ensure we fly safe.
Gene
Gene
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Yeah, I probably shoulda figured you would. If I get bored enough I'll try to write another version with a two syllable (oops) cap on all the words. (Mark - See how the absence of four letter words doesn't always signify the absence of malice?)
The point that Steve, Judy, Richard, and I have been trying to get across - however (oops) - is that memory (oops) isn't the issue. Were it so, self proclaimed and notorious (oops) fuckups like Steve and me would've been dead a long time ago. Procedure (oops) and its internalization (oops oops) need to be the focus.
If you buy the premise that "we need each other to ensure we fly safe"ly then you have a hard time explaining why:
1. Bill Priday got killed as quickly as was humanly possible right in the middle of a huge assemblage of top expertise and talent at the mentoring geared 2005 Team Challenge; and
2. an asshole like me who used to do lotsa wuffo crewed and unattended self launches and XC landings is still around infecting the forum after a quarter century.
I'm being driven farther and farther into Chris territory (god help me). Piloting is not a team sport and the key to safe flying lies with the individual.
The point that Steve, Judy, Richard, and I have been trying to get across - however (oops) - is that memory (oops) isn't the issue. Were it so, self proclaimed and notorious (oops) fuckups like Steve and me would've been dead a long time ago. Procedure (oops) and its internalization (oops oops) need to be the focus.
If you buy the premise that "we need each other to ensure we fly safe"ly then you have a hard time explaining why:
1. Bill Priday got killed as quickly as was humanly possible right in the middle of a huge assemblage of top expertise and talent at the mentoring geared 2005 Team Challenge; and
2. an asshole like me who used to do lotsa wuffo crewed and unattended self launches and XC landings is still around infecting the forum after a quarter century.
I'm being driven farther and farther into Chris territory (god help me). Piloting is not a team sport and the key to safe flying lies with the individual.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
And, of course, that's a premise we tend to vehemently reject when the relatives start filing suits against flight directors and organizations.
>
Bill Priday's death
CraginS
2005/10/03 15:13:27
Definition of a Hang Check & Bill P
I just read the following item from the OzForum by a secondary on-site (not witness) report:
" According to at least 5 local pilots, Bill had set up his glider and was moving it closer to launch. Again, according to at least 5 pilots, Bill was asked if he wanted a hang check, but was heard to say "It has been taken care of". "
This is eerie, because Hank H. and I were involved with an almost identical conversation with Bill at the Pulpit Fly-In. As we were walking Bill up to the old ramp, with me on right wing and Hank on nose, Hank asked bill if he wanted a hang check. Bill's reply was something like, "No thanks, I'm good." Hank then pointed out that he was not hooked in. I remarked that 'you are not hooked in until after the hang check.' We ran Bill through a routine lay-down hang check at the back of the ramp, and he had a fine launch.
With at least two situations of the same conversation, I am beginning to wonder if maybe Bill's personal definition of a 'hang check' is the fitting & adjustment check to ensure that your hang strap has you hanging at the correct height over the bar. All of us with full foot launch training and primary mountain flight assume that the hang check is the check for connection, and not just the check for position. If Bill was confident that his straps were all set properly, then Hank's question, and that of the '5 people' at Tennesse translated to, "Is your harness adjusted to hang at the right height?" and not teh intended "have you confirmed you are connected to the glider?'
Bill trained as a tow pilot, and added mountain flying to his repertoire only this summer. In all tow methods that use a platform or cart, the hang check / hook check is conducted automatically by laying down in the harness prior to engaging the tow mechanism. Only when foot launching on tow (like scooter tows and some pilots' satic line vehicle tow method), can you begin full launch commitment without being hooked in.
I cannot speak for the use of the term 'hang check' in Bill's training and experience at the tow park. I know from personal experience that there is no more safety conscious instructor around than Steve W.
But with Bill's repeated assertion of a completed hang check with no hook-in, I can only guess that he had somehow redifined 'hang check' in his own mind to something other than what we all use at the mountains.
Maybe, at every site, when a pilot tells us he has already done a hang check, we should insist on asking WHO was the checker/observer of the check. Except for the true lone pilot / last pilot self-launch situation (which I have done at WS and Bill's, and will do again), our community defintion of a hang check should be "positive confirmation of proper connection of the harness to the glider, OBSERVED AND CHECKED BY A SECOND PARTY OTHER THAN THE PILOT."
<
Assuming that Bill had flown that glider/harness combination before and found himself with a comfortable clearance over the basetube then "No thanks, I'm good." would have been a perfectly appropriate response. That's about all a hang check is usually good for. It doesn't take care of the critical issues of the relationship between your legs and the loops and "establishing that pilot is hooked in just prior to launch."
My response at that point would probably have been identical or some variation of "Thanks for inquiring but I don't do hang checks." Approaching the south ramp I probably would have previously Aussied into my harness. In some conditions, however, I might have preferred to arrive suited up at the top of the north ramp after my glider.
>
All of us with full foot launch training and primary mountain flight assume that the hang check is the check for connection, and not just the check for position.
<
Not all of us. That's the extremely dangerous assumption that effectively turned Marc's Laminar ST 14 into a giant Zagi with a dead battery.
>
I remarked that 'you are not hooked in until after the hang check.'
<
You are not hooked in until you have so established just prior to launch. That doesn't mean until just prior to standing up, picking up the glider and moving it five feet forward to launch position, and waiting two minutes for a cycle. That launch was not conducted in accordance with Hang I and up standards and whomever it was who signed Bill's foot launch ticket apparently failed to verify that the single most important aspect of foot launched hang gliding had been impressed upon him.
>
Bill Priday's death
theflyingdude
2005/10/03 19:39:06
...
Launching unhooked has been killing HG pilots since before I started flying in 1979. There have been many suggested solutions to the problem including checklists and even some mechanical contraptions. No system is bullet-proof. It's the pilot's life that's at risk and ultimately it will always be his/her responsibility to confirm that they're hooked in and ready to launch. A wire crew and/or other pilots at launch can and should keep their eyes open to aid in the process, but should never be relied upon (or blamed if something goes awry).
Most of the Cumberland sites are self-launchable, even in a significant amount of wind, and we often don't have a wire-crew available. My personal process is to hook into the glider in the set-up area and then lean through the control frame while the glider is resting on the keel. I do this to confirm that I'm hooked in (if I fall on my face, I'm not) and to make sure my hang strap is straight. I then carry out to launch and just prior to starting my run, I raise the glider high enough so I can feel pressure/tension on my harness straps. If I unhook for any reason while on launch, I'll repeat the process of leaning thru the control frame and then raise the glider until I feel pressure on the straps. It may not be fool-proof, but thus far it's worked for me.
...
JR
<
That's about as bullet-proof as we're gonna get. It seems like this approach - to follow the freakin' rules - is taken only by a tiny fringe element. It doesn't look like the Mingus crowd has any more of a clue than we do.
>
Bill Priday's death
CraginS
2005/10/03 15:13:27
Definition of a Hang Check & Bill P
I just read the following item from the OzForum by a secondary on-site (not witness) report:
" According to at least 5 local pilots, Bill had set up his glider and was moving it closer to launch. Again, according to at least 5 pilots, Bill was asked if he wanted a hang check, but was heard to say "It has been taken care of". "
This is eerie, because Hank H. and I were involved with an almost identical conversation with Bill at the Pulpit Fly-In. As we were walking Bill up to the old ramp, with me on right wing and Hank on nose, Hank asked bill if he wanted a hang check. Bill's reply was something like, "No thanks, I'm good." Hank then pointed out that he was not hooked in. I remarked that 'you are not hooked in until after the hang check.' We ran Bill through a routine lay-down hang check at the back of the ramp, and he had a fine launch.
With at least two situations of the same conversation, I am beginning to wonder if maybe Bill's personal definition of a 'hang check' is the fitting & adjustment check to ensure that your hang strap has you hanging at the correct height over the bar. All of us with full foot launch training and primary mountain flight assume that the hang check is the check for connection, and not just the check for position. If Bill was confident that his straps were all set properly, then Hank's question, and that of the '5 people' at Tennesse translated to, "Is your harness adjusted to hang at the right height?" and not teh intended "have you confirmed you are connected to the glider?'
Bill trained as a tow pilot, and added mountain flying to his repertoire only this summer. In all tow methods that use a platform or cart, the hang check / hook check is conducted automatically by laying down in the harness prior to engaging the tow mechanism. Only when foot launching on tow (like scooter tows and some pilots' satic line vehicle tow method), can you begin full launch commitment without being hooked in.
I cannot speak for the use of the term 'hang check' in Bill's training and experience at the tow park. I know from personal experience that there is no more safety conscious instructor around than Steve W.
But with Bill's repeated assertion of a completed hang check with no hook-in, I can only guess that he had somehow redifined 'hang check' in his own mind to something other than what we all use at the mountains.
Maybe, at every site, when a pilot tells us he has already done a hang check, we should insist on asking WHO was the checker/observer of the check. Except for the true lone pilot / last pilot self-launch situation (which I have done at WS and Bill's, and will do again), our community defintion of a hang check should be "positive confirmation of proper connection of the harness to the glider, OBSERVED AND CHECKED BY A SECOND PARTY OTHER THAN THE PILOT."
<
Assuming that Bill had flown that glider/harness combination before and found himself with a comfortable clearance over the basetube then "No thanks, I'm good." would have been a perfectly appropriate response. That's about all a hang check is usually good for. It doesn't take care of the critical issues of the relationship between your legs and the loops and "establishing that pilot is hooked in just prior to launch."
My response at that point would probably have been identical or some variation of "Thanks for inquiring but I don't do hang checks." Approaching the south ramp I probably would have previously Aussied into my harness. In some conditions, however, I might have preferred to arrive suited up at the top of the north ramp after my glider.
>
All of us with full foot launch training and primary mountain flight assume that the hang check is the check for connection, and not just the check for position.
<
Not all of us. That's the extremely dangerous assumption that effectively turned Marc's Laminar ST 14 into a giant Zagi with a dead battery.
>
I remarked that 'you are not hooked in until after the hang check.'
<
You are not hooked in until you have so established just prior to launch. That doesn't mean until just prior to standing up, picking up the glider and moving it five feet forward to launch position, and waiting two minutes for a cycle. That launch was not conducted in accordance with Hang I and up standards and whomever it was who signed Bill's foot launch ticket apparently failed to verify that the single most important aspect of foot launched hang gliding had been impressed upon him.
>
Bill Priday's death
theflyingdude
2005/10/03 19:39:06
...
Launching unhooked has been killing HG pilots since before I started flying in 1979. There have been many suggested solutions to the problem including checklists and even some mechanical contraptions. No system is bullet-proof. It's the pilot's life that's at risk and ultimately it will always be his/her responsibility to confirm that they're hooked in and ready to launch. A wire crew and/or other pilots at launch can and should keep their eyes open to aid in the process, but should never be relied upon (or blamed if something goes awry).
Most of the Cumberland sites are self-launchable, even in a significant amount of wind, and we often don't have a wire-crew available. My personal process is to hook into the glider in the set-up area and then lean through the control frame while the glider is resting on the keel. I do this to confirm that I'm hooked in (if I fall on my face, I'm not) and to make sure my hang strap is straight. I then carry out to launch and just prior to starting my run, I raise the glider high enough so I can feel pressure/tension on my harness straps. If I unhook for any reason while on launch, I'll repeat the process of leaning thru the control frame and then raise the glider until I feel pressure on the straps. It may not be fool-proof, but thus far it's worked for me.
...
JR
<
That's about as bullet-proof as we're gonna get. It seems like this approach - to follow the freakin' rules - is taken only by a tiny fringe element. It doesn't look like the Mingus crowd has any more of a clue than we do.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
OK, probably just this last comment and then I'll go away for a while.
Me and George Stebbins just finished beating this issue to a pulp on the Oz Report forum and came to very similar conclusions. He's a little more Aussie than I am and he still likes the hang check.
I hate the hang check 'cause it's a lot of work, it mostly takes two people, it doesn't tell you anything that you can't find out easier and better just by looking at the configuration after you hook the harness in in preparation for Aussieing in, there is a built in delay between performing it and launching, and it has been known to trigger a false green light for launching (see High Point - 1998/04/28).
He likes it 'cause his approach is to use multiple safeguards consistently.
My boat floater is:
One operating element (carabiner, speed link, or bolt);
One rule - hook-in check just prior to launch.
The issues upon which we tend to agree...
-
Aussie is generally good but not cheat proof - people can and do.
The carabiner is way too convenient - bolt-on should make some inroads.
The hook-in check - lift and tug or whatever version one can manage - performed immediately prior to launch is critical.
Any delay between check and launch is deadly.
And we're never gonna make this totally idiot proof for everyone.
-
With that in mind...
Mark,
I reviewed:
http://www.chgpa.org/Education/hookin.tips.html
and - in my opinion - it's mostly upside down.
I digress, momentarily, to correct a historical inaccuracy... Bob Gillisse (correct spelling) bounced off the rocks on 1998/01/10 - not the previous month.
I believe most - if not all - the folk we're dropping off cliffs are hang check people and NO ONE who has internalized the hook-in check as his green light has EVER had a consequential problem.
In "CHGPA's Suggestions for Reducing the Risk of Hook-In Failure", the checklist, with a focus on the hang check, is given center stage as the primary weapon in this battle while the hook-in check is included way the hell down in the 'Afterthoughts' zone.
As I've said before, the checklist - in today's scene - just doesn't catch much that's terribly important and I don't think it's a great way to detect dangling suspension. I haven't been to the Pulpit in a long time but I doubt people are looking at pieces of paper on either of those ramps now any more now than they did a decade ago. By the time you're on a ramp there's generally only one thing you need to be really sure of and you need to be doing a muscle memory routine to verify it.
There is also an emphasis upon use of crew to help keep things safe. While vigilance - from whatever quarter - is great, I don't think hang gliding has a super batting average in terms of hook-in failures being intercepted by other parties.
Statistically, the rate at which empty carabiners are gonna be detected is gonna be microscopic - electron - not optical. The crew folk will be more effective making this sport safer if they don't even bother looking at the suspension themselves but instead ensure that the pilot complies with the requirement to demonstrate that he is hooked in just prior to launch and, if necessary, establishes that as his routine.
Me and George Stebbins just finished beating this issue to a pulp on the Oz Report forum and came to very similar conclusions. He's a little more Aussie than I am and he still likes the hang check.
I hate the hang check 'cause it's a lot of work, it mostly takes two people, it doesn't tell you anything that you can't find out easier and better just by looking at the configuration after you hook the harness in in preparation for Aussieing in, there is a built in delay between performing it and launching, and it has been known to trigger a false green light for launching (see High Point - 1998/04/28).
He likes it 'cause his approach is to use multiple safeguards consistently.
My boat floater is:
One operating element (carabiner, speed link, or bolt);
One rule - hook-in check just prior to launch.
The issues upon which we tend to agree...
-
Aussie is generally good but not cheat proof - people can and do.
The carabiner is way too convenient - bolt-on should make some inroads.
The hook-in check - lift and tug or whatever version one can manage - performed immediately prior to launch is critical.
Any delay between check and launch is deadly.
And we're never gonna make this totally idiot proof for everyone.
-
With that in mind...
Mark,
I reviewed:
http://www.chgpa.org/Education/hookin.tips.html
and - in my opinion - it's mostly upside down.
I digress, momentarily, to correct a historical inaccuracy... Bob Gillisse (correct spelling) bounced off the rocks on 1998/01/10 - not the previous month.
I believe most - if not all - the folk we're dropping off cliffs are hang check people and NO ONE who has internalized the hook-in check as his green light has EVER had a consequential problem.
In "CHGPA's Suggestions for Reducing the Risk of Hook-In Failure", the checklist, with a focus on the hang check, is given center stage as the primary weapon in this battle while the hook-in check is included way the hell down in the 'Afterthoughts' zone.
As I've said before, the checklist - in today's scene - just doesn't catch much that's terribly important and I don't think it's a great way to detect dangling suspension. I haven't been to the Pulpit in a long time but I doubt people are looking at pieces of paper on either of those ramps now any more now than they did a decade ago. By the time you're on a ramp there's generally only one thing you need to be really sure of and you need to be doing a muscle memory routine to verify it.
There is also an emphasis upon use of crew to help keep things safe. While vigilance - from whatever quarter - is great, I don't think hang gliding has a super batting average in terms of hook-in failures being intercepted by other parties.
Statistically, the rate at which empty carabiners are gonna be detected is gonna be microscopic - electron - not optical. The crew folk will be more effective making this sport safer if they don't even bother looking at the suspension themselves but instead ensure that the pilot complies with the requirement to demonstrate that he is hooked in just prior to launch and, if necessary, establishes that as his routine.
-
Kurt Hirrlinger
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:18 am
Re: Hook-in Failure discussion
If you've gotten to this point in the thread apparently you'll read anything, consider this;
After sending my kite down the hill @ Oregon ridge alone I figured I needed a string around
my nuts to remind me not to do it again. My kids are happy I came up with a better plan.
As part of my pre-flight I hang my helmut on the nose wires, where it stays until I'm ready
for flight. The last thing I do prior to launch is to reach out to remove this obstruction from
my field of view, there should be some resistance.
After sending my kite down the hill @ Oregon ridge alone I figured I needed a string around
my nuts to remind me not to do it again. My kids are happy I came up with a better plan.
As part of my pre-flight I hang my helmut on the nose wires, where it stays until I'm ready
for flight. The last thing I do prior to launch is to reach out to remove this obstruction from
my field of view, there should be some resistance.