Woodstock?

[RichH]

Man not sure I want to step back in here but here goes..I think we all can agree that we do not want to put ourselves. our flying sites and others at risk..With that being said it is obvious all of us can gain from continued education..Looking at Google earth and just looking at the general vacinity of the highway in question there appears to be many landing options..Landing in a median raise concerns on all 3 things mentioned above..It certainly could be said it is more hazardous to the pilot, it could be said it has a higher risk to others who are driving near by..and believe me if someone called 911 and a resuce team was dispatched to the site ..the next morning the Director of the park in question either the NPS or NFS could be getting a call complaining that a hang glider or para glider that launched from National Park or National Forest land caused risk to the the public safety..believe me I know used to get those call when I worked for the park service and he or she would be forced into reconsidering giving us launch abilities in the park/forest land in the future..I have done plenty of stupid stuff Im not proud of in the sport and Im sure Ive done most if not all of the things Marc mentions in his previous reply..but that doesn't mean we dont try to improve ..we are a self governing body (for now..that may change) and as such we carry the responsibility to guide our community in the right direction..I would hope an Observer would have had already a discussion with the pilot in question about what options he had on his flight and hopefully re-emphasized the importance of not landing in such a place unless it was his absolutely only course of action. I have to admit Im a bit suprised at the degree of support and justification this action has received in this thread...Rich

[RedBaron]

I support Tom because he's a hell of a pilot and would never sink so low as to insult other pilots on a forum, even if he had the facts right. It's so hypocritical, I can't take it.

He made a tough call and I applaud him for that in agreement with Marc that the risk of that landing causing a highway accident is probably close to zero.

Even if it had caused an accident, the impact on the national HG community would have been what exactly? A newspaper article?

Great pilots don't indulge in internet pilot bashing.

[RichH]

I support Tom because he's a hell of a pilot and would never sink so low as to insult other pilots on a forum, even if he had the facts right. It's so hypocritical, I can't take it.

He made a tough call and I applaud him for that in agreement with Marc that the risk of that landing causing a highway accident is probably close to zero.

Even if it had caused an accident, the impact on the national HG community would have been what exactly? A newspaper article?

Great pilots don't indulge in internet pilot bashing.

If it had caused an accident ..?? You think the only result would be a newspaper article!! what about the people involved injuries, our public image not to mention possibly losing our flying rights to Dickys and possibly other sites.

[Flying Lobster]

Man not sure I want to step back in here but here goes..I think we all can agree that we do not want to put ourselves. our flying sites and others at risk..With that being said it is obvious all of us can gain from continued education..Looking at Google earth and just looking at the general vacinity of the highway in question there appears to be many landing options..Landing in a median raise concerns on all 3 things mentioned above..It certainly could be said it is more hazardous to the pilot, it could be said it has a higher risk to others who are driving near by..and believe me if someone called 911 and a resuce team was dispatched to the site ..the next morning the Director of the park in question either the NPS or NFS could be getting a call complaining that a hang glider or para glider that launched from National Park or National Forest land caused risk to the the public safety..believe me I know used to get those call when I worked for the park service and he or she would be forced into reconsidering giving us launch abilities in the park/forest land in the future..I have done plenty of stupid stuff Im not proud of in the sport and Im sure Ive done most if not all of the things Marc mentions in his previous reply..but that doesn't mean we dont try to improve ..we are a self governing body (for now..that may change) and as such we carry the responsibility to guide our community in the right direction..I would hope an Observer would have had already a discussion with the pilot in question about what options he had on his flight and hopefully re-emphasized the importance of not landing in such a place unless it was his absolutely only course of action. I have to admit Im a bit suprised at the degree of support and justification this action has received in this thread...Rich

I agree with what you say--as a matter of course we as free flight pilots must try to fly in the safest, most considerate manner we can so as not to jeopardize other's safety. I have never suggested that landing in a median was an acceptable practice. All I've said was that occasionally there will be emergency situations which may lead to a pilot landing in unusual "non-standard" lz choices. In case that isn't clear enough; I believe a highway median should never be considered as an lz option under normal flight operations. I don't care who you are--it's going to happen eventually if you fly long enough and go xc often enough that you're going to have to make a "lesser of two evils" choice when things don't turn out quite the way you planned. The part of this thread that I reacted too the most was the extensive speculation and presumption without knowing or caring to find out what the background circumstances to the incident were.

marc

[XCanytime]

"launched a low-performance wing into very strong conditions"

Marc,
I know darn well you are referring to me. Never, under any circumstance, did I violate the recommended operating limitations for a Hang 3 rating by launching into very strong conditions. Those operating limitations are winds of 25 MPH with a gust differential of 10 MPH or less. I've never operated outside of that envelope. And when I did launch in those very strong conditions, I also made darn sure I stayed WAY OUT IN FRONT of the ridge and never let conditions get ahead of me. Training at Smithsburg every winter for many years, slowly increasing the takeoff wind but never exceeding the operating limitations for my rating, gave me the experience and the skills necessary to execute said maneuvers. Gee, this sounds eerily similar to the Spanish Inquisition that Tom C. has been enduring for his actions of a week ago .

Bacil

[Flying Lobster]

"launched a low-performance wing into very strong conditions"

Marc,
I know darn well you are referring to me. Never, under any circumstance, did I violate the recommended operating limitations for a Hang 3 rating by launching into very strong conditions. Those operating limitations are winds of 25 MPH with a gust differential of 10 MPH or less. I've never operated outside of that envelope. And when I did launch in those very strong conditions, I also made darn sure I stayed WAY OUT IN FRONT of the ridge and never let conditions get ahead of me. Training at Smithsburg every winter for many years, slowly increasing the takeoff wind but never exceeding the operating limitations for my rating, gave me the experience and the skills necessary to execute said maneuvers. Gee, this sounds eerily similar to the Spanish Inquisition that Tom C. has been enduring for his actions of a week ago .

Bacil

Not directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation.
FYI, I've flown a single surface falcon and been caught in conditions 30+ mph. My fuck-up--and my responsibility to get myself out of the shit. Things like flying the big wind and going xc inherently raise the risk levels for any pilot of any skill level. What we do is dangerous and anyone of us can get the chop at any time. That's why if the chips are down, you may not like my or someone elses' choice in the manner they choose to save their bacon--but often these things come down to a split-second decision that can make the difference between life and death. Short of choosing a course of action that would likely kill someone else--I will do whatever I think is necessary in an emergency situation to save my ass.

marc

[mcelrah]

Well, your conjectures were indeed data-free since you rushed to opine without *any* knowledge of the actual flying situation or even asking any questions, just a general disapproval of landing on the median and the spurious axiom that if you ever have an emergency it must reflect bad planning. (See the press coverage of the rush to judgment on a government employee whose speech was edited by a blogger and posted - only after she was fired and criticized by the White House did they figure out that they had been had.) Yesterday, as Tom and I were driving back from Woodstock, he showed me the place he landed and explained that he had a primary selected, which as he got lower turned out to have wires or a trellis system for vines. By the time he realized the primary had a significant hazard, his second choice was out of reach. That left the median.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and ready-fire-aim (in that order) sniping. Now if you REALLY want to understand the situation enough to make a considered judgment, I'll take you up in my trike and we'll orbit over the spot and see how low we have to get for you to spot the wires. But there just isn't a reason to go to that trouble (and *really* distract the motorists). Tom landed safely. The cops didn't even give him a ticket - instead they gave him a ride to his car. No motorists drove off the road while distracted.

I-66 is still open as a hang-gliding and paragliding site.

- Hugh

[theflyingdude]

Our sport is self-regulating. That doesn't mean that everyone gets to decide what rules and regulations they're going to follow. That means that as a community, we regulate each other in the hope that some day the government doesn't decide to intercede in an attempt to protect the public at-large. As a result, when a pilot does something that could cause potential harm to the flying community, it's in our self-interest to point it out and make sure they're fully aware of the seriousness and possible consequences of their actions. Based upon Tom's cavalier comments about the incident and many of the subsequent posts on this thread, I don't believe he, nor many of the posters, have figured that part out. Bummer...

I'm so done with this debate, but allow me to share one last opinion about the incident that I received from Dennis Pagen earlier today:

Jim,

...You hit the nail on the head. In an XC flight always have a safe reachable field, and interstate mediums are not safe reachable fields. They should be considered the same as buildings/trees/etc. Anyone driving a van passing an 18-wheeler knows how potentially hazardous landing in a medium could be. Furthermore, the bad PR for our sport when 911 is called with or without an injury hurts us all. Here, no man is an island...

Dennis Pagen
Sport Aviation Publications

JR

[RichH]

Jim excellent response couldn't have said it better and I hope Dennis Pagens comments will be taken to heart to all that have read this thread..Now lets move on to how we can fly more safely !! Rich

[Flying Lobster]

You think I'm going to let you have the last word? : )

So to sum things up as they have been presented by the "he was irresponsible/cavalier" camp:

1) The proper course of action in Tom's case would have been to crash land rather than land in what he considered a safely approachable median--even with the very high probability of damage and/or injury to himself and possibly ground property?

2) If you were in his place--you would select a near certain crash landing as opposed to a reasonable safe out by landing in the median? (no " I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place" evasion please).

I want to know for my own information just how imperative--in other words "under no circumstances"-- this prohibition on landing in a median should be.

marc

[RichH]

I think in the best interest of the Capital Club and the pilots in question we've beat this subject to death..Lets focus on flying!! See ya...Rich

[Flying Lobster]

I think in the best interest of the Capital Club and the pilots in question we've beat this subject to death..Lets focus on flying!! See ya...Rich

I agree with you--time to end this--but my questions are sincere, important, and lacking responses to the contrary, I see them as inescapable conclusions by those who feel Tom's actions were inappropriate. I sincerely wish you good flying. : )

marc

[mcelrah]

Where do you get "cavalier"? As was mentioned, Tom is Belgian. He has a dry European sense of humor. So, what, since all the other the criticisms turn out to be groundless, we're gonna bust his chops for "bad attitude"? As someone said, "lighten up"! I have yet to see anyone undertake a thorough reconstruction of the flight showing where an error in judgment was made. How high was he? Which way was the wind? Lacking that, speculations by any and all horse-holders and hangers-on are just that: idle speculations. Harumph! - Hugh

[mcelrah]

Having slept on it, it's time to dispose of some of the incorrect allegations hinted at above:

- to my knowledge, no one who is currently flying Dickey's has failed to take out a Shenandoah National Park Hang-gliding (Paragliding) Permit.
- the location of the landing on I-66 median was the Linden exit, some 13-14 miles west of the class B airspace.

To head off any future controversy, the class B does not go to the surface along 66 until west of Haymarket;
before that it starts at 2500 msl, admittedly pretty low, but one could be on final glide and be perfectly legal;
west of The Plains, the floor of the class B is 4500 msl;
the class B starts west of Marshall/route 15;
the magenta mode C transponder line does not apply to aircraft (ultralight vehicles) that are not equipped with electrical systems;
but the Flight Restricted Zone (white background with blue crenellated line), which is out of bounds for everyone without explicit clearance to enter,
crosses 66 exactly where the class B goes to the surface west of Haymarket.

I think the idea of an XC clinic is great! Tom McGowan would be a superb leader of the HG section. Tom Ceunen, if he agreed, would be the natural choice to teach the PG section (the strategy is a bit different between the two types of wing). He already does a good deal of mentorship for aspiring XC pilots - to include giving advice on whether conditions are safe, correcting unsafe technique when he observes it, etc.

Let us conclude with a reading from "the regulations", which people often seem to mention without actually reading: Federal Aviation Regulation part 91.3, "Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command" (part 91.1 makes it explicit that this applies to pilots operating under part 103 - ultralight vehicles):

"(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator."

- Hugh

[theflyingdude]

I know this is probably a bad idea and feels like pulling a scab off an open wound, but if you'd like to put this incident into some kind visual context or perspective, open Google Earth if you have it on your computer and type in, "Linden, VA" to see the area the pilot was flying over when he chose the interstate median as his LZ. To simply call this one of those "Oh shit-moments that could happen to anyone because there was nothng else the pilot could have done" seems to miss the bigger picture and the reason I posted my criticism in the first place.

And finally, the following post was answered via e-mail (copied to me) with the author's response appearing below. It's spot-on and well worth sharing!

JR

You think I'm going to let you have the last word? : )

So to sum things up as they have been presented by the "he was irresponsible/cavalier" camp:

1) The proper course of action in Tom's case would have been to crash land rather than land in what he considered a safely approachable median--even with the very high probability of damage and/or injury to himself and possibly ground property?

2) If you were in his place--you would select a near certain crash landing as opposed to a reasonable safe out by landing in the median? (no " I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place" evasion please).

I want to know for my own information just how imperative--in other words "under no circumstances"-- this prohibition on landing in a median should be.

marc

Dennis Pagen's response to Marc's queries:


Hi Marccc,
Just got to my computer (been chasing a reluctant lady). I don't know what part of my transmission you saw, but I'll assume all. Here's my take: Every time I'm on the interstate I look at the medians, eyeballing the landing possibilities. I often get the willies as I see lines going across the road, gusts from passing traffic (trucks), etc. But one of the worse things is the normal dip between the two sides. A hang glider wing would probably tip stall before the pilot was near the ground, possibly turning the glider into the highway (not a factor on a PG, but what about truck gusts?). I have concluded that medians should be treated like trees--they are not safely land-able and should not be in the list of potential landing fields as we travel XC.

That being said, a pilot in dire circumstances has to make the best of a bad situation and choose the best of bad options. Maybe a median is the best choice, but myself, I would choose a field with high brush over a median and even a tree over a median with vehicles streaming by both sides. I would probably choose a median with no traffic far and wide over brush and trees. However, I would be very careful and prepared to crash if necessary.

The real matter here that needs to be emphasized is what you hit on: sometimes shit happens. Yes, but in general, XC pilots need it hammered in their head that they can prevent shit form happening--always. My first XC flight in 1975 ended up in a tree landing because I went along a ridge too far away from a landing field in a crossing wind. From that point on I resolved to never be out of safe field reach. And never have, despite hundreds and hundreds of XC flights. I don't think it is necessary to risk bad landings to excel at XC. The mind set that does is dangerous and can lead to accidents. I know of a number of situations where pilots felt they had to be aggressive to do well, ending up hurting or scaring themselves and setting themselves back or taking up another sport. Not necessary. Again, I regard medians as totally non-land-able, just like trees--it can be done, but the result may be dire.

Finally, one of the critical matters is the effect on our sports. Just as a near-miss or mid-air with an airplane could shut us down in a big way, clipping a car or causing an accident would give us bad press and perhaps regulation that would adversely effect all pilots. Even a call to 911 is bad press. Are we ever going to shed the label of "crazy dangerous sport?" Not if the public continues to read or hear about "crashes" here and there. The wuffos have no idea that we can control our flights, so landing on the median just reinforces the "out-of-control" image. It seems that the pilot in question and subsequent commenters missed this whole concept.

Dennis Pagen
Sport Aviation Publications

[brianvh]

It would seem that everything that needs to be said has been said, but I just wanted to point out that though Dennis was not given all the facts, he left open the possibility that on rare occasions a median landing may be necessary:

"a pilot in dire circumstances has to make the best of a bad situation and choose the best of bad options. Maybe a median is the best choice, but myself, I would choose a field with high brush over a median and even a tree over a median with vehicles streaming by both sides. I would probably choose a median with no traffic far and wide over brush and trees. However, I would be very careful and prepared to crash if necessary."

Especially given the experience of the pilot I tended to fall in the 'withhold judgement until further information' camp. The further information justified it. We had

• a highly experienced pilot well qualified to weigh his options
• a choice of a primary field AND a secondary field
• realization on approach that the primary was full of wires and the secondary now out of reach
• the decision to land in a wide, open median as the safer option

Given the choice, I feel most of us would have done the same rather than risk almost certain injury. The traffic loading may change the final decision, but we have no data on that as yet.

A median should never be the first or even second option. In this case it was the final option. Though we may have all rushed to judge a new P3 before hearing the facts, I think any pilot would be exonerated if the above situation is indeed correct. I would hope that we not rush to judge an experienced pilot who is also known as a safe pilot.

I've done a lot of bone headed things that deserve to get dumped on, and sometimes haven't been dumped on enough. I don't think this is one of those cases.

[RedBaron]

I would probably choose a median with no traffic far and wide over brush and trees.

Glad to see Mr. Pagen agrees with most of us.

[Flying Lobster]

I know this is probably a bad idea and feels like pulling a scab off an open wound, but if you'd like to put this incident into some kind visual context or perspective, open Google Earth if you have it on your computer and type in, "Linden, VA" to see the area the pilot was flying over when he chose the interstate median as his LZ. To simply call this one of those "Oh shit-moments that could happen to anyone because there was nothng else the pilot could have done" seems to miss the bigger picture and the reason I posted my criticism in the first place.

And finally, the following post was answered via e-mail (copied to me) with the author's response appearing below. It's spot-on and well worth sharing!

JR

You think I'm going to let you have the last word? : )

So to sum things up as they have been presented by the "he was irresponsible/cavalier" camp:

1) The proper course of action in Tom's case would have been to crash land rather than land in what he considered a safely approachable median--even with the very high probability of damage and/or injury to himself and possibly ground property?

2) If you were in his place--you would select a near certain crash landing as opposed to a reasonable safe out by landing in the median? (no " I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place" evasion please).

I want to know for my own information just how imperative--in other words "under no circumstances"-- this prohibition on landing in a median should be.

marc

Dennis Pagen's response to Marc's queries:


Hi Marccc,
Just got to my computer (been chasing a reluctant lady). I don't know what part of my transmission you saw, but I'll assume all. Here's my take: Every time I'm on the interstate I look at the medians, eyeballing the landing possibilities. I often get the willies as I see lines going across the road, gusts from passing traffic (trucks), etc. But one of the worse things is the normal dip between the two sides. A hang glider wing would probably tip stall before the pilot was near the ground, possibly turning the glider into the highway (not a factor on a PG, but what about truck gusts?). I have concluded that medians should be treated like trees--they are not safely land-able and should not be in the list of potential landing fields as we travel XC.

That being said, a pilot in dire circumstances has to make the best of a bad situation and choose the best of bad options. Maybe a median is the best choice, but myself, I would choose a field with high brush over a median and even a tree over a median with vehicles streaming by both sides. I would probably choose a median with no traffic far and wide over brush and trees. However, I would be very careful and prepared to crash if necessary.

The real matter here that needs to be emphasized is what you hit on: sometimes shit happens. Yes, but in general, XC pilots need it hammered in their head that they can prevent shit form happening--always. My first XC flight in 1975 ended up in a tree landing because I went along a ridge too far away from a landing field in a crossing wind. From that point on I resolved to never be out of safe field reach. And never have, despite hundreds and hundreds of XC flights. I don't think it is necessary to risk bad landings to excel at XC. The mind set that does is dangerous and can lead to accidents. I know of a number of situations where pilots felt they had to be aggressive to do well, ending up hurting or scaring themselves and setting themselves back or taking up another sport. Not necessary. Again, I regard medians as totally non-land-able, just like trees--it can be done, but the result may be dire.

Finally, one of the critical matters is the effect on our sports. Just as a near-miss or mid-air with an airplane could shut us down in a big way, clipping a car or causing an accident would give us bad press and perhaps regulation that would adversely effect all pilots. Even a call to 911 is bad press. Are we ever going to shed the label of "crazy dangerous sport?" Not if the public continues to read or hear about "crashes" here and there. The wuffos have no idea that we can control our flights, so landing on the median just reinforces the "out-of-control" image. It seems that the pilot in question and subsequent commenters missed this whole concept.

Dennis Pagen
Sport Aviation Publications

The picture you're painting here is not entirely accurate--you make it sound like Dennis logged on here and read everything before responding.

The truth is, I sent him an e-mail privately--too which he responded back to me privately. He did not ask me or let me know that he thereupon cc'd you the content or response to my communication or that it would be reposted by you up here. Not that I really care at this point.

Interesting the analogy you make of Dennis as the Dalai Lama or Moses--we have too many examples today of religious fundamentalism in which "absolute" law is used to justify anything, and often punishments are meted out in degree way out of proportion with the nature of the "sin."

marc

[RichH]

Dennis Pagen's response to Marc's queries:


The real matter here that needs to be emphasized is what you hit on: sometimes shit happens. Yes, but in general, XC pilots need it hammered in their head that they can prevent shit form happening--always. My first XC flight in 1975 ended up in a tree landing because I went along a ridge too far away from a landing field in a crossing wind. From that point on I resolved to never be out of safe field reach. And never have, despite hundreds and hundreds of XC flights. I don't think it is necessary to risk bad landings to excel at XC. The mind set that does is dangerous and can lead to accidents. I know of a number of situations where pilots felt they had to be aggressive to do well, ending up hurting or scaring themselves and setting themselves back or taking up another sport. Not necessary. Again, I regard medians as totally non-land-able, just like trees--it can be done, but the result may be dire.

It is clear what Dennis is saying here ..Plus if you have any doubt to the large number of landing fields that were available go onto google earth and look for yourself..I did and counted numerous fields 6+ that were near or directly on the way to where this pilot landed..No one doubts he put himself in a bad position and then had to make a very bad choice..but no one has pointed out that he had opportunities to land in wide open fields right near where he was .. this was preventable if he only made his choice to land earlier...

[mcelrah]

Any number of fields are landable from 5000 feet, or 2000 feet. So what if the nice field you picked out suddenly reveals itself to be hazardous at, say, 600 feet? And now the nice secondary that you have picked out is beyond a tree line. (Please note that these altitudes are just for example - neither I nor you nor JR nor Denis knows what Tom's cruising altitude was nor at what altitude he discovered the wires/trellises in the primary.) And Tom owes none of us an explanation. Since we don't know these key facts, there's not really anything left to say, now, is there? - Hugh

[tomceunen]

Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat

Tom, vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.

[mcelrah]

Oof - I last studied Latin in 1968.

Here goes:

"The wise man declares nothing which is not proven.

Tom, the man who knows, is saying little."

How'd I do? - Hugh

[Danny Brotto]

Never studied Latin but I do understand Baltimore City street talk. Let me paraphrase:

"I refuse to comment lest I incriminate myself."

Whatevah.

Danny Brotto

Opps, I pushed the send key... now I've done it.

[theflyingdude]

Any number of fields are landable from 5000 feet, or 2000 feet. So what if the nice field you picked out suddenly reveals itself to be hazardous at, say, 600 feet? And now the nice secondary that you have picked out is beyond a tree line. (Please note that these altitudes are just for example - neither I nor you nor JR nor Denis knows what Tom's cruising altitude was nor at what altitude he discovered the wires/trellises in the primary.) And Tom owes none of us an explanation. Since we don't know these key facts, there's not really anything left to say, now, is there? - Hugh

We all know "THE" key fact thanks to you, Hugh, and that would be that a PG pilot made a conscious decision to land on the median of I-66 while flying x-c on a recent Saturday afternoon. Regardless of whether he felt it a necessity at the time, it can reasonablly be presumed the choice was the result of poor judgement, bad planning, and/or in blatant disregard for the safety of those motorist traveling on the interstate. 'Nuff said!

JR

[mcelrah]

Well,no, you (nor I) do not get to be the final arbiter of this non-accident, non-incident - even as the self-appointed Guardian of House Morals. "Conscious decision"? Well I certainly hope so! JR, you are my hero, since you will CRASH rather than land on a median or in a field whose owner objects (which, since you already know everything, you will also have forknowledge of) or (begin hyperventilating now) in a schoolyard full of kids. I can see the headline now: "hang-glider pilot sacrifices self to preserve sanctity of interstate highway system." OK, *now* we can end the discussion (no, I don't really expect it). "Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Go on about your lives."
- Hugh