[TadEareckson]

Mostly.

(Yeah, I went three over - four, if you count the punctuation - but I'll try to make up for it on a future post.)

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad,
  ...
    I was taught, and I support:

        Hang Check + Hook-in Check

    You're arguing for:

        No Hang Check + Hook-in Check

In 3 characters or less, is this the crux of our disagreement here?

Mostly.

OK, rather than tossing opinions back and forth, how about if we do some actual analysis? You claim that you don't like "opinions" in aviation, so let's at least try to "do the math" and see where that gets us. OK? Here we go ...

Ultimately, we're talking about people launching a hang glider without being hooked in. Let's call that event "U" for "Unhooked". Let's define the two cases "H" for pilots who subscribe to Hang Check + Hook in Check, and "N" for pilots who subscribe to No Hang Check + Hook In Check.

I've used the word "subscribe" because that's what we're really talking about. We know that pilots who follow either procedure 100% of the time will not launch unhooked. So what we're talking about is which procedure, established through training, is better at preventing event "U".

Our goal, if I'm understanding you, is to determine whether the probability of event U is greater under condition H or under condition N.

Let me pause to see if you agree with this characterization of the problem. A brief answer would be great. Thanks in advance.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I finally did the research (not very hard once I got started) to embed YouTube videos in the forum. So here are the ones posted from this topic:

From one of Tad's post:


From another of Tad's posts:


From DarthVader's post:

[TadEareckson]

Let me pause to see if you agree with this characterization of the problem.

Yeah, but before you spend a lot of time setting up a mathematical model make sure that it's addressing the right problems.

Christian Williams - 2006/09/19

Joe Greblo teaches a hook-in check the instant before launch. To him, a hang check is part of the preflight and has no value in confirming that you are hooked in at the moment of launch.

Lemme edit that last sentence a bit...

A HANG CHECK HAS *NO VALUE* IN CONFIRMING THAT YOU ARE HOOKED IN AT THE MOMENT OF LAUNCH.

And Joe WAS your instructor, right?

And remember that I've spent A LOT of time studying this issue.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Let me pause to see if you agree with this characterization of the problem.

Yeah, but before you spend a lot of time setting up a mathematical model make sure that it's addressing the right problems.

You can object at any time as I develop it.

Christian Williams - 2006/09/19

Joe Greblo teaches a hook-in check the instant before launch. To him, a hang check is part of the preflight and has no value in confirming that you are hooked in at the moment of launch.

Lemme edit that last sentence a bit...

A HANG CHECK HAS *NO VALUE* IN CONFIRMING THAT YOU ARE HOOKED IN AT THE MOMENT OF LAUNCH.

And Joe WAS your instructor, right?

And remember that I've spent A LOT of time studying this issue.

Let's see, you're modifying a quote from Christian where he's paraphrasing Joe Greblo.   

That's a nice try Tad, but I think your mathematical wheels are turning, and they're giving you a warning sign that you're on thin ice.

You're trying to say that Joe would find *NO VALUE* (mathematically ZERO) in a hang check with regard to hook-in statistics. But you know that's got to be false. Of course a hang check has *SOME* value in preventing hook-in failures. In fact, I'd say that consistent hang checks would prevent a high percentage (maybe 90% or more) of the hook-in failures if people weren't implementing any other system. Of course, "90% or more" still leaves a lot of room for improvement. But to say that they're of "NO VALUE" is simply incorrect.

Now Christian is right that Joe teaches hook-in checks at the last practical moment before launch. I've always agreed with that. But I don't think Joe would say that hang checks have *NO VALUE* in confirming that you're hooked in on launch. To find out, I've just left a message for Joe on the question, and I'll let you know when he gets back to me.

[Pilgrim]

Incredible volume of stuff on this, so i will be brief.
The Lift and Tug Method, as with all methods, is merely a tool which we use to accomplish a goal or goals. It is not perfect and has been known to fail miserably. As with all tools, it is the person swinging the ax and how it is swung that determines success. The best piece of advice I read was to always be thinking and do not get stuck in the rut of always doing it the same.
Pilgrim

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks Pilgrim. That's a very good post.

Tad, I'll be happy to carry on with this discussion, but I'd much rather allow Pilgrim's comments be the last word. He sums it up very well, and I think that would put a nice cap on the discussion.

Can we agree to let this be for a while? We really have a lot more work to do to build a national hang gliding association. I am happy with the notion that all US Hawks ratings will require that the pilot demonstrate a method of ensuring a safe connection to the glider immediately prior to every launch. Maybe we can vote on that and be done with it.

Thanks again Pilgrim.   “Blessed are the peacemakers ...”

[TadEareckson]

Bob,

Let's see, you're modifying a quote from Christian where he's paraphrasing Joe Greblo.

1. And changed/distorted the meaning of the original sentence how?

2. Joe's had nearly five years to correct this mischaracterization of his position and I haven't heard anything.

3. Now that you mention it... As far as I can tell, Joe's first hand public voice on this issue has been totally and conspicuously absent from any discussion in the entire histories of the national magazine, any of the (inter)national forums, and anything else I've ever stumbled across.

4. So we go with the best data available.

...and they're giving you a warning sign that you're on thin ice.

I haven't been on thin ice - or hard rocks - on this issue since the fall - make that autumn - of 1980. And I've watched A LOT of people over - and before - that timespan who were.

You're trying to say that Joe would find *NO VALUE* (mathematically ZERO) in a hang check with regard to hook-in statistics. But you know that's got to be false.

Totally dude. It was Steve Kinsley who really nailed this one.

THE HANG CHECK IS MORE THE PROBLEM THAN THE SOLUTION.

IT SUBVERTS THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM A HOOK-IN CHECK.

Of course a hang check has *SOME* value in preventing hook-in failures.

Yeah, the same kind of value a locking carabiner has in enhancing hang gliding safety.

Just before launch he reached back to make sure his carabiner was locked. A "crosswind" blew through, his right wing lifted, and before he was able to react he was gusted sixty feet to the left side of launch into a pile of "nasty-looking rocks." He suffered a compound fracture (bone sticking out through the skin) of his upper right leg. "Rookie mistake cost me my job and my summer. I have a lot of medical bills and will be on crutches for about five months."

In fact, I'd say that consistent hang checks would prevent a high percentage (maybe 90% or more) of the hook-in failures if people weren't implementing any other system.

I'd say the PRECISE OPPOSITE.

Rob Kells - 2005/10

Several pilots have launched unhooked after doing a hang check because they were distracted and unhooked from the glider, and then, remembering having done a hang check earlier, they ran off the hill unhooked.

All they do is cause launchers and crew to drop their guards at the only time it matters.

1. I'm gonna station my heavily armed jackbooted thugs at ALL mountain launches.

2. No hang checks will be permitted ANYWHERE at ANY TIME.

3. All pilots will arrive on the ramp suited up and unhooked.

4. Hook-in checks will immediately become the norm and unhooked launch rates will plummet (unlike the pilots).

5. 'Cause instead of most people thinking they ARE hooked in when they get on the ramp EVERYONE will KNOW he ISN'T.

6. Ditto with respect to crew.

To find out, I've just left a message for Joe on the question, and I'll let you know when he gets back to me.

I'm still waiting to hear some evidence that Rob McKenzie has once in his life taught or performed a launch procedure in compliance with the USHGA SOPs.

Pilgrim,

Incredible volume of stuff on this, so i will be brief.

Doesn't hafta be. We could just go with:

With each flight, demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

But it doesn't look like that's ever gonna happen.

The Lift and Tug Method, as with all methods, is merely a tool which we use to accomplish a goal or goals.

Yeah, just like treating the gun as if it's always loaded is merely a tool which we use to keep from blowing someone's head off. If we check to see that it's unloaded and/or the safety is flipped on then we can relax and start getting creative.

It is not perfect and has been known to fail miserably.

Yeah? Cite an instance of a lift and tugger getting scratched or worse.

The best piece of advice I read was to always be thinking and do not get stuck in the rut of always doing it the same.

Sounds a lot like Rob McKenzie's post - which I thought was about the worst take on any aviation issue I've ever read.

George Whitehill - 1981/05

Just doing a hang check is not enough. Don't get me wrong, a hang check is a very important step that should be done prior to every launch. A hang check shows the pilot that he/she is the correct height above the bar. It also assures the pilot that harness lines and straps are untangled.

The point I'm trying to make is that every pilot should make a SECOND check to be very certain of this integral part of every flight. In many flying situations a hang check is performed and then is followed by a time interval prior to actual launch. In this time interval the pilot may unconsciously unhook to adjust or check something and then forget to hook in again. This has happened many times!

If, just before committing to a launch, a second check is done EVERY TIME and this is made a HABIT, this tragic mistake could be eliminated. Habit is the key word here. This practice MUST be subconscious on the part of the pilot. As we know, there are many things on the pilot's mind before launch. Especially in a competition or if conditions are radical the flyer may be thinking about so many other things that something as simple as remembering to hook in is forgotten. Relying on memory won't work as well as a deeply ingrained subconscious habit.

In the new USHGA rating system, for each flight of each task "the pilot must demonstrate a method of establishing that he/she is hooked in, just prior to launch." The purpose here is obvious.

Stewart LaBrasca - 2009/08/27
Chehalis, Washington

How many of you have ever helped airlift a fellow pilot off the hill after launching unhooked? Because this is a (tongue in cheek) self regulated sport, there is no SOP for hooking in prior to launch. Therefore it is obviously up to the PIC to make sure he is hooked in. As a commercial pilot for an airline I am glad that there are mandatory flows and checklists required.

The reason that commercial aviation has never been the proportional bloodbath that hang gliding has always been is because the morons in the cockpits get permanently taken out of the cockpits immediately after they start thinking and getting unstuck from the ruts of always doing everything the same.

The second pilot was distracted by backing off launch to get his helmet, which he had forgotten. While doing so he thought of a pilot who launched unhooked at Lookout Mountain as a result of the distraction of retrieving his helmet.

While doing so he THOUGHT...

THINKING around launch is an extremely dangerous and distracting activity and must be kept to an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. Stop THINKING and GET and STAY in the goddam rut.

Allen Sparks - 2010/09/06
Evergreen Colorado

Oscar,

I'm very happy you weren't injured.

Helen,

Thanks for the Tad 'lift and tug' reminder.

I have launched unhooked and experienced the horror of hanging by my fingers over jagged rocks ... and the surreal result - i.e. not being significantly injured.

I am a firm believer in 'lift and tug' and the mindset of assuming I am not hooked in. It is motivated by the recurring memory of my own experience ... and the tragic deaths and life-altering injuries of good friends.

If the tedium of the goddam rut gets to me too much to handle and you really need to do some thinking at launch then think about Bille Floyd shoving his shin bones six inches out the bottoms of his feet.

As with all tools, it is the person swinging the ax and how it is swung that determines success.

If you go to a lumberjack competition how much variation are you gonna see between the ax swings and how much creative thinking do you estimate is going on?

Big killers in hang gliding... unhooked launches, blown launches, stalls, lockouts.

Do we encourage variation in procedures and thinking to address the threats in the last three of those categories?

Bob,

That's a very good post.

Do I get a vote?

Tad, I'll be happy to carry on with this discussion, but I'd much rather allow Pilgrim's comments be the last word.

That's pretty much the way it's been the last thirty years so it's very unlikely that I'm ever gonna have much effect beyond the odd individual here and there - very safely below any critical mass level needed for fixing the problem. So what's it matter?

He sums it up very well, and I think that would put a nice cap on the discussion.

Yep, I'm sure just about everyone would agree with you. Maybe we can get Zack to start a polls on The Jack and Davis Shows.

Can we agree to let this be for a while?

Sure. As long as we're positive that what happened in Israel three and a half months ago won't happen at Henson this weekend - and/or that this discussion won't make any difference.

I am happy with the notion that all US Hawks ratings will require that the pilot demonstrate a method of ensuring a safe connection to the glider immediately prior to every launch. Maybe we can vote on that and be done with it.

1. Kinda like USHGA did thirty years ago? Find me some videos of people launching in compliance of the requirement.

2. Do Bille Floyd and Martin Apopot get to vote?

Are we gonna have a vote to determine whether the force transmitted to a glider by a towline is tension or pressure? Are Dennis Pagen and Bill Bryden gonna get to cast ballots?

Hey, let's just let Matt Taber write all the SOPs for everything 'cause he and his clones control flyer education and we already know that the votes are gonna turn out pretty much exactly in accordance with the rot with which these bastards have been filling people's heads for the past twenty or thirty years.

Thanks again Pilgrim. "Blessed are the peacemakers ..."

Not entirely sure that's what Anne Frank and some of her dorm mates were thinking towards the end of 1944.

Also reminds me a bit of this:

Bob Kuczewski - 2010/05/30

To be honest, that's hard for me to say for sure in this case. But the topic did come up when I was on the Board, and the first reaction by some "leaders" in USHPA was to call the USHPA lawyer to muzzle him with a nasty letter. As a Board member I argued against that approach because I felt that it would be better to open lines of communication rather than shut them with legal threats. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and some of the Directors who knew him were called in to help. As far as I know, things were resolved peacefully without further escalation.

And if anybody wants to see how much aerotowing safety immediately improved after the prevailing of cooler heads and that peaceful resolution...

http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/Topeka.html

[TadEareckson]

Oops. That link fell victim to a spell check and a careless click. Sorry 'bout that.

http://kitestrings.prophpbb.com/topic19.html

P.S. And while I still have my edit button available for this one...

If the tedium of the goddam rut gets to BE too much to handle...

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob,

Let's see, you're modifying a quote from Christian where he's paraphrasing Joe Greblo.

1. And changed/distorted the meaning of the original sentence how?

I'll tell you how. I just talked with Joe, and he said that hang checks do have limited usefulness in protecting against hook-in failures, and that their value in that regard decreases with the time between the hang check and the launch (he's absolutely correct here). He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch was just as good as a hook-in check at launch, but that a hang check can catch things that a hook-in check might not (like a hang strap routed around a down tube, as just one example). So your claim that hang checks aren't needed by pilots who use the same glider/harness combination is invalidated right there.

You're trying to say that Joe would find *NO VALUE* (mathematically ZERO) in a hang check with regard to hook-in statistics. But you know that's got to be false.

Totally dude.

Well then, I guess you were "totally" wrong. Joe recognizes (as most people do) that a hang check (just like a hook-in check) has a value that decreases from time that it's conducted. That's not the same as *NO VALUE* or "mathematically ZERO". As Joe pointed out, if the hang check is done immediately before launch, it's just as good as a hook-in check. But as he said, it can also catch things that a hook-in check doesn't.

Pilgrim,

Incredible volume of stuff on this, so i will be brief.

Doesn't hafta be. We could just go with:

With each flight, demonstrates method of establishing that pilot is hooked in just prior to launch.

But it doesn't look like that's ever gonna happen.

Tad, I've never argued against that statement. In fact, I don't know of anyone who argues against that statement.

Actually, Tad, I don't even understand what you're arguing about ... other than to just argue. I do appreciate people posting on this forum, but I'd like to see us discussing problems and coming up with solutions. I don't see that happening here. I just see you arguing for the sake of arguing. You're taking pot-shots at people you don't know (like Rob McKenzie) without checking any facts. You're misquoting people (like Joe Greblo) without going to the source and just asking him. As far as I can see, you're just wasting our time here. I will do my best to discuss any topic with the members of this forum, but there's a lot of other work that I have to do as well.

At this point, I think anyone reading this topic will get lots of good information about hang checks and hook-in checks. I really thank you for that. I hope they'll think of these topics with a new appreciation for the importance of those checks and their purposes, benefits, and drawbacks. You're welcome to continue to preach on this topic, but I think we've accomplished all we can at this point. So I'm going to make an effort to withdraw from this discussion.

Thanks again for all your good points.

Bob Kuczewski

P.S. A primary purpose of this forum is to bring together the people and ideas needed to form a new national hang gliding organization. If you (or anyone) would like to make a specific suggestion for a policy within that new organization, it would surely be welcomed. Let's start to put concrete proposals on the table so we can actually build that organization rather than just talking about it. Thanks!!