(To new glider owner about a month ago.)
...
It shouldn't matter whether the back up is in front or behind, because it
should be longer than the main such that it is always slack in flight. An
argument could be made that IF the main hang loop broke, you'd rather have the back
up in front because the most likely scenario in which you'd break the main
would be pulling high positive G's, and in that case you'd rather have the pitch
trim become more nose down than become more nose up, but on a Falcon 2 that's
not really a consideration. As far as where the back up "usually" goes, we
usually put it behind the main because that's usually where there's room for it.
If the main is properly maintained, and periodically replaced, it is never
going to fail anyway, so the back up is sort of pointless. Years ago we didn't
even put backup hang loops on our gliders, (there's no other component on
your glider that is backed up, and there are plenty of other components that are
more likely to fail, and where the failure would be just as serious) but for
some reason the whole back up hang loop thing is a big psychological need for
most pilots.
...
Sincerely,
Mike Meier
Wills Wing, Inc.
$15 pacifiers
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
> If the main is properly maintained, and periodically replaced, it is never
going to fail anyway
Fair enough... when was the last time anyone replaced their hang strap?
If you fly with a properly maintained, and periodically replaced aluminum caribiner, it is never going to fail either. The problem is that people weren't maintaining them and started plummeting to their deaths.
So this gets me kinda curious... anyone got storries of mains failing? (I know people do, I've heard them. They're rare, but they're out there).
>there's no other component on your glider that is backed up
Not true.
Your VG is backed up for the same reason that your main hang strap is backed up... it is a fabric to metal connection. There is a metal cable that is there to stop your crossbars from folding should your vg snap.
The mains on my harness are backed up also. Same reason, metal to fabric connection. I'm not sure all harnesses are this way.
> there are plenty of other components that are more likely to fail, and where the failure would be just as serious
Yup... you might want to change your sidewires the next time you change your hang strap.
Sorry, I don't see the logic in trying to save a couple bucks on equipment that I am litterally entrusting my life to. "Pacifier"? may be... but there's an old saying out there... "You never need the backup, until you need the backup".
I know of at least one pilot out there that flies with two caribiners. His logic makes more sense to me... you can't have too many backups.
$.02
Jim
going to fail anyway
Fair enough... when was the last time anyone replaced their hang strap?
If you fly with a properly maintained, and periodically replaced aluminum caribiner, it is never going to fail either. The problem is that people weren't maintaining them and started plummeting to their deaths.
So this gets me kinda curious... anyone got storries of mains failing? (I know people do, I've heard them. They're rare, but they're out there).
>there's no other component on your glider that is backed up
Not true.
Your VG is backed up for the same reason that your main hang strap is backed up... it is a fabric to metal connection. There is a metal cable that is there to stop your crossbars from folding should your vg snap.
The mains on my harness are backed up also. Same reason, metal to fabric connection. I'm not sure all harnesses are this way.
> there are plenty of other components that are more likely to fail, and where the failure would be just as serious
Yup... you might want to change your sidewires the next time you change your hang strap.
Sorry, I don't see the logic in trying to save a couple bucks on equipment that I am litterally entrusting my life to. "Pacifier"? may be... but there's an old saying out there... "You never need the backup, until you need the backup".
I know of at least one pilot out there that flies with two caribiners. His logic makes more sense to me... you can't have too many backups.
$.02
Jim
$15 pacifiers
OK - I want two gliders. - Hugh
On 20 Sep 2005, at 09:11, jimrooney wrote:
>
>
>> If the main is properly maintained, and periodically replaced, it
>> is never
>>
> going to fail anyway
>
> Fair enough... when was the last time anyone replaced their hang
> strap?
>
> If you fly with a properly maintained, and periodically replaced
> aluminum caribiner, it is never going to fail either. The problem
> is that people weren't maintaining them and started plummeting to
> their deaths.
>
> So this gets me kinda curious... anyone got storries of mains
> failing? (I know people do, I've heard them. They're rare, but
> they're out there).
>
>
>> there's no other component on your glider that is backed up
>>
>
> Not true.
> Your VG is backed up for the same reason that your main hang strap
> is backed up... it is a fabric to metal connection. There is a
> metal cable that is there to stop your crossbars from folding
> should your vg snap.
>
> The mains on my harness are backed up also. Same reason, metal to
> fabric connection. I'm not sure all harnesses are this way.
>
>
>> there are plenty of other components that are more likely to fail,
>> and where the failure would be just as serious
>>
>
> Yup... you might want to change your sidewires the next time you
> change your hang strap.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the logic in trying to save a couple bucks on
> equipment that I am litterally entrusting my life to. "Pacifier"?
> may be... but there's an old saying out there... "You never need
> the backup, until you need the backup".
>
> I know of at least one pilot out there that flies with two
> caribiners. His logic makes more sense to me... you can't have too
> many backups.
>
> $.02
> Jim
>
On 20 Sep 2005, at 09:11, jimrooney wrote:
>
>
>> If the main is properly maintained, and periodically replaced, it
>> is never
>>
> going to fail anyway
>
> Fair enough... when was the last time anyone replaced their hang
> strap?
>
> If you fly with a properly maintained, and periodically replaced
> aluminum caribiner, it is never going to fail either. The problem
> is that people weren't maintaining them and started plummeting to
> their deaths.
>
> So this gets me kinda curious... anyone got storries of mains
> failing? (I know people do, I've heard them. They're rare, but
> they're out there).
>
>
>> there's no other component on your glider that is backed up
>>
>
> Not true.
> Your VG is backed up for the same reason that your main hang strap
> is backed up... it is a fabric to metal connection. There is a
> metal cable that is there to stop your crossbars from folding
> should your vg snap.
>
> The mains on my harness are backed up also. Same reason, metal to
> fabric connection. I'm not sure all harnesses are this way.
>
>
>> there are plenty of other components that are more likely to fail,
>> and where the failure would be just as serious
>>
>
> Yup... you might want to change your sidewires the next time you
> change your hang strap.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the logic in trying to save a couple bucks on
> equipment that I am litterally entrusting my life to. "Pacifier"?
> may be... but there's an old saying out there... "You never need
> the backup, until you need the backup".
>
> I know of at least one pilot out there that flies with two
> caribiners. His logic makes more sense to me... you can't have too
> many backups.
>
> $.02
> Jim
>
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
$15 pacifiers
Yeah, that post did contain a small error. The cross spars tensioner/VG
system is indeed backed up. But not because of fiber/metal interface - which is
no more inherently problematic than any other properly engineered connection
(the glider itself is one big fiber/metal interface). My system is all cable.
My safety consists of a couple of short lengths of 3/32-7x19, a Ball-Lok pin,
and a washer. Doesn't weigh much, takes a few seconds to engage, and is fully
enclosed in the double surface. I'll keep it. But I've never heard of one
actually fulfilling its mission.
Problems with aluminum carabiners were manufacturing rather than maintenance
related. Although the potential was quite real, I never heard of a pilot
plummeting any farther than to the carpet in the glider shop. Anyway, we're using
steel for the time being.
I don't replace my carabiner, suspension strap, or side wires (some of the
stuff in the manual I consider to be a bit into the realm of CYA). My carabiner
will not fail. There's no point in replacing the suspension on the glider
without doing likewise to that on the harness and if they're not left baking in
the UV during downtime they'll last longer than any of us will. All of my
wires save for those associated with the cross spars junction get certified
before and after each flight.
If backups don't have significant downsides and can increase the margin of
safety in circumstances that don't involve asteroids then I'm all for them -
regardless of the bucks typically involved.
I can't imagine a situation in which an extra carabiner or two could possibly
be of any use. Scenarios involving hornets, Cape Buffalo, dust devils,
water, and electricity bring to mind the opposite.
On 1997/04/13, without benefit of the backup loop fluttering in the breeze
and the bulge of the coils of 3/16" polyester providing a useless redundant
connection between my harness suspension and parachute bridle, I might have
arrived at that Sycamore with the twenty extra feet I needed to squeak out of
Edinburg Gap.
If one can't have too many backups then maybe we should put kingposts back on
topless gliders to allow for more stability system redundancy.
system is indeed backed up. But not because of fiber/metal interface - which is
no more inherently problematic than any other properly engineered connection
(the glider itself is one big fiber/metal interface). My system is all cable.
My safety consists of a couple of short lengths of 3/32-7x19, a Ball-Lok pin,
and a washer. Doesn't weigh much, takes a few seconds to engage, and is fully
enclosed in the double surface. I'll keep it. But I've never heard of one
actually fulfilling its mission.
Problems with aluminum carabiners were manufacturing rather than maintenance
related. Although the potential was quite real, I never heard of a pilot
plummeting any farther than to the carpet in the glider shop. Anyway, we're using
steel for the time being.
I don't replace my carabiner, suspension strap, or side wires (some of the
stuff in the manual I consider to be a bit into the realm of CYA). My carabiner
will not fail. There's no point in replacing the suspension on the glider
without doing likewise to that on the harness and if they're not left baking in
the UV during downtime they'll last longer than any of us will. All of my
wires save for those associated with the cross spars junction get certified
before and after each flight.
If backups don't have significant downsides and can increase the margin of
safety in circumstances that don't involve asteroids then I'm all for them -
regardless of the bucks typically involved.
I can't imagine a situation in which an extra carabiner or two could possibly
be of any use. Scenarios involving hornets, Cape Buffalo, dust devils,
water, and electricity bring to mind the opposite.
On 1997/04/13, without benefit of the backup loop fluttering in the breeze
and the bulge of the coils of 3/16" polyester providing a useless redundant
connection between my harness suspension and parachute bridle, I might have
arrived at that Sycamore with the twenty extra feet I needed to squeak out of
Edinburg Gap.
If one can't have too many backups then maybe we should put kingposts back on
topless gliders to allow for more stability system redundancy.
I think a lot depends on your personal view of the risks. The risk of a hang loop breaking might not be statistically significant but the grim thought of plunging several thousand feet probably overrides mere mathematical calculation for many of us.
How 'bout parachutes? People use them but it is mainly for failed aerobatics. There are a few people who were just flying along minding there own business and ended up upside down but most of us could fly our entire careers without ever seeing our chutes. I recently flew without one from Dickey Ridge. I discovered that there is a big difference between hauling a harness with parachute half a mile and hauling one without. Risk reward.
In Costa Rica Dave Glover suggested that I didn't need a helmet. Marine air, late in the day, big ol' tandem glider with wheels. But I felt naked so he got me one. I cannot remember if it was full face. Prolly not.
I am bothered by the current aerotow release options even though I have never really had a bad experience. If you were seriously crooked right off the cart are you confident you could really get to the release? I am an old guy and am no longer very confident in my abilities. That is why I have messed around trying to devise something where you hold a string in your mouth. Open your mouth and you are off. After much experimentation and many exasperated tug pilots seems to work fine. But with the exception of Tad, nobody else I know is bothered by this aspect of towing..
How 'bout parachutes? People use them but it is mainly for failed aerobatics. There are a few people who were just flying along minding there own business and ended up upside down but most of us could fly our entire careers without ever seeing our chutes. I recently flew without one from Dickey Ridge. I discovered that there is a big difference between hauling a harness with parachute half a mile and hauling one without. Risk reward.
In Costa Rica Dave Glover suggested that I didn't need a helmet. Marine air, late in the day, big ol' tandem glider with wheels. But I felt naked so he got me one. I cannot remember if it was full face. Prolly not.
I am bothered by the current aerotow release options even though I have never really had a bad experience. If you were seriously crooked right off the cart are you confident you could really get to the release? I am an old guy and am no longer very confident in my abilities. That is why I have messed around trying to devise something where you hold a string in your mouth. Open your mouth and you are off. After much experimentation and many exasperated tug pilots seems to work fine. But with the exception of Tad, nobody else I know is bothered by this aspect of towing..
Towing
I route the handle of my bicycle release down onto my basetube. It's postioned so that I don't have to even move my hand to release. Just lift my ring and pinky finger and squeeze. I don't know why more people don't do this instead of opting for putting the release on a downtube... where you have to let go of the basetube with one hand to hit the release.
Matthew
Matthew
I don't know that anyone else isn't bothered by it... I think it's more along the lines of many people do not wish to be the guinne pig for a new system. Even the simplest of systems fail... often in new and interesting ways.
How many unintended releases did you go through to get to this point? How many bad positions did it put you in? If the unknown isn't a huge factor in an experimental system, then we would have no unintended releases in the first place. You've accepted the risks involved in testing out a new system. You've decided that the potential rewards involved outweigh the risks involved... but you can't say there aren't risks.
So why aren't others experimenting? I'm not sure about anyone else, but I don't count the risk of experimenting as being worth it.
As Matthew pointed out, moving the bicycle release to the basetube helps with concerns about being able to get to the release.
The "Lookout Mountain" style release does the same.... one hand holds a pull-loop that activates the release... a slight side motion on the basetube does the trick. It can be setup so that you can yank it with your pinkie if you like.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the "dead man" release... many other sports use it. I just don't want to be the guy working out the bugs.
Jim
How many unintended releases did you go through to get to this point? How many bad positions did it put you in? If the unknown isn't a huge factor in an experimental system, then we would have no unintended releases in the first place. You've accepted the risks involved in testing out a new system. You've decided that the potential rewards involved outweigh the risks involved... but you can't say there aren't risks.
So why aren't others experimenting? I'm not sure about anyone else, but I don't count the risk of experimenting as being worth it.
As Matthew pointed out, moving the bicycle release to the basetube helps with concerns about being able to get to the release.
The "Lookout Mountain" style release does the same.... one hand holds a pull-loop that activates the release... a slight side motion on the basetube does the trick. It can be setup so that you can yank it with your pinkie if you like.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the "dead man" release... many other sports use it. I just don't want to be the guy working out the bugs.
Jim
main failure
In fact my instructor Bob Williams died because his main failed and he did not have a backup. He was using a steel cable for a hang point and the nico failed. The logic was that he had a parachute and if it failed the glider brokehe could free fall. He had one of the first Bennett parachutes and at the time they did not suggest that you hook them to your carabiner. Subsequently when his hang point went the parachute was not connected to anything since it was run through the hang point and not the carabiner. After he fell the glider did a series of slow 360's for about 1000 ft and landed virtually unscratched.
Wow---I didn't know this kind of release existed. And I see it can be bought from LMFP for $130. I'm ready to buy one, because I think it's safer than the "whack the bike brake" style release.The "Lookout Mountain" style release does the same.... one hand holds a pull-loop that activates the release... a slight side motion on the basetube does the trick. It can be setup so that you can yank it with your pinkie if you like.
Can anyone offer any reasons why I shouldn't buy one? (e.g. are they in fact not safer than the bike-brake-style releases?) I'd rather have one of these than have the bike brake on my basetube.
Scott
Someone else chime in if they know better (I'm sure someone does)...
I believe the bicycle release came about because the loading forces on the spinnaker make it harder to release under high loads. The bycicle handle provides additional leaverage.
Personally, I've used both and like both.
If you get a loop one, there is a safety chord that is meant to be attatched to your downtube. It gives the release handle something to pull against. A common mistake is to just secure the velcro... which will work in most cases, but not under a high load (the time you _really_ need it).
Jim
I believe the bicycle release came about because the loading forces on the spinnaker make it harder to release under high loads. The bycicle handle provides additional leaverage.
Personally, I've used both and like both.
If you get a loop one, there is a safety chord that is meant to be attatched to your downtube. It gives the release handle something to pull against. A common mistake is to just secure the velcro... which will work in most cases, but not under a high load (the time you _really_ need it).
Jim
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Towing
Cause its a place to catch bridle and lock into lockout and/or lock into pitch up or down.Matthew wrote:I route the handle of my bicycle release down onto my basetube. It's postioned so that I don't have to even move my hand to release. Just lift my ring and pinky finger and squeeze. I don't know why more people don't do this ...
Matthew
Been there.
Done that.
I Don't aerotow with anything on my basetube if at all possible. But that's just me--I'm a Super whimp since I also fly with a reserve, back-up hang loop and helmet.
On the other hand--in regards to an emergency release when coming crooked off the cart--to my way of thinking a sudden release low would put a greater risk of stall/mush into the ground at a bad attitude--so my inclination would be to hang on and correct if at all possible.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Handle
How is there a greater chance of the bridle catching the handle when the handle is on a corner of the basetube as compared to being at the corner of the DT? Also, you pre-tension and clear the bridle before taking off. You'd have to get a lot of slack in the line and be in a turn to have the bridle catch the handle. And in such a situation you'd just as likely have the bridle catch the handle if placed on the DT.
Matthew
Matthew
The lookout mountain releases have been discussed recently on this list. I have one, I like it very much. The problem is that the way some of the gates were configured it used to be possible for the weak link to pull against the hinge and it wouldn't open. They figured that out and I haven't heard of this problem in years.
I find it very comforting to have my fingers already through the release when starting to tow.
I find it very comforting to have my fingers already through the release when starting to tow.
Brian Vant-Hull
Jim wrote:
(snip)How many unintended releases did you go through to get to this point? How many bad positions did it put you in? If the unknown isn't a huge factor in an experimental system, then we would have no unintended releases in the first place. You've accepted the risks involved in testing out a new system. You've decided that the potential rewards involved outweigh the risks involved... but you can't say there aren't risks.(snip)
You are right. And I do not like being a test pilot. Very nervous making. Try anything new and all kinds of things can go wrong in ways you have never considered. Unintended releases are a "known known" in Rumsfeldian terms. If I had known Tad was going to make one I would have just waited for his. Although once into it I kinda got hooked on the project. The only real problems in the process were unintended releases but it never really put me in a bad position. I might make an exception for last weekend when I (mis) used Tads for the first time and ended up dancing on the cart. Never thought about that. See
I think the tough part in managing risk is keeping the perception of risk and the reality aligned. IMHO the perception of risk from a failed hangstrap is much greater than the actual reality. So I don't really care about backup hang straps. But I reached the opposite conclusion re aero releases -- a lot more dangerous than you think. In my view. (at least for shoulder tow) . Others could come to the opposite conclusion. Not enough data out there to resolve the issue.
(snip)How many unintended releases did you go through to get to this point? How many bad positions did it put you in? If the unknown isn't a huge factor in an experimental system, then we would have no unintended releases in the first place. You've accepted the risks involved in testing out a new system. You've decided that the potential rewards involved outweigh the risks involved... but you can't say there aren't risks.(snip)
You are right. And I do not like being a test pilot. Very nervous making. Try anything new and all kinds of things can go wrong in ways you have never considered. Unintended releases are a "known known" in Rumsfeldian terms. If I had known Tad was going to make one I would have just waited for his. Although once into it I kinda got hooked on the project. The only real problems in the process were unintended releases but it never really put me in a bad position. I might make an exception for last weekend when I (mis) used Tads for the first time and ended up dancing on the cart. Never thought about that. See
I think the tough part in managing risk is keeping the perception of risk and the reality aligned. IMHO the perception of risk from a failed hangstrap is much greater than the actual reality. So I don't really care about backup hang straps. But I reached the opposite conclusion re aero releases -- a lot more dangerous than you think. In my view. (at least for shoulder tow) . Others could come to the opposite conclusion. Not enough data out there to resolve the issue.
$15 pacifiers
I have had the problem of the gate not opening. Does this mean I have an
older model? What did they change? I believe I have a recent model -- it
is held at a slight angle, so that in theory, there should always be
pressure on the gate, not on the hinge. I also make sure that I have the
gate part opening down to reduce the likelyhood of haning up. But it still
happens.
Any fixes? Does the Lookout release still use the same spinaker release?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: brianvh [mailto:brianvh@umd5.umd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:22 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: $15 pacifiers
The lookout mountain releases have been discussed recently on this list. I
have one, I like it very much. The problem is that the way some of the
gates were configured it used to be possible for the weak link to pull
against the hinge and it wouldn't open. They figured that out and I haven't
heard of this problem in years.
I find it very comforting to have my fingers already through the release
when starting to tow.Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
older model? What did they change? I believe I have a recent model -- it
is held at a slight angle, so that in theory, there should always be
pressure on the gate, not on the hinge. I also make sure that I have the
gate part opening down to reduce the likelyhood of haning up. But it still
happens.
Any fixes? Does the Lookout release still use the same spinaker release?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: brianvh [mailto:brianvh@umd5.umd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:22 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: $15 pacifiers
The lookout mountain releases have been discussed recently on this list. I
have one, I like it very much. The problem is that the way some of the
gates were configured it used to be possible for the weak link to pull
against the hinge and it wouldn't open. They figured that out and I haven't
heard of this problem in years.
I find it very comforting to have my fingers already through the release
when starting to tow.Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149
Release
I am not a particular fan of towing and really would like an instant release when near the ground. Not sure I could really be quick enough to get off the line if something happened immediately after coming off the cart.
Joe
..........
I am bothered by the current aerotow release options even though I have never really had a bad experience. If you were seriously crooked right off the cart are you confident you could really get to the release? I am an old guy and am no longer very confident in my abilities. That is why I have messed around trying to devise something where you hold a string in your mouth. Open your mouth and you are off. After much experimentation and many exasperated tug pilots seems to work fine. But with the exception of Tad, nobody else I know is bothered by this aspect of towing..
Joe
..........
I am bothered by the current aerotow release options even though I have never really had a bad experience. If you were seriously crooked right off the cart are you confident you could really get to the release? I am an old guy and am no longer very confident in my abilities. That is why I have messed around trying to devise something where you hold a string in your mouth. Open your mouth and you are off. After much experimentation and many exasperated tug pilots seems to work fine. But with the exception of Tad, nobody else I know is bothered by this aspect of towing..
Older models are connected behind the spinnaker (on the ring that's welded to it). Newer models are connected through a hole drilled in the spinnaker. The difference is that the straight connected ones align the tow force with the hinge point on the spinnaker. The hole in the new ones rotate the spinnaker up making it so that you're towing off the gate.
"Older models are connected behind the spinnaker (on the ring that's welded to it). Newer models are connected through a hole drilled in the spinnaker. The difference is that the straight connected ones align the tow force with the hinge point on the spinnaker. The hole in the new ones rotate the spinnaker up making it so that you're towing off the gate."
I had an older model and fixed it by a loop of string from the spinaker to the carabiner so you towed off the gate. Didn't have a problem after that but you had to position everything.
I had an older model and fixed it by a loop of string from the spinaker to the carabiner so you towed off the gate. Didn't have a problem after that but you had to position everything.
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
$15 pacifiers
On Sunday Steve was kind enough to hop on the cart with my latest version of
the release he had developed. Due to an invalid assumption I had made he
found himself separated from the towline real fast and had to execute a difficult
landing with a rolling cart somehow complicating the situation (my
embarrassment prevented me from fully absorbing the the details - gotta get a full
debriefing the next good weekend).
A bit thereafter figured that, due to differences in the geometry of our
harnesses, rather than trying to hold the intended thirty-second of the tow force
in his teeth, Steve was working on half. Not fun, but this was an extremely
simple and easily remedied adjustment problem. (Shoulda checked it out but
conditions were cooking and... Never mind.) And... the release didn't fail -
it worked. (The only actual failure that he's experienced recently of which
I'm aware involved an off-the-shelf curved pin barrel release.)
In the course of the development of my two point system I have had several
premature releases related to pushing the envelope in the fields of tight and
hair trigger.
Release systems incorporate weak links (and we all know what can happen when
they don't). Consequently, from the moment the engine revs up to the point at
which the pin is pulled one can suddenly find oneself in free flight mode
with no warning whatsoever. Thus, one must launch and fly in such a manner that
a weak link failure or premature release is not an issue. Happily, this is
what you're supposed to be doing regardless.
Again - nobody's ever been hurt as a result of a release that worked when he
or she didn't want it to. Conversely, releases that don't work or can't be
accessed when people do want them to occasionally kill them. I cite 2005/05/29
as a reasonably pertinent example of what can happen as a result of the
precious "tried and true" technology. (I think Steve got some faint grass stains on
his pants Sunday.)
The release systems Steve and I developed DO NOT FAIL.
The "risks" to which your friendly neighborhood test pilots have been
exposing themselves (and the launch crew) have been only ones of inconvenience. The
benefits have been the the safest and most reliable one and two point systems
on the planet.
These are simple devices. There have been and will be no major surprises in
their field uses.
Cable lanyard assemblies are inherently problematic. I know of several that
failed to function right out of the box. Highland had so many problems with
the Lookout (loop) release that they stopped selling them. However (Scott), if
forced to pick from the current tiny off-the-shelf litter, as long as the
thing works that would be my choice.
I'd always hoped that those ugly brake levers had some fraction of the danger
potential indicated by their appearance. Thanks for the dirt, Marc.
However, I like Matthew's concept. Even the tiny bit of hand movement involved in my
system is a liability. Two Saturdays ago I was in a starboard lockout which
could have killed me had it happened about 2300' lower and the second of
reaction time was a bit of an issue. I may have just cooked up a technique which
will allow me to blow off with my hand planted though.
On an appropriate glider, given a choice between a low level lockout on
Steve's one and my two point system... Steve wins hands down - literally. If you
have an appropriate glider I highly recommend you take that option.
Significant bugs were out of that system as of Sunday afternoon. If you're currently
towing one point and not using it you're taking an unnecessary risk.
The Wichard 2673 spinnaker shackle has a functional load rating over nine
times the maximum a solo glider can pull. Over the range from slack line to weak
link the tension required to clear the latch is light and the degree of
variation negligible. (That is, of course, assuming that you haven't butchered the
thing with a drill and rotated it 90 degrees from alignment with the force.
Then you start needing the brake lever.) And on my system the latch
resistance is completely irrelevant. That detail is taken care of before you load the
glider on the cart.
For those of you two pointers not yet ready for the Full Monty and having
trouble with weak link hangups (Mike) I can take care of that problem (and
several others) with four feet of leechline, a parachute pin, and an inch and a half
of vinyl tubing (right, Brian?).
Digressing, for a moment, back to backup loops. Yeah, a lot of people died
in the early days before the hang gliding community discovered aerodynamics,
engineering, and arithmetic and I know about the criminal negligence issues one
might encounter when you get a component from Cowboy Bob's Chili and Discount
Hang Strap Haven, but these aren't backup issues - these are primary issues.
Backups shouldn't be incorporated so that we can get away with using some
piece o' crap in the primary function.
Give me a couple of feet of one inch nylon webbing, a needle, a spool of
dental floss, and 45 minutes in front of the television and I'll whip up something
I can fly for the next twenty years then use, along with a winch and a couple
of trees, to fold in half the keel of any glider anyone wants to donate to
the demonstration.
I can probably rig anyone's glider with my full two point setup for $400,
including parts. That's about three off-the-shelf releases or 80% of a parachute
for something a whole lot more likely to save your life than any of the
above. The bridle assembly with dual barrel releases would be about half the stuff
on the frame. A one point system... maybe $100.
Or... take the designs (OK, Steve?) and have at it.
I don't consider Holly's accident just a matter of pilot error. I consider
it in large part to be a failure of the pilot community. The technology to
have prevented that sort of thing was available then and it's still getting
ignored because the old stuff just once in a while contributes to or causes
accidents critical and fatal. Release issues were likely factors in both the Bill
Bennett/Mike DelSignore and Arlan Birkett/Jeremiah crashes.
Wills Wing comes out with a bulletin about a structurally irrelevant pin that
can be replaced in five minutes after dropping 87 cents at the local hardware
store and... (FEMA should have responded with such enthusiasm). One of the
circle gets partially killed and nothing happens on an extremely relevant front.
How 'bout a local chapter taking an official look at this stuff and taking an
official position?
the release he had developed. Due to an invalid assumption I had made he
found himself separated from the towline real fast and had to execute a difficult
landing with a rolling cart somehow complicating the situation (my
embarrassment prevented me from fully absorbing the the details - gotta get a full
debriefing the next good weekend).
A bit thereafter figured that, due to differences in the geometry of our
harnesses, rather than trying to hold the intended thirty-second of the tow force
in his teeth, Steve was working on half. Not fun, but this was an extremely
simple and easily remedied adjustment problem. (Shoulda checked it out but
conditions were cooking and... Never mind.) And... the release didn't fail -
it worked. (The only actual failure that he's experienced recently of which
I'm aware involved an off-the-shelf curved pin barrel release.)
In the course of the development of my two point system I have had several
premature releases related to pushing the envelope in the fields of tight and
hair trigger.
Release systems incorporate weak links (and we all know what can happen when
they don't). Consequently, from the moment the engine revs up to the point at
which the pin is pulled one can suddenly find oneself in free flight mode
with no warning whatsoever. Thus, one must launch and fly in such a manner that
a weak link failure or premature release is not an issue. Happily, this is
what you're supposed to be doing regardless.
Again - nobody's ever been hurt as a result of a release that worked when he
or she didn't want it to. Conversely, releases that don't work or can't be
accessed when people do want them to occasionally kill them. I cite 2005/05/29
as a reasonably pertinent example of what can happen as a result of the
precious "tried and true" technology. (I think Steve got some faint grass stains on
his pants Sunday.)
The release systems Steve and I developed DO NOT FAIL.
The "risks" to which your friendly neighborhood test pilots have been
exposing themselves (and the launch crew) have been only ones of inconvenience. The
benefits have been the the safest and most reliable one and two point systems
on the planet.
These are simple devices. There have been and will be no major surprises in
their field uses.
Cable lanyard assemblies are inherently problematic. I know of several that
failed to function right out of the box. Highland had so many problems with
the Lookout (loop) release that they stopped selling them. However (Scott), if
forced to pick from the current tiny off-the-shelf litter, as long as the
thing works that would be my choice.
I'd always hoped that those ugly brake levers had some fraction of the danger
potential indicated by their appearance. Thanks for the dirt, Marc.
However, I like Matthew's concept. Even the tiny bit of hand movement involved in my
system is a liability. Two Saturdays ago I was in a starboard lockout which
could have killed me had it happened about 2300' lower and the second of
reaction time was a bit of an issue. I may have just cooked up a technique which
will allow me to blow off with my hand planted though.
On an appropriate glider, given a choice between a low level lockout on
Steve's one and my two point system... Steve wins hands down - literally. If you
have an appropriate glider I highly recommend you take that option.
Significant bugs were out of that system as of Sunday afternoon. If you're currently
towing one point and not using it you're taking an unnecessary risk.
The Wichard 2673 spinnaker shackle has a functional load rating over nine
times the maximum a solo glider can pull. Over the range from slack line to weak
link the tension required to clear the latch is light and the degree of
variation negligible. (That is, of course, assuming that you haven't butchered the
thing with a drill and rotated it 90 degrees from alignment with the force.
Then you start needing the brake lever.) And on my system the latch
resistance is completely irrelevant. That detail is taken care of before you load the
glider on the cart.
For those of you two pointers not yet ready for the Full Monty and having
trouble with weak link hangups (Mike) I can take care of that problem (and
several others) with four feet of leechline, a parachute pin, and an inch and a half
of vinyl tubing (right, Brian?).
Digressing, for a moment, back to backup loops. Yeah, a lot of people died
in the early days before the hang gliding community discovered aerodynamics,
engineering, and arithmetic and I know about the criminal negligence issues one
might encounter when you get a component from Cowboy Bob's Chili and Discount
Hang Strap Haven, but these aren't backup issues - these are primary issues.
Backups shouldn't be incorporated so that we can get away with using some
piece o' crap in the primary function.
Give me a couple of feet of one inch nylon webbing, a needle, a spool of
dental floss, and 45 minutes in front of the television and I'll whip up something
I can fly for the next twenty years then use, along with a winch and a couple
of trees, to fold in half the keel of any glider anyone wants to donate to
the demonstration.
I can probably rig anyone's glider with my full two point setup for $400,
including parts. That's about three off-the-shelf releases or 80% of a parachute
for something a whole lot more likely to save your life than any of the
above. The bridle assembly with dual barrel releases would be about half the stuff
on the frame. A one point system... maybe $100.
Or... take the designs (OK, Steve?) and have at it.
I don't consider Holly's accident just a matter of pilot error. I consider
it in large part to be a failure of the pilot community. The technology to
have prevented that sort of thing was available then and it's still getting
ignored because the old stuff just once in a while contributes to or causes
accidents critical and fatal. Release issues were likely factors in both the Bill
Bennett/Mike DelSignore and Arlan Birkett/Jeremiah crashes.
Wills Wing comes out with a bulletin about a structurally irrelevant pin that
can be replaced in five minutes after dropping 87 cents at the local hardware
store and... (FEMA should have responded with such enthusiasm). One of the
circle gets partially killed and nothing happens on an extremely relevant front.
How 'bout a local chapter taking an official look at this stuff and taking an
official position?
Ok, as long as we're digging this deeply into it....
It is not merely a matter of inconvenience. I was there, and in my oppinion Steve came rather close to breaking his legs. I was getting ready to dial 911.
Sure, being on tow at the wrong time is an extremely bad thing. But don't tell us that being off tow at the wrong time is all sweet and wonderful. Yes, we prepare for it, but that doesn't make it a safe situation. It makes it a manageable situation. There are times where it's better to be on tow than off tow. Ask anyone that's dragged a dolly into the air.
Yes, your tow system failed... it didn't fail to release, it failed to work. Did it fail more safely than a lockout? Yes. But don't tell me that thing worked. You found an unforseen error. That's the problem... unforseen. You don't know what else is waiting for you. Oh, let me rephrase that more accurately, Steve found an unforseen error for you.
Jim
It is not merely a matter of inconvenience. I was there, and in my oppinion Steve came rather close to breaking his legs. I was getting ready to dial 911.
Sure, being on tow at the wrong time is an extremely bad thing. But don't tell us that being off tow at the wrong time is all sweet and wonderful. Yes, we prepare for it, but that doesn't make it a safe situation. It makes it a manageable situation. There are times where it's better to be on tow than off tow. Ask anyone that's dragged a dolly into the air.
Yes, your tow system failed... it didn't fail to release, it failed to work. Did it fail more safely than a lockout? Yes. But don't tell me that thing worked. You found an unforseen error. That's the problem... unforseen. You don't know what else is waiting for you. Oh, let me rephrase that more accurately, Steve found an unforseen error for you.
Jim
Low Release
Doesn't towing technique also have a lot to do with getting in trouble (or not getting into trouble) close to the ground? I hang onto the cart a few seconds longer than I probably need to in order to gain more air speed, then push out to clear the cart and pull right back in to stay down with the tug. Is this acceptable with the tug pilots??? I feel safer this way because I have lots of air speed leaving the cart.
Matthew
Matthew
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Re: Handle
Well, I must have misread your original post which said the handle was right next to your pinky finger and you didn't even need to let go to activate the lever. I must assume you meant you either fly with your hands near the control bar corners or your pinky is really long. My apologies for not intuitively understanding this.Matthew wrote:How is there a greater chance of the bridle catching the handle when the handle is on a corner of the basetube as compared to being at the corner of the DT? Also, you pre-tension and clear the bridle before taking off. You'd have to get a lot of slack in the line and be in a turn to have the bridle catch the handle. And in such a situation you'd just as likely have the bridle catch the handle if placed on the DT.
Matthew
I appreciate that there are other pilots out there willing to be test pilots for the rest of us. I can also appreciate the tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--successful aerotows and releases from the existing systems. I think it is a good thing to think in new ways to improve systems taht we all take for granted are the only way to do them. But I don't think the numbers are yet comparable to catagorically state one system is inherently superior to another.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
I can't speak for all the tug pilots out there, but the launch method you describe isn't going to bother me. I don't mind coming out of the field hot. My pet peeve is coming out slow. Just don't sit low on me either.
I'm generally of the oppinion that coming out of the cart fast is not a great idea. It's a matter of degrees though. Slightly faster than trim and hauling ass are two different matters. Personally, I try exiting at trim. I like having flying speed (trim is) and I'll have to pull in slightly as I exit to maintain my altitude as the tug lifts off the ground... thus I'll be slightly faster than trim.
The reason I don't like exiting hot is that you increase the likelyhood that you'll run into the tug's wake... and you'll do it at a higher speed. I push over to keep you from sitting low on me and our trajectory is flatter... thus you're closer to the wake. If you're pushing out of the cart, now you're nose high as you enter the wake and under higher loads. When someone's having repeated weaklink failures on takeoff, I generally find that this is how they're exiting the cart.
But like I said, it's a matter of degrees.
My general advice on towing is stay in position. All the little quirks that people do for this reason or that reason generally make things worse rather than better.
Short answer,
Exiting fast doesn't bother me (as long as you don't then sit low on me), but you're most likely making life worse for yourself.
$.02
Jim
I'm generally of the oppinion that coming out of the cart fast is not a great idea. It's a matter of degrees though. Slightly faster than trim and hauling ass are two different matters. Personally, I try exiting at trim. I like having flying speed (trim is) and I'll have to pull in slightly as I exit to maintain my altitude as the tug lifts off the ground... thus I'll be slightly faster than trim.
The reason I don't like exiting hot is that you increase the likelyhood that you'll run into the tug's wake... and you'll do it at a higher speed. I push over to keep you from sitting low on me and our trajectory is flatter... thus you're closer to the wake. If you're pushing out of the cart, now you're nose high as you enter the wake and under higher loads. When someone's having repeated weaklink failures on takeoff, I generally find that this is how they're exiting the cart.
But like I said, it's a matter of degrees.
My general advice on towing is stay in position. All the little quirks that people do for this reason or that reason generally make things worse rather than better.
Short answer,
Exiting fast doesn't bother me (as long as you don't then sit low on me), but you're most likely making life worse for yourself.
$.02
Jim
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
Re: $15 pacifiers
Tad wrote:
I don't consider Holly's accident just a matter of pilot error. I consider
it in large part to be a failure of the pilot community. The technology to
have prevented that sort of thing was available then and it's still getting
ignored because the old stuff just once in a while contributes to or causes
accidents critical and fatal. Release issues were likely factors in both the Bill
Bennett/Mike DelSignore and Arlan Birkett/Jeremiah crashes.
I would like to think most pilots reading these posts realize there's a lot of conjecture, speculation, and plain B.S. that's being spewed forth. HG manufacturers don't recommend that you regularly inspect your equipment and change the hang strap and flying wires on an annual basis just to sell you additional parts.
As for Tad's apparent incorrect indication that the release was a factor in the Bill Bennett/Mike Delsignore accident, the critical factor was supposedly a weak link that was much too strong coupled with the actions of an inexperienced tug pilot who dumped power when he shouldn't have (at least that's what I was told by Dennis Pagen who helped investigate the accident). I've not seen any analysis of Arlen's recent fatal tandem accident in Chicago and unless Tad has some kind of insider knoweldge about what happend, I would surmise his indication that the release was a factor is pure speculation. I met Arlen in Costa Rica last February. He was a nice guy - very sad, indeed.
JR
I don't consider Holly's accident just a matter of pilot error. I consider
it in large part to be a failure of the pilot community. The technology to
have prevented that sort of thing was available then and it's still getting
ignored because the old stuff just once in a while contributes to or causes
accidents critical and fatal. Release issues were likely factors in both the Bill
Bennett/Mike DelSignore and Arlan Birkett/Jeremiah crashes.
I would like to think most pilots reading these posts realize there's a lot of conjecture, speculation, and plain B.S. that's being spewed forth. HG manufacturers don't recommend that you regularly inspect your equipment and change the hang strap and flying wires on an annual basis just to sell you additional parts.
As for Tad's apparent incorrect indication that the release was a factor in the Bill Bennett/Mike Delsignore accident, the critical factor was supposedly a weak link that was much too strong coupled with the actions of an inexperienced tug pilot who dumped power when he shouldn't have (at least that's what I was told by Dennis Pagen who helped investigate the accident). I've not seen any analysis of Arlen's recent fatal tandem accident in Chicago and unless Tad has some kind of insider knoweldge about what happend, I would surmise his indication that the release was a factor is pure speculation. I met Arlen in Costa Rica last February. He was a nice guy - very sad, indeed.
JR
$15 pacifiers
Jumping into the argument here....a tow system that releases prematurely has
just FAILED.
Obviously the greatest danger is a lockout that cannot be released from but
that does not mean a premature release is not dangerous as well. Just watch
an inexperienced pilot pop off the line early in L and V conditions, fail to
pull in, and lawn dart from 20 or 30 feet. Guess what, that headache ain't
going away any time soon.
>Again - nobody's ever been hurt as a result of a release that worked when
>he or she didn't want it to.
This statement is completely false. In my short time flying I have
witnessed this more then once.
Our current tow systems could be improved, obviously. So could our
standards of pilot skill and training. If anyone is experiencing lockouts
as a part of their regular towing activities (like more then one a year)
then it is seriously time to reconsider a)your equipment or b)your skills.
Kev C
-----Original Message-----
From: TadErcksn@aol.com [mailto:TadErcksn@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:55 AM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: $15 pacifiers
And... the release didn't fail -
it worked. (The only actual failure that he's experienced recently of which
I'm aware involved an off-the-shelf curved pin barrel release.)
In the course of the development of my two point system I have had several
premature releases related to pushing the envelope in the fields of tight
and
hair trigger.
just FAILED.
Obviously the greatest danger is a lockout that cannot be released from but
that does not mean a premature release is not dangerous as well. Just watch
an inexperienced pilot pop off the line early in L and V conditions, fail to
pull in, and lawn dart from 20 or 30 feet. Guess what, that headache ain't
going away any time soon.
>Again - nobody's ever been hurt as a result of a release that worked when
>he or she didn't want it to.
This statement is completely false. In my short time flying I have
witnessed this more then once.
Our current tow systems could be improved, obviously. So could our
standards of pilot skill and training. If anyone is experiencing lockouts
as a part of their regular towing activities (like more then one a year)
then it is seriously time to reconsider a)your equipment or b)your skills.
Kev C
-----Original Message-----
From: TadErcksn@aol.com [mailto:TadErcksn@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:55 AM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: $15 pacifiers
And... the release didn't fail -
it worked. (The only actual failure that he's experienced recently of which
I'm aware involved an off-the-shelf curved pin barrel release.)
In the course of the development of my two point system I have had several
premature releases related to pushing the envelope in the fields of tight
and
hair trigger.