Being careful out there!

[markc]

Well... I think I kicked a hornet's nest when I (much too) casually mentioned making
use of a wuffo at launch in my report of a flight last week.

If you've been around, you'll know that this issue has come up many times over the years,
and that people have a variety of opinions about whether wuffos should ever/never/sometimes
be used at launch. Heck, my own opinion on the topic has gone back and forth over the
15 years that I've been flying.

But regardless of where you come down on this, one thing is definitely true: tossing off
a reference to using wuffos without any sort of warnings/caveats/etc is not
a responsible thing to do. So all you H-IIs and newer pilots out there, please take heed: Using
wuffos on launch is an INHERENTLY risky proposition compared to having a
wirecrew composed of pilots. It should not even be considered by a new pilot!

I do feel that there are ways to reduce the risks of having wuffos help out: conditions,
gust differential, cross, the site, the individual. If anyone wants to know more about
the way I evaluate those factors, please call me, talk to me, email me, whatever.

But there are others who feel that taking any chance at all with a wuffo is adding
an unacceptable level of risk. I respect that opinion, even if I do not completely share it.

And you should respect that opinion too! Seriously.

MarkC

[mcelrah]

Thanks for the reference - I was kinda mystified by the brouhaha and wondered what the background was.

This is getting to be one of those litmus-test issues like abortion such that if you are even willing to discuss conditions for using wuffos you've crossed the line. The business about lawsuits is not to be sneezed at. I do think the careful indoctrination of wuffos and working them into the process gradually rather than on the last launch is important. Nobody regards using them as a first choice. But there you are, just three pilots; if no wuffos, one of you isn't going to fly - maybe two. Yes, the first launcher can land "prematurely" and come back to assist, but the soarable conditions don't always last. That's one of the reasons we keep defaulting to Woodstock as our site of choice. But I am generally grateful for assistance just moving down to launch at Woodstock, even if wire crew is not absolutely essential for a slope launch. That's one thing about paragliding: if it's strong enough to really need wirecrew, PGs are generally out of the question. Nobody's figured out how to use crew for a PG, and cliff and ramp launches aren't really feasible, so you are spared the wuffo dilemma...

- Hugh

[brianvh]

Subdivisions ad naseum...

Those who see wuffos on launch crew purely as a safety issue have no problems with them wire-crewing at a slope launch. Those who think they are an insurance issue would pause at asking one to brush a cricket off the wing before launching (were they part of the launch crew?! will that void our insurance since they haven't signed the waiver?!! AUGGHH!!).

Deciding how exactly the waiver, non-signers, the definition of participants etc relates to insurance is sort of like interpreting the bible. People take hard lines on different interpretations. Last time this bubbled up we got different answers depending on who we talked to in USHGA.

But I think we can all agree that insurance issues aside, using Wuffos on a cliff is pushing your luck. I won't tell someone it's a moral black mark (how can I judge since I've done it myself?), but I would urge them to consider the possible consequences.

Memory is funny. I have a recent memory about using a wuffo wire crew on the Rock. Did I really do it recently, or did I just fantasize about it so strongly while waiting all alone on launch that it formed it's own memory? Deliver me from temptation....

[davidtheamazing1]

I know its tempting when being the only glider at launch.

In a sense you are putting your life in between the whimsy of the wind and in the hands of a stranger.

No problem... 99% of the time.