Thanks Marc. We visited Steve Wendt yesterday, who was visibly choked up over Bill's death. For Steve, it all comes down to one thing: you've got to hook in. Period. Steve's second point of emphasis is distractions. The more distractions, the greater the chance of error.
I'm an individualist and a believer in self-reliance. Have been all my life. Yet there are so many aspects of life in which we achieve more through collective effort. You name it---building roads, winning wars, governing states, walking on the moon. All achieved because people helped each other.
It seems that the smaller the scale of the undertaking, the more dependence on self-reliance. So it is with our sport.
An unwritten law, such as the pilot's sole responsibility for himself, can have an up- and downside. The upside is that we're all made aware how critical it is that we check and re-check ourselves. But the downside to living by such an unwritten law is that, perhaps in a subconscious way, this law lessens the importance---the urgency---of our care for the pilot when we're not the pilot.
That's all I've been trying to say. When we are assisting a pilot at launch, we should be just as attentive to the pilot's safety as the pilot himself. When people say things like "in no way is the wire crew responsible for the safety of the pilot," that language effectively reduces the wire crew's burden of care for the pilot. I don't agree with that.
The pilot should look out for him/herself.
The wire crew should look out for the pilot.
A mutually supportive system like this will always result in a higher degree of safety.
Scott
Thoughts on responsibility...
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Thoughts on responsibility...
>> The pilot should look out for him/herself.
>> The wire crew should look out for the pilot.
You've almost got it.
The pilot MUST look out for him/herself.
The wire crew SHOULD look out for the pilot. <-- This is absolutely a
good idea; it does NOT however mean that they are "responsible" for the
pilot's oversights.
~Ralph
>> The wire crew should look out for the pilot.
You've almost got it.
The pilot MUST look out for him/herself.
The wire crew SHOULD look out for the pilot. <-- This is absolutely a
good idea; it does NOT however mean that they are "responsible" for the
pilot's oversights.
~Ralph
Re: Thoughts on responsibility...
You're right Ralph---I should have said must.rs54263 wrote:>> The pilot should look out for him/herself.
>> The wire crew should look out for the pilot.
You've almost got it.
The pilot MUST look out for him/herself.
The wire crew SHOULD look out for the pilot. <-- This is absolutely a
good idea; it does NOT however mean that they are "responsible" for the
pilot's oversights.
~Ralph
On the second point, my own feeling---after this recent tragedy---is that the wire crew must look out for the pilot. And (to clarify) the wire crew should never be "responsible" in the legal sense...but definitely in the moral sense.
And (one last clarification!) when I say the crew must be responsible (in the moral sense), I'm not saying we should literally force others to do anything---we can't do that. I'm saying that each of us must decide for ourselves that we must look out for the pilot when we're assisting.
Scott
I really don't see much difference between being held responsible morally versus legally. Yes, one could involve prosecution, but that's only a technical difference. In terms of feelings, they are the same.
The real question is, do I allow myself to be angry at the wire crew for allowing Bill's death? I can't. I know they are torturing themselves already. If I was in their shoes and to that was added the anger of the community for having let this happen, I would surely leave the sport, and there'd be serious thoughts of suicide if it was a friend of mine.
Wire crew should care, perhaps enough to walk away if a pilot refuses a hang check, but they should not be blamed for not thinking of things the pilot himself did not think of. Or if they did think of something and the pilot refuses....? They HAD to assume he felt assured he was hooked in, otherwise no reasonable individual would launch. I cannot be angry with the wire crew.
I AM angry at Bill for allowing this to happen - to himself, and to the rest of us. We need to be more vigilant, more insistent....and yet within 10 years this will happen again. We can and should blame the HG culture as a whole, but not the individuals involved - only the pilot.
The real question is, do I allow myself to be angry at the wire crew for allowing Bill's death? I can't. I know they are torturing themselves already. If I was in their shoes and to that was added the anger of the community for having let this happen, I would surely leave the sport, and there'd be serious thoughts of suicide if it was a friend of mine.
Wire crew should care, perhaps enough to walk away if a pilot refuses a hang check, but they should not be blamed for not thinking of things the pilot himself did not think of. Or if they did think of something and the pilot refuses....? They HAD to assume he felt assured he was hooked in, otherwise no reasonable individual would launch. I cannot be angry with the wire crew.
I AM angry at Bill for allowing this to happen - to himself, and to the rest of us. We need to be more vigilant, more insistent....and yet within 10 years this will happen again. We can and should blame the HG culture as a whole, but not the individuals involved - only the pilot.
Brian Vant-Hull
Brian said...
Again with respect, I don't agree with this at all. We could all probably debate this point endlessly, but my point all along is just the opposite: that the wire crew should think of everything the pilot thinks of. As far as I'm concerned, they should be pilots. This goes to the whole issue (that's been debated before) about using wuffos, and I don't think I'll ever use wuffos. If I don't have pilots on my crew or the conditions (and my ability) aren't safe for a self-launch, I won't fly.
Personal responsibility for one's own actions isn't something reserved exclusively for pilots---it applies to everyone at all times.
Scott
I don't know Brian. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it. For example, when can you allow yourself to be mad? If you give me any circumstance, I could easily tell you why you shouldn't be mad, because somehow---somewhere along the chain of events leading to that circumstance---it would be your decision that led to your involvement. By this logic, nobody should ever be mad at anyone, nor ever hold anyone accountable for anything. That would be a wonderful world, but it's not the one we live in.The real question is, do I allow myself to be angry at the wire crew for allowing Bill's death? I can't.
...but they should not be blamed for not thinking of things the pilot himself did not think of.
Again with respect, I don't agree with this at all. We could all probably debate this point endlessly, but my point all along is just the opposite: that the wire crew should think of everything the pilot thinks of. As far as I'm concerned, they should be pilots. This goes to the whole issue (that's been debated before) about using wuffos, and I don't think I'll ever use wuffos. If I don't have pilots on my crew or the conditions (and my ability) aren't safe for a self-launch, I won't fly.
I'm mad at Bill too---really mad. What he did was like jumping out of a plane without a parachute---just unbelievable. And I hold Bill responsible. But I'm also not going to pat the crew members on the back and say in a gentle, comforting voice, "Don't worry, it's okay---you had nothing to do with it."I AM angry at Bill for allowing this to happen - to himself, and to the rest of us.
Personal responsibility for one's own actions isn't something reserved exclusively for pilots---it applies to everyone at all times.
Scott
Thoughts on responsibility...
>> I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it.
Which is fine; this is America, and you're allowed to disagree. But I
believe that Brian's opinion is shared by the majority of the pilots in
the club, myself included. (I could be wrong about this, but if I am,
then the "silent majority" needs to speak up.)
My perception of the situation is that you are trying to
single-handedly change the community culture, because *you* don't agree
with it. (And you're upset about Bill.)
~Ralph
Which is fine; this is America, and you're allowed to disagree. But I
believe that Brian's opinion is shared by the majority of the pilots in
the club, myself included. (I could be wrong about this, but if I am,
then the "silent majority" needs to speak up.)
My perception of the situation is that you are trying to
single-handedly change the community culture, because *you* don't agree
with it. (And you're upset about Bill.)
~Ralph
A few yes/no questions:
1. Do you believe that wire crew members have an obligation to look out for the pilot? If "yes," we're in agreement, and I guess you're trying to "change the community culture" too. If "no," then I have another question...
2. [Assume a wire crew consists of other pilots.] Is the pilot better able to ensure his safety alone than with help from his wire crew? If "yes," then you're suggesting the pilot in charge is more capable and knowledgeable than a group of experienced pilots working together, which makes no sense. If "no," then we're in agreement, and I guess you're trying to "change the community culture" too.
I'm happy to debate this intelligently, but so far most arguments contrary to my point haven't been supported by any hard facts or logical thinking. If you're going to say "the pilot bears all responsibility," please back this up with some sound, well-thought-out reasons. So far all I've seen are purely subjective statements.
If you say "I could never blame the wire crew," then I ask "Why?" If your response is "Because the pilot is ultimately responsible," this in itself is no reason, because you haven't backed it up with an explanation.
If you say "Because only the pilot can ensure his/her own safety," then I say "Only if the wire crew is careless. A vigilant, conscientious wire crew can do everything the pilot can do---on the ground---to ensure the pilot's safety.
If you say "A pilot can't rely exclusively on the wire crew for their safety," then I say "I agree---I've never stated a pilot should rely on their wire crew exclusively.
I only hammer away like this when I see people appear to do or say things for no other reason than "that's just the way it is." This is not a reason---it's only blind obedience to some vague thing called "community culture."
If you disagree with me, fine---then support your statements. Finally, Ralph said...
Pure speculation, and definitely not supported by this thread. Create a poll, and when a majority of club pilots have actually responded to it, I'll believe you.
Scott
1. Do you believe that wire crew members have an obligation to look out for the pilot? If "yes," we're in agreement, and I guess you're trying to "change the community culture" too. If "no," then I have another question...
2. [Assume a wire crew consists of other pilots.] Is the pilot better able to ensure his safety alone than with help from his wire crew? If "yes," then you're suggesting the pilot in charge is more capable and knowledgeable than a group of experienced pilots working together, which makes no sense. If "no," then we're in agreement, and I guess you're trying to "change the community culture" too.
I'm happy to debate this intelligently, but so far most arguments contrary to my point haven't been supported by any hard facts or logical thinking. If you're going to say "the pilot bears all responsibility," please back this up with some sound, well-thought-out reasons. So far all I've seen are purely subjective statements.
If you say "I could never blame the wire crew," then I ask "Why?" If your response is "Because the pilot is ultimately responsible," this in itself is no reason, because you haven't backed it up with an explanation.
If you say "Because only the pilot can ensure his/her own safety," then I say "Only if the wire crew is careless. A vigilant, conscientious wire crew can do everything the pilot can do---on the ground---to ensure the pilot's safety.
If you say "A pilot can't rely exclusively on the wire crew for their safety," then I say "I agree---I've never stated a pilot should rely on their wire crew exclusively.
I only hammer away like this when I see people appear to do or say things for no other reason than "that's just the way it is." This is not a reason---it's only blind obedience to some vague thing called "community culture."
If you disagree with me, fine---then support your statements. Finally, Ralph said...
I believe that Brian's opinion is shared by the majority of the pilots in the club, myself included.
Pure speculation, and definitely not supported by this thread. Create a poll, and when a majority of club pilots have actually responded to it, I'll believe you.
Scott
Then do something about it.
Scott,
If you really want to make a change then arguing about it on the server isn't the answer. After ending up in the trees at High Rock as a hang 2 (because I went against my intuition and better judgement and used a wuffo on the wing) and then finding out that using wuffos at insured sites violates our insurance policy, I made a commitment to teach new pilots the dangers of using wuffos and remind the pilots who still use wuffos that they are, in fact, seriously jeopardizeing their safety and the security of our sites. It's one of the reasons I became an Observer. You're not going to change a lot of minds of pilots set in their ways. But you may be able to influence new pilots. So write an article for the newsletter and the national mag. Get your ass out to the mountains more, come out to the training hills and meet the new pilots, be a liason between tow pilots at Manquin and CHGPA and learn to judge conditions and become an Observer.
And again, I must remind you that CHGPA members are extremely good and responsible about asking a pilot if he or she has done a hang check if the pilot fails to initiate a hang check at launch. This was evident at the Pulpit.
Matthew
If you really want to make a change then arguing about it on the server isn't the answer. After ending up in the trees at High Rock as a hang 2 (because I went against my intuition and better judgement and used a wuffo on the wing) and then finding out that using wuffos at insured sites violates our insurance policy, I made a commitment to teach new pilots the dangers of using wuffos and remind the pilots who still use wuffos that they are, in fact, seriously jeopardizeing their safety and the security of our sites. It's one of the reasons I became an Observer. You're not going to change a lot of minds of pilots set in their ways. But you may be able to influence new pilots. So write an article for the newsletter and the national mag. Get your ass out to the mountains more, come out to the training hills and meet the new pilots, be a liason between tow pilots at Manquin and CHGPA and learn to judge conditions and become an Observer.
And again, I must remind you that CHGPA members are extremely good and responsible about asking a pilot if he or she has done a hang check if the pilot fails to initiate a hang check at launch. This was evident at the Pulpit.
Matthew
Good idea Matthew---I should write an article. I agree with all you said, especially regarding wuffos. And I'm really not trying to change the world on this forum---I've only kept posting as various people either disagreed or didn't understand my point.
And again, I'm with you 100% on the quality of CHGPA wire crews. I mentioned in an earlier post how much more comfortable I felt at the Pulpit Fly-In than at the Team Challenge.
Scott
And again, I'm with you 100% on the quality of CHGPA wire crews. I mentioned in an earlier post how much more comfortable I felt at the Pulpit Fly-In than at the Team Challenge.
Scott
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
1. No, the wire crew has no "obligation" to do anything, but follow the pilots instructions. It's always nice when they catch something the pilot himself/herself missed, but that's not the same thing as an "obligation".Scott wrote:A few yes/no questions:
1. Do you believe that wire crew members have an obligation to look out for the pilot? If "yes," we're in agreement, and I guess you're trying to "change the community culture" too. If "no," then I have another question...
2. [Assume a wire crew consists of other pilots.] Is the pilot better able to ensure his safety alone than with help from his wire crew? If "yes," then you're suggesting the pilot in charge is more capable and knowledgeable than a group of experienced pilots working together, which makes no sense. If "no," then we're in agreement, and I guess you're trying to "change the community culture" too.
I'm happy to debate this intelligently, but so far most arguments contrary to my point haven't been supported by any hard facts or logical thinking. If you're going to say "the pilot bears all responsibility," please back this up with some sound, well-thought-out reasons. So far all I've seen are purely subjective statements.
2. More eyes are always better and most experienced pilots helping someone launch do try and make sure everything's ship-shape, but if that's something you're counting on to save you from your own oversights, then you're in the wrong sport.
The best argument (and only one that matters) for why the pilot bears all responsibility - it's their choice to fly or not fly, if they choose the former then they have the obligation confirm they're ready to go, and ultimately, they're the one who ends up paying the price if something isn't right.
People on a wire crew are there to keep the glider stable while the pilot gets ready to launch. They aren't paid or trained professionals. They offer their services without compensation and sometimes at their own risk. The pilot launching has an affirmative duty to tell his crew what he expects of them and how he intends to proceed. Blaming a wire crew (even partially) for the pilot's negligence is unseemly and a disservice to those who are kind enough to offer their assistance when needed.
JR
-
batmanh3
Scott -
While this topic is fresh in your head, I would like to point out something. About a month ago, you argued (theres a shock) that a Hang 3 who is trained at a tow park and has been signed off with his foot launch did not need to work under a CHGPA observer. You argued with Matthew when he suggested you come out and let a CHGPA observer "observe" you and you were totally put out that anyone would even suggest such a thing. It is the difference between tow park flying and mountain flying that could very well of been a large factor in this tragedy. Bill was not used to mountain flying, nor was he used to the hang checks, etc that we do before taking off that are typically done differently or at least at different times when you are towing. Instead of completely going against the system and arguing everything that you feel is done wrong with this sport, I point out that Matthew suggested something as a point of safety and you didn't feel it applied to you. We as more senior pilots often do or say things that are meant to help. If you chose to ignore them or not abide by the agreed on rules, the potential for risk increases. Bill did not adhere to the one simple rule of making sure he was hooked in. There is no one to blame other than Bill. I'm sure the wire crew feels horrible, but they missed it for one reason or another. If that is due to Bill's hang straps being out of the usual form, or his harness being different, or that they just didn't see it. Their missing it implies or impacts zero blame on them as wire crew. Anymore than baseball doing away with the designated hitter just because you don't agree with it, hang gliding isn't going to suddenly get up and change because you're upset. Learn to live within the established rules or leave the sport. I would rather see you walk away mad then continue this argument and end up hurting yourself because you can't see the forest for the trees.
Chris
While this topic is fresh in your head, I would like to point out something. About a month ago, you argued (theres a shock) that a Hang 3 who is trained at a tow park and has been signed off with his foot launch did not need to work under a CHGPA observer. You argued with Matthew when he suggested you come out and let a CHGPA observer "observe" you and you were totally put out that anyone would even suggest such a thing. It is the difference between tow park flying and mountain flying that could very well of been a large factor in this tragedy. Bill was not used to mountain flying, nor was he used to the hang checks, etc that we do before taking off that are typically done differently or at least at different times when you are towing. Instead of completely going against the system and arguing everything that you feel is done wrong with this sport, I point out that Matthew suggested something as a point of safety and you didn't feel it applied to you. We as more senior pilots often do or say things that are meant to help. If you chose to ignore them or not abide by the agreed on rules, the potential for risk increases. Bill did not adhere to the one simple rule of making sure he was hooked in. There is no one to blame other than Bill. I'm sure the wire crew feels horrible, but they missed it for one reason or another. If that is due to Bill's hang straps being out of the usual form, or his harness being different, or that they just didn't see it. Their missing it implies or impacts zero blame on them as wire crew. Anymore than baseball doing away with the designated hitter just because you don't agree with it, hang gliding isn't going to suddenly get up and change because you're upset. Learn to live within the established rules or leave the sport. I would rather see you walk away mad then continue this argument and end up hurting yourself because you can't see the forest for the trees.
Chris
I don't count on wire crew to save me from my own oversights. But when I'm on a wire crew, I count on myself to catch a pilot's oversights---in the very same way that I count on myself to catch my own oversights when I'm the pilot. Is there anything wrong with this? That's been my point all along. That's what we should all do.
I've never suggested that when we're the pilot, we use wire crew as an excuse to be slack. No way. That's completely different from what I'm saying.
It sounds as if what some folks are arguing is that we can check ourselves, but when we're on a wire crew we can't check others. Huh??? I don't get this.
I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to check us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check others. Two different things, entirely.
-----
Say you're running a whitewater river. There's a blind drop ahead you can't see over. So someone in front of you---someone you trust---gets out ahead of you and scouts the drop. He shouts "Go left." You paddle over the drop to the left and get thrashed in a hole, almost drowning. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're driving down the interstate and roll through a patch of oil left on the pavement by a truck. You skid, spin a full 360, and crash into the trees along the highway. You're seriously injured. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're standing on a stepladder installing a new smoke detector in your home. You warned your friend you'd be on a ladder right behind the door, so don't open the door. Your friend says "Okay," then 2 minutes later forgets and opens the door, knocking you off the ladder and breaking your arm. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you need surgery to remove your gall bladder. You're concerned that it be done safely, so you do the research, choosing the hospital and surgical team that seems the best. During the surgery, the OR nurse accidentally leaves some small forceps in your abdominal cavity. Nobody notices. You're sutured up, and a day later your stomach has been pierced by the forceps, threatening your life. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
My point is, where do we draw the line between what is our fault, and what isn't? How do you do that? If it's arbitrary, then we're just practicing voodoo, with no rhyme or reason behind it.
It's possible some may believe that literally everything that happens to you in life is your own fault. Is there a reason why we shouldn't think that? What is it?
Scott
I've never suggested that when we're the pilot, we use wire crew as an excuse to be slack. No way. That's completely different from what I'm saying.
It sounds as if what some folks are arguing is that we can check ourselves, but when we're on a wire crew we can't check others. Huh??? I don't get this.
I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to check us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check others. Two different things, entirely.
-----
Say you're running a whitewater river. There's a blind drop ahead you can't see over. So someone in front of you---someone you trust---gets out ahead of you and scouts the drop. He shouts "Go left." You paddle over the drop to the left and get thrashed in a hole, almost drowning. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're driving down the interstate and roll through a patch of oil left on the pavement by a truck. You skid, spin a full 360, and crash into the trees along the highway. You're seriously injured. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're standing on a stepladder installing a new smoke detector in your home. You warned your friend you'd be on a ladder right behind the door, so don't open the door. Your friend says "Okay," then 2 minutes later forgets and opens the door, knocking you off the ladder and breaking your arm. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you need surgery to remove your gall bladder. You're concerned that it be done safely, so you do the research, choosing the hospital and surgical team that seems the best. During the surgery, the OR nurse accidentally leaves some small forceps in your abdominal cavity. Nobody notices. You're sutured up, and a day later your stomach has been pierced by the forceps, threatening your life. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
My point is, where do we draw the line between what is our fault, and what isn't? How do you do that? If it's arbitrary, then we're just practicing voodoo, with no rhyme or reason behind it.
It's possible some may believe that literally everything that happens to you in life is your own fault. Is there a reason why we shouldn't think that? What is it?
Scott
More on Wire Crew
The difference is in the asking. Did Bill ask the wire crew for a hang check? If he did not ask for a hang check then how can the wire crew possibly be liable? Pilots from around the country attend comps. In most other parts of the country it is common practice to simply perform a hook-in check on your own and then move to launch and the wire crew helps to stabilize the glider and provide pressure feedback on the wing until the pilot yells clear.
Around here it's more common for a pilot to ask another pilot for a hang check before moving to launch. Then the pilot in command gets the hang check, does a verbal top to bottom confirmation of leg loops secured, buckles attached, parachute pins secured, chin strap attached. The pilot in command looks and feels that all of these items are in order before verbally confirming them. Then most pilots announce that they have done a pre-flight and look to see that all of there battens are in and finish by stepping through the control frame turning around and visually inspecting that they are hooked-in and that the biner is locked while also verbally and tactilly confirming that they are hooked in and that the biner is locked. Thus, the pilot has had both a hang check from another pilot and has done a hook in check. When self-launching you do everything the same way except the initial hang check. If you do the Aussie method, you can check that all of your harness lines are properly connected prior to climbing into the harness and you have another visual check that your harness is attached to the glider.
Matthew
Around here it's more common for a pilot to ask another pilot for a hang check before moving to launch. Then the pilot in command gets the hang check, does a verbal top to bottom confirmation of leg loops secured, buckles attached, parachute pins secured, chin strap attached. The pilot in command looks and feels that all of these items are in order before verbally confirming them. Then most pilots announce that they have done a pre-flight and look to see that all of there battens are in and finish by stepping through the control frame turning around and visually inspecting that they are hooked-in and that the biner is locked while also verbally and tactilly confirming that they are hooked in and that the biner is locked. Thus, the pilot has had both a hang check from another pilot and has done a hook in check. When self-launching you do everything the same way except the initial hang check. If you do the Aussie method, you can check that all of your harness lines are properly connected prior to climbing into the harness and you have another visual check that your harness is attached to the glider.
Matthew
Thoughts on responsibility...
>>My point is, where do we draw the line between what is our fault, and
what isn't? How do you do that? If it's arbitrary, then we're just
practicing voodoo, with no rhyme or reason behind it.<<
This is "arguing intelligently"? With a bunch of irrelevant
culpability examples?
>>That's what we should all do.<<
Again, the KEY here is the difference between "must" and "should"; the
pilot MUST take responsibility for his own safety (including
pre-flight, pre-launch, hook-in, etc.) Wire crews SHOULD check the
pilot for safety issues, but they are not *required* to.
The reason for his is simple: people have an ingrained tendency to be
lazy. Subliminally, if people have backups, it become too easy to
rationalize skipping a safety step, because there are backups in place.
The reason for adopting the current approach, is to prevent pilots
from relying on backups. ("I don't _really_ need to do a hang check -
I know I'm hooked in, and besides, if there's a problem the wire crew
will catch it.") And most of the time, the pilot would be right...
except when they're not. Most accidents are not the result of a single
failure; they are the result of a string of a failures. Our approach
is intended to help prevent the first failure in the string.
>>It sounds as if what some folks are arguing is that we can check
ourselves, but when we're on a wire crew we can't check others. Huh???
I don't get this.<<
NOBODY ever said the wire crew "can't" check other pilots. What we're
saying is that the pilot can not *count* on the wire crew to check him
out.
NOBODY ever said the wire crew "can't" check other pilots. What we're
saying is that the pilot can not *count* on the wire crew to check him
out.
(yes, I wrote it in here twice, in case you missed it the first time)
>>I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to
check us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check
others. Two different things, entirely.<<
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You've obscured the logic by being
somewhat casual with your use of "us" and "others". If I substitute
the actual people for "us" and "others", your statement is:
"there is a difference between expecting wire crews [others] to check
[us] pilots...(which I do not advocate) and expecting [ourselves
(as)]wire crews to check [other(s)] pilots."
Obviously, there is no difference at all.
~Ralph
================================================================
from: Scott (10/05/2005 18:03)
================================================================
I don't count on wire crew to save me from my own oversights. But when
I'm on a wire crew, I count on myself to catch a pilot's
oversights---in the very same way that I count on myself to catch my
own oversights when I'm the pilot. Is there anything wrong with this?
That's been my point all along. That's what we should all do.
I've never suggested that when we're the pilot, we use wire crew as an
excuse to be slack. No way. That's completely different from what I'm
saying.
It sounds as if what some folks are arguing is that we can check
ourselves, but when we're on a wire crew we can't check others. Huh???
I don't get this.
I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to check
us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check others.
Two different things, entirely.
-----
Say you're running a whitewater river. There's a blind drop ahead you
can't see over. So someone in front of you---someone you trust---gets
out ahead of you and scouts the drop. He shouts "Go left." You paddle
over the drop to the left and get thrashed in a hole, almost drowning.
Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're driving down the interstate and roll through a patch of oil
left on the pavement by a truck. You skid, spin a full 360, and crash
into the trees along the highway. You're seriously injured. Was that
your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're standing on a stepladder installing a new smoke detector in
your home. You warned your friend you'd be on a ladder right behind the
door, so don't open the door. Your friend says "Okay," then 2 minutes
later forgets and opens the door, knocking you off the ladder and
breaking your arm. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you need surgery to remove your gall bladder. You're concerned that
it be done safely, so you do the research, choosing the hospital and
surgical team that seems the best. During the surgery, the OR nurse
accidentally leaves some small forceps in your abdominal cavity. Nobody
notices. You're sutured up, and a day later your stomach has been
pierced by the forceps, threatening your life. Was that your fault? If
not, why not?
My point is, where do we draw the line between what is our fault, and
what isn't? How do you do that? If it's arbitrary, then we're just
practicing voodoo, with no rhyme or reason behind it.
It's possible some may believe that literally everything that happens
to you in life is your own fault. Is there a reason why we shouldn't
think that? What is it?
Scott
what isn't? How do you do that? If it's arbitrary, then we're just
practicing voodoo, with no rhyme or reason behind it.<<
This is "arguing intelligently"? With a bunch of irrelevant
culpability examples?
>>That's what we should all do.<<
Again, the KEY here is the difference between "must" and "should"; the
pilot MUST take responsibility for his own safety (including
pre-flight, pre-launch, hook-in, etc.) Wire crews SHOULD check the
pilot for safety issues, but they are not *required* to.
The reason for his is simple: people have an ingrained tendency to be
lazy. Subliminally, if people have backups, it become too easy to
rationalize skipping a safety step, because there are backups in place.
The reason for adopting the current approach, is to prevent pilots
from relying on backups. ("I don't _really_ need to do a hang check -
I know I'm hooked in, and besides, if there's a problem the wire crew
will catch it.") And most of the time, the pilot would be right...
except when they're not. Most accidents are not the result of a single
failure; they are the result of a string of a failures. Our approach
is intended to help prevent the first failure in the string.
>>It sounds as if what some folks are arguing is that we can check
ourselves, but when we're on a wire crew we can't check others. Huh???
I don't get this.<<
NOBODY ever said the wire crew "can't" check other pilots. What we're
saying is that the pilot can not *count* on the wire crew to check him
out.
NOBODY ever said the wire crew "can't" check other pilots. What we're
saying is that the pilot can not *count* on the wire crew to check him
out.
(yes, I wrote it in here twice, in case you missed it the first time)
>>I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to
check us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check
others. Two different things, entirely.<<
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You've obscured the logic by being
somewhat casual with your use of "us" and "others". If I substitute
the actual people for "us" and "others", your statement is:
"there is a difference between expecting wire crews [others] to check
[us] pilots...(which I do not advocate) and expecting [ourselves
(as)]wire crews to check [other(s)] pilots."
Obviously, there is no difference at all.
~Ralph
================================================================
from: Scott (10/05/2005 18:03)
================================================================
I don't count on wire crew to save me from my own oversights. But when
I'm on a wire crew, I count on myself to catch a pilot's
oversights---in the very same way that I count on myself to catch my
own oversights when I'm the pilot. Is there anything wrong with this?
That's been my point all along. That's what we should all do.
I've never suggested that when we're the pilot, we use wire crew as an
excuse to be slack. No way. That's completely different from what I'm
saying.
It sounds as if what some folks are arguing is that we can check
ourselves, but when we're on a wire crew we can't check others. Huh???
I don't get this.
I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to check
us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check others.
Two different things, entirely.
-----
Say you're running a whitewater river. There's a blind drop ahead you
can't see over. So someone in front of you---someone you trust---gets
out ahead of you and scouts the drop. He shouts "Go left." You paddle
over the drop to the left and get thrashed in a hole, almost drowning.
Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're driving down the interstate and roll through a patch of oil
left on the pavement by a truck. You skid, spin a full 360, and crash
into the trees along the highway. You're seriously injured. Was that
your fault? If not, why not?
Say you're standing on a stepladder installing a new smoke detector in
your home. You warned your friend you'd be on a ladder right behind the
door, so don't open the door. Your friend says "Okay," then 2 minutes
later forgets and opens the door, knocking you off the ladder and
breaking your arm. Was that your fault? If not, why not?
Say you need surgery to remove your gall bladder. You're concerned that
it be done safely, so you do the research, choosing the hospital and
surgical team that seems the best. During the surgery, the OR nurse
accidentally leaves some small forceps in your abdominal cavity. Nobody
notices. You're sutured up, and a day later your stomach has been
pierced by the forceps, threatening your life. Was that your fault? If
not, why not?
My point is, where do we draw the line between what is our fault, and
what isn't? How do you do that? If it's arbitrary, then we're just
practicing voodoo, with no rhyme or reason behind it.
It's possible some may believe that literally everything that happens
to you in life is your own fault. Is there a reason why we shouldn't
think that? What is it?
Scott
With respect Chris, get your facts straight. Your recollection of what I argued is not remotely accurate. I know exactly what thread you're referring to, and here it is:
http://chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=847
In that thread, Matthew said...
I completely agree that Bill's lack of mountain experience contributed to his accident. That's obvious to anyone.
I'm sure some of you think I'm an arrogant a**. That's fine with me---really. I couldn't possibly care less. I'm not out to pick a fight with anyone...but when I see some "senior pilots" acting like they're omnipotent and couldn't possibly improve what they're doing in any way, I find that equally arrogant.
What's really sad is that some people in the club seem to believe that experience is everything...and common sense, intelligence, and experience in other high-risk sports are meaningless. That's certainly what I hear in this forum over and over from some (not all) people---just a constant chanting of "we know better, you don't, so shutup."
If I fly for 20 years, am a Hang 4, and have 1,000 hours under my belt, I will NEVER assume that whatever I'm doing is absolutely the best way, and unquestionable. That would be the height of foolishness.
Scott
http://chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=847
In that thread, Matthew said...
And here is my response, unedited:At the risk of upsetting our tow park operators and tow park pilots, it's a BAD, BAD idea to tow your way to a Hang 3 and then go fly the mountains as a Hang 3. If you want to fly the mountains as a Hang 3 then you should be flying them as a Hang 2 in addition to any towing. You need to have input from the various Observers and learn how to handle mountain air, as opposed to tow park air. <snip> If you have a Hang 3 from a tow park and you wish to fly the mountains, you not only need to hit the training hill for foot launch practice. You need to swallow your pride and ask for the assistance of Observers and fly in mellower safer conditions until you build up the experience for handling more difficult air in the mountains.
As you see, what I said was totally misrepresented---something that happens often here. I was not "put out" with idea of working with more experienced mountain pilots. In that thread, I simply said that USHGA's regulations (not mine) clearly state that a H3 isn't required to work with an Observer. I never said or implied that I wouldn't learn from more experienced pilots.I agree with your comments 100% Matthew (and Brian). I certainly don't think that just because I'm a towpark H3 (when I am) that I know all about flying in the mountains. I certainly plan to hit the training hill, and I definitely plan to seek out the advice and guidance of experienced mountain pilots---Observers and non-Observers alike. (To not do that would be foolish!)
It's not essential for training hill work to be done on a CHGPA hill with CHGPA Observers. Steve Wendt has an excellent, all-direction site near Harrisonburg, and though he runs a towpark, I'd put Steve and Tex's footlaunch abilities up against anyone's. (As well as their ability to critique footlaunch skills.)
I completely agree that Bill's lack of mountain experience contributed to his accident. That's obvious to anyone.
I'm sure some of you think I'm an arrogant a**. That's fine with me---really. I couldn't possibly care less. I'm not out to pick a fight with anyone...but when I see some "senior pilots" acting like they're omnipotent and couldn't possibly improve what they're doing in any way, I find that equally arrogant.
What's really sad is that some people in the club seem to believe that experience is everything...and common sense, intelligence, and experience in other high-risk sports are meaningless. That's certainly what I hear in this forum over and over from some (not all) people---just a constant chanting of "we know better, you don't, so shutup."
If I fly for 20 years, am a Hang 4, and have 1,000 hours under my belt, I will NEVER assume that whatever I'm doing is absolutely the best way, and unquestionable. That would be the height of foolishness.
Scott
Thoughts on responsibility...
>> but when I see some "senior pilots"?acting like they're omnipotent
and couldn't possibly improve what they're doing in any way,<<
Here's the problem: speaking only for myself, I don't believe that
your suggestions (in the wire crew responsibility debate) are an
improvement; in fact, I believe that it's a really bad idea. Based on
my own common sense, intelligence, and experience in other high-risk
sports (I'm a certified scuba diver), I never would have believe that
it would be possible for me to launch unhooked. I'm as anal as they
come, I studied and trained hard, and spent a lot of extra time on the
training hill before I ever went to mountains. And I still managed to
launch unhooked. I have hard experience that contradicts your nice
little theories.
The approach that we use today isn't something that a bunch of us just
"came up with" one afternoon while we were bored; it has *evolved* as
circumstances change, and as we've learned from past incidents.
~Ralph
and couldn't possibly improve what they're doing in any way,<<
Here's the problem: speaking only for myself, I don't believe that
your suggestions (in the wire crew responsibility debate) are an
improvement; in fact, I believe that it's a really bad idea. Based on
my own common sense, intelligence, and experience in other high-risk
sports (I'm a certified scuba diver), I never would have believe that
it would be possible for me to launch unhooked. I'm as anal as they
come, I studied and trained hard, and spent a lot of extra time on the
training hill before I ever went to mountains. And I still managed to
launch unhooked. I have hard experience that contradicts your nice
little theories.
The approach that we use today isn't something that a bunch of us just
"came up with" one afternoon while we were bored; it has *evolved* as
circumstances change, and as we've learned from past incidents.
~Ralph
Re: More on Wire Crew
Whoa Matthew...you're suggesting something I never said, if you're suggesting I said the crew should be "liable" in the legal sense. Try to find a quote from one of my posts where I say that---you won't. What I said was: "If just one of the people on launch with Bill had seen that he wasn't hooked in, he'd still be alive." I further said that Bill's crew shared responsibility for his death---and I clearly stated "responsible" NOT in the legal sense, but in the moral sense.If he did not ask for a hang check then how can the wire crew possibly be liable?
Now you're getting to the heart of what I've been saying all along, which is that if someone grabs a sidewire---whether asked or not---then, in my opinion, they should do exactly what CHGPA pilots do---perform a visual check of critical safety elements, even touching things as necessary.If he did not ask for a hang check then how can the wire crew possibly be liable?
Re: Thoughts on responsibility...
Ralph said,
Clearly my point went right over your head Ralph. You conveniently ignored the question I posed: where do we draw the line between when an accident is our fault and when it isn't? This is directly relevant to the question at hand regarding wire crew and pilot responsibility. Each of my examples shows a situation where the line between personal responsibility and blame is ambiguous. I guess you thought it much easier to just scoff than actually consider my examples and respond to them.This is "arguing intelligently"? With a bunch of irrelevant
culpability examples?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, because I've never said wire crew "must" do anything. (Find a quote from one of my posts where I say that.)Again, the KEY here is the difference between "must" nd "should"; the pilot MUST take responsibility for his own safety (including pre-flight, pre-launch, hook-in, etc.) Wire crews SHOULD check the pilot for safety issues, but they are not *required* to.
Again, you're misrepresenting what I've said. You got mad when I suggested a remedial reading course, so just go back and read my posts again. I've never said "the pilot should rely on the wire crew for backup." What I've said is that having a backup increases overall safety even when the pilot is fully responsible for their own checks. You might get lazy knowing the crew is watching your back...but I sure as heck never will!The reason for adopting the current approach, is to prevent pilots
from relying on backups.
All fine and good---I don't argue with that. But if you're saying that the only way to prevent that first failure in the system is to be sure there is no backup, I'd say you're flat-out crazy!Our approach is intended to help prevent the first failure in the string.
Again, you're arguing about nothing here. If you read my posts again carefully, you'll see that I've never suggested the pilot should count on the wire crew. That's your own creation, not mine.What we're saying is that the pilot can not *count* on the wire crew to check him out.
Okay...let me get this straight: you're saying there is no difference between doing something yourself, and expecting someone else to do it? Hmm...remedial reading course...>>I'll say again: there is a difference between expecting others to
check us...(which I do not advocate) and expecting ourselves to check
others. Two different things, entirely.<<
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You've obscured the logic by being
somewhat casual with your use of "us" and "others".
Thoughts on responsibility...
Hey Ralph,
???? Doesn't scuba diving have something called the "buddy system"?? And just what is it exactly?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil
???? Doesn't scuba diving have something called the "buddy system"?? And just what is it exactly?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil
Re: Thoughts on responsibility...
Ralph said,
A) That the pilot should not check himself and be responsible for himself. (Because I've said the pilot must do this, and Ralph thinks that's a bad idea!)
B) That having a vigilant wire crew performing redundant checks in addition to the pilot's self-checks in no way improves overall safety. (Because I've said the wire crew should---not must---do this, and Ralph thinks that's a bad idea!)
The fact that every one of us admits that it's possible to miss something like hooking in demands that we have backup systems in place---a vigilant wire crew.
Okay, for the record, here's what Ralph believes:Here's the problem: speaking only for myself, I don't believe that
your suggestions (in the wire crew responsibility debate) are an
improvement; in fact, I believe that it's a really bad idea.
A) That the pilot should not check himself and be responsible for himself. (Because I've said the pilot must do this, and Ralph thinks that's a bad idea!)
B) That having a vigilant wire crew performing redundant checks in addition to the pilot's self-checks in no way improves overall safety. (Because I've said the wire crew should---not must---do this, and Ralph thinks that's a bad idea!)
Your "hard experience" supports what I'm saying completely!I never would have believe that it would be possible for me to launch unhooked.
The fact that every one of us admits that it's possible to miss something like hooking in demands that we have backup systems in place---a vigilant wire crew.
Okay, I'm a certified whitewater paddler. So we're equal. What does that prove?I'm a certified scuba diver.
Last Post on Wire Crews
Scott,
This is my last post on this subject. I was not talking liable in the legal sense. I did not know Bill other than meeting him at Manquin once or twice and then seeing him again at the Pulpit. All of this arguing is not solving anything. As I didn't know Bill I don't know what would be appropriate to honor his memory. But I'm guessing that he wouldn't want anyone else to launch unhooked. So maybe you can work to see that this doesn't happen again by writing articles as I suggested and trying to be a voice in having pilots check each other's back when wire crewing by becoming an Observer. Or you can work to get all of the the harness manufacturers to start using Fluorescent Orange Mains as someone else has suggested. The parachute strap would also have to be a bright fluorescent color for this scheme to work. It sounds a bit trite; but you could even ask that fluorescent mains be called something like Priday Straps.
Matthew
This is my last post on this subject. I was not talking liable in the legal sense. I did not know Bill other than meeting him at Manquin once or twice and then seeing him again at the Pulpit. All of this arguing is not solving anything. As I didn't know Bill I don't know what would be appropriate to honor his memory. But I'm guessing that he wouldn't want anyone else to launch unhooked. So maybe you can work to see that this doesn't happen again by writing articles as I suggested and trying to be a voice in having pilots check each other's back when wire crewing by becoming an Observer. Or you can work to get all of the the harness manufacturers to start using Fluorescent Orange Mains as someone else has suggested. The parachute strap would also have to be a bright fluorescent color for this scheme to work. It sounds a bit trite; but you could even ask that fluorescent mains be called something like Priday Straps.
Matthew
Thoughts on responsibility...
>> I'm not sure what you're arguing here, because I've never said wire
crew "must" do anything. (Find a quote from one of my posts where I say
that.) <<
SEE THE FOLLOWING:
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:35:35 -0400
rs54263 wrote:
>>?The pilot should look out for him/herself.
>>?The wire crew should look out for the pilot.
You've almost got it.
The pilot MUST look out for him/herself.
The wire crew SHOULD look out for the pilot. ?<-- This is absolutely a
good idea;?it does NOT however mean that they are "responsible"?for the
pilot's oversights.
~Ralph
(end of quote)
You're right Ralph---I should have said must.
crew "must" do anything. (Find a quote from one of my posts where I say
that.) <<
SEE THE FOLLOWING:
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:35:35 -0400
rs54263 wrote:
>>?The pilot should look out for him/herself.
>>?The wire crew should look out for the pilot.
You've almost got it.
The pilot MUST look out for him/herself.
The wire crew SHOULD look out for the pilot. ?<-- This is absolutely a
good idea;?it does NOT however mean that they are "responsible"?for the
pilot's oversights.
~Ralph
(end of quote)
You're right Ralph---I should have said must.
Thoughts on responsibility...
Quote:
The reason for adopting the current approach, is to prevent pilots
from relying on backups.
(end of quote)
>> Again, you're misrepresenting what I've said.
How? My quote isn't intended to represent anything you've said at all!
I simply provided an explanation for the current approach.
>>I've never said "the pilot should rely on the wire crew for backup."?<<
I never said that you did.
>>What I've said is that having a backup increases overall safety even
when the pilot is fully responsible for their own checks.<<
THIS statement follows the current culture. But it's not what you've
been saying. As I understand your point of view, you've been arguing
that wire crews should be *required* to perform safety checks of
pilots, and that they should be held responsible for pilots launching
unhooked. (The legal concept I believe is "contributory negligence".)
In summary,
The current CHGPA mindset: The pilot MUST perform a safety check. The
wire crew SHOULD perform a safety check.
Your argument is that it should be: The pilot MUST perform a safety
check. The wire crew MUST perform a safety check.
That is the crux of this entire debate, in a nutshell, as I understand.
Or am I somehow misunderstanding you because of my poor reading
skills?
>> You might get lazy knowing the crew is watching your back...but I
sure as heck never will!<<
I sure hope you're right. I've seen it happen to more conscientious
pilots than you. (Seriously.)
~Ralph
The reason for adopting the current approach, is to prevent pilots
from relying on backups.
(end of quote)
>> Again, you're misrepresenting what I've said.
How? My quote isn't intended to represent anything you've said at all!
I simply provided an explanation for the current approach.
>>I've never said "the pilot should rely on the wire crew for backup."?<<
I never said that you did.
>>What I've said is that having a backup increases overall safety even
when the pilot is fully responsible for their own checks.<<
THIS statement follows the current culture. But it's not what you've
been saying. As I understand your point of view, you've been arguing
that wire crews should be *required* to perform safety checks of
pilots, and that they should be held responsible for pilots launching
unhooked. (The legal concept I believe is "contributory negligence".)
In summary,
The current CHGPA mindset: The pilot MUST perform a safety check. The
wire crew SHOULD perform a safety check.
Your argument is that it should be: The pilot MUST perform a safety
check. The wire crew MUST perform a safety check.
That is the crux of this entire debate, in a nutshell, as I understand.
Or am I somehow misunderstanding you because of my poor reading
skills?
>> You might get lazy knowing the crew is watching your back...but I
sure as heck never will!<<
I sure hope you're right. I've seen it happen to more conscientious
pilots than you. (Seriously.)
~Ralph
Thoughts on responsibility...
>>Okay, for the record, here's what Ralph believes:
A) That the pilot should not check himself and be responsible for
himself. (Because I've said the pilot must do this, and Ralph thinks
that's a bad idea!)
B) That having a vigilant wire crew performing redundant checks in
addition to the pilot's self-checks in no way improves overall safety.
(Because I've said the wire crew should---not must---do this, and Ralph
thinks that's a bad idea!)
<<
That's not even close to what I said. Since you obviously can't quote
me accurately (something you accused us of doing to you), then it's
just not worthwhile to continue this discussion.
I'm done here.
~Ralph
A) That the pilot should not check himself and be responsible for
himself. (Because I've said the pilot must do this, and Ralph thinks
that's a bad idea!)
B) That having a vigilant wire crew performing redundant checks in
addition to the pilot's self-checks in no way improves overall safety.
(Because I've said the wire crew should---not must---do this, and Ralph
thinks that's a bad idea!)
<<
That's not even close to what I said. Since you obviously can't quote
me accurately (something you accused us of doing to you), then it's
just not worthwhile to continue this discussion.
I'm done here.
~Ralph
-
theflyingdude
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 pm
- Location: Cumberland, MD
My final post on this topic. Scott, I'm sorry you don't get it and there's apparently nothing anyone can say that will make a difference in the way you feel.Scott wrote:I'm sure some of you think I'm an arrogant a**. That's fine with me---really. I couldn't possibly care less. I'm not out to pick a fight with anyone...but when I see some "senior pilots" acting like they're omnipotent and couldn't possibly improve what they're doing in any way, I find that equally arrogant.
What's really sad is that some people in the club seem to believe that experience is everything...and common sense, intelligence, and experience in other high-risk sports are meaningless. That's certainly what I hear in this forum over and over from some (not all) people---just a constant chanting of "we know better, you don't, so shutup."
If I fly for 20 years, am a Hang 4, and have 1,000 hours under my belt, I will NEVER assume that whatever I'm doing is absolutely the best way, and unquestionable. That would be the height of foolishness.
Scott
As someone who resembles some of your remarks (although everytime I feel omnipotent, reality has a way of slapping me up side the head and bringing me back down to mortal status), I have probably participated in as many high-risk sports as you or anyone on this list (sky-diving, scuba-diving, rock-climbing, whitewater-rafting and kayaking, dirt-biking, dating married women, etc). All these experiences have helped form my outlook, but none are directly germaine to the topic at hand (responsibilities of a wire crew). There's a probably a reason someone gets to be a H4 pilot with 20 years and 1000 hours under their belt other than just blind luck. Experience isn't everything and only a fool would believe their way is infallible, but your definition of intelligence and common-sense may not necessarily be the only one.
I'm going to say this bluntly. The only one responsible for Bill Priday's death was Bill Priday. Not you or the other pilots who set up around him, watched him suit up and carry his glider to launch; not the pilots who asked him if he needed a hang check without noticing he wasn't hooked in; not the wire crew who allowed him to launch without checking to see if he was hooked in; not the competition meet director or safety director; not Steve Wendt who trained him; not the culture of the hang gliding community at-large, or anyone else. Bill Priday was the only one responsible for what happened to him and while I never actually met the man, from what I've read about him, I would tend to think he would agree.
Accepting responsibility for one's actions means just that - you accept the risks, the rewards, and the consequences of your own mistakes. I'm willing to babysit you and my other fellow pilots to the extent that's possible and practical. I hope you'll do the same for me, but if something bad happens, I don't want to be blamed nor do I want to place blame.
JR