Killing the flagman at US Contest

[Steve Koerner]

It hasn't happened yet, but we are going to kill or maim the flagman if we don't change our ways. It's just a matter of time.

This has become my personal pet peeve. Over the years, I have personally observed a lot of gliders drop a wing and veer off the runway. And admittedly a number of times my observation was from the driver's seat. My own launching technique is better now so my odds of staying on the runway are not as bad as they used to be. Yet, I know it can happen again. It can happen to anyone.

The matter of how to avoid wing drop is not what this writing is about. That's for another thread. This is about the fact that it does happen. This thread is about a potentially serious consequence when it does. Having a serious veer off the runway is an uncommon event for sure. It's one of those things where all goes well so often that it's easy to be neglectful of the low probability yet high consequence risk scenario that plays out at every contest launch.

We were all trained that there should be a safety cone in front of the glider when we launch. That being a zone in which there are no people or objects that have the potential to convert an embarrassing non-event into a small or large catastrophe. At US contests this important need for a safety cone is routinely overlooked. The flagman stands and does his work in a dangerous location in front of the launch.

Our contest flagmen are volunteers. I, for one, am very appreciative of all of the contest volunteers. Without the dedicated work of the volunteers, contests wouldn't happen. Certainly, there is a high obligation to not put volunteers at risk.

The manner by which a glider can come off the runway varies dramatically. Often, the affected pilot is faced with a real dilemma that plays out in a matter of seconds. A wing is low, perhaps dragging on the runway. He believes he can lift the down wing if he simply persists a bit and waits for airspeed to come up. In the mean time he's beginning to veer. If he releases early, the matter is low energy and low consequence. If he holds on for a little longer, he thinks he can raise the wing yet his speed is increasing and the potential for adverse consequences increase perhaps with the square of velocity. Should the pilot fail to get to the release quickly enough and the wing stays low, the resulting veer will be high energy. The veer off the runway can occur at speeds that can do real damage. I've seen it happen.

In my, thus far, unsuccessful efforts to change contest practice in this regard, I've spoken to several different contest operations managers and I've also spoken to flagmen about the issue. I'm routinely pooh-poohed. The flagman will tell me that he can run out of the way if a wing is coming at him. One flagman told me that he can jump over the wing if he needs to. But wait a minute... what if the wing that is coming at him is coming at 30 or 40 MPH? What if it happens to be the high wing that is coming at him or the fuselage?

What I observe at contests is that wing drops are sufficiently rare that the flagman always becomes complacent (assuming he or she is aware of the hazard in the first place). As the towplane and glider roar by, he'll be sipping from his water bottle while maybe sauntering a few step out of the way.

If it were the case that our flagmen were selected for sprinting ability and if their practice was to swing the flag then immediately begin sprinting for the sidelines then perhaps the present hazard wouldn't be. Yet, that is never what happens. Requiring a sprint from the flagman at every launch would be an unreasonable expectation for sure. At any rate, few would have the endurance strength and athleticism to do 30 to 50 successive 25 yard sprints in launch time summer heat.

It isn't as if there is no alternative to using a flagman for launch control. There is an alternative that works extremely well and puts no one at risk in the safety cone. The launch controller stands aside the sailplane with a handheld radio as the glider is being hooked up and readied for launch.. The launch controller gives particular radio commands to take up slack and then a particular distinctive word sequence command to commence the launch. Barb Smith, who's served as operations manager at a few Parowan contests in recent years, seems to have pioneered this method. This is really a very good scheme. There is no double communication required. The launch controller is in a position to easily observe the towline slack and also very well observe the readiness of the wing runner, the glider and the glider pilot too.

I urge that we adopt the radio method of launch control at US contests. Let's not wait until we've killed the flagman.

[Gav Goudie[_2_]]

I am staggered that it's still felt necessary to use a flagman/forward
signaller
when use of radio is so ubiquitous and the norm almost everywhere else?



At 21:04 29 June 2014, Steve Koerner wrote:
>It hasn't happened yet, but we are going to kill or maim the flagman if
we
>=
>don't change our ways. It's just a matter of time. =20
>
>This has become my personal pet peeve. Over the years, I have personally
>o=
>bserved a lot of gliders drop a wing and veer off the runway. And
>admitted=
>ly a number of times my observation was from the driver's seat. My own
>la=
>unching technique is better now so my odds of staying on the runway are
>not=
> as bad as they used to be. Yet, I know it can happen again. It can
>happe=
>n to anyone. =20
>
>The matter of how to avoid wing drop is not what this writing is about.
>Th=
>at's for another thread. This is about the fact that it does happen.
>This=
> thread is about a potentially serious consequence when it does. Having
a
>=
>serious veer off the runway is an uncommon event for sure. It's one of
>tho=
>se things where all goes well so often that it's easy to be neglectful of
>t=
>he low probability yet high consequence risk scenario that plays out at
>eve=
>ry contest launch. =20
>
>We were all trained that there should be a safety cone in front of the
>glid=
>er when we launch. That being a zone in which there are no people or
>objec=
>ts that have the potential to convert an embarrassing non-event into a
>smal=
>l or large catastrophe. At US contests this important need for a safety
>c=
>one is routinely overlooked. The flagman stands and does his work in a
>dan=
>gerous location in front of the launch.
>
>Our contest flagmen are volunteers. I, for one, am very appreciative of
>al=
>l of the contest volunteers. Without the dedicated work of the
>volunteers,=
> contests wouldn't happen. Certainly, there is a high obligation to not
>pu=
>t volunteers at risk.
>
>The manner by which a glider can come off the runway varies dramatically.

>=
>Often, the affected pilot is faced with a real dilemma that plays out in
a
>=
>matter of seconds. A wing is low, perhaps dragging on the runway. He
>beli=
>eves he can lift the down wing if he simply persists a bit and waits for
>ai=
>rspeed to come up. In the mean time he's beginning to veer. If he
>releas=
>es early, the matter is low energy and low consequence. If he holds on
>for=
> a little longer, he thinks he can raise the wing yet his speed is
>increasi=
>ng and the potential for adverse consequences increase perhaps with the
>squ=
>are of velocity. Should the pilot fail to get to the release quickly
>enoug=
>h and the wing stays low, the resulting veer will be high energy. The
>vee=
>r off the runway can occur at speeds that can do real damage. I've seen
>it=
> happen.
>
>In my, thus far, unsuccessful efforts to change contest practice in this
>re=
>gard, I've spoken to several different contest operations managers and
>I've=
> also spoken to flagmen about the issue. I'm routinely pooh-poohed. The
>f=
>lagman will tell me that he can run out of the way if a wing is coming at
>h=
>im. One flagman told me that he can jump over the wing if he needs to.
>B=
>ut wait a minute... what if the wing that is coming at him is coming at
30
>=
>or 40 MPH? What if it happens to be the high wing that is coming at him
>or=
> the fuselage?
>
>What I observe at contests is that wing drops are sufficiently rare that
>th=
>e flagman always becomes complacent (assuming he or she is aware of the
>haz=
>ard in the first place). As the towplane and glider roar by, he'll be
>sipp=
>ing from his water bottle while maybe sauntering a few step out of the
>way.=
> =20
>
>If it were the case that our flagmen were selected for sprinting ability
>an=
>d if their practice was to swing the flag then immediately begin
sprinting
>=
>for the sidelines then perhaps the present hazard wouldn't be. Yet, that
>i=
>s never what happens. Requiring a sprint from the flagman at every
launch
>=
>would be an unreasonable expectation for sure. At any rate, few would
>have=
> the endurance strength and athleticism to do 30 to 50 successive 25 yard
>s=
>prints in launch time summer heat.=20
>
>It isn't as if there is no alternative to using a flagman for launch
>contro=
>l. There is an alternative that works extremely well and puts no one at
>ri=
>sk in the safety cone. The launch controller stands aside the sailplane
>wi=
>th a handheld radio as the glider is being hooked up and readied for
>launch=
>.. The launch controller gives particular radio commands to take up
slack
>a=
>nd then a particular distinctive word sequence command to commence the
>laun=
>ch. Barb Smith, who's served as operations manager at a few Parowan
>conte=
>sts in recent years, seems to have pioneered this method. This is
really
>=
>a very good scheme. There is no double communication required. The
>launch=
> controller is in a position to easily observe the towline slack and also
>v=
>ery well observe the readiness of the wing runner, the glider and the
>glide=
>r pilot too. =20
>
>I urge that we adopt the radio method of launch control at US contests.
>Le=
>t's not wait until we've killed the flagman.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:04:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
> It hasn't happened yet, but we are going to kill or maim the flagman if we don't change our ways. It's just a matter of time.
>
>
>
> This has become my personal pet peeve. Over the years, I have personally observed a lot of gliders drop a wing and veer off the runway. And admittedly a number of times my observation was from the driver's seat. My own launching technique is better now so my odds of staying on the runway are not as bad as they used to be. Yet, I know it can happen again. It can happen to anyone.
>
>
>
> The matter of how to avoid wing drop is not what this writing is about. That's for another thread. This is about the fact that it does happen. This thread is about a potentially serious consequence when it does. Having a serious veer off the runway is an uncommon event for sure. It's one of those things where all goes well so often that it's easy to be neglectful of the low probability yet high consequence risk scenario that plays out at every contest launch.
>
>
>
> We were all trained that there should be a safety cone in front of the glider when we launch. That being a zone in which there are no people or objects that have the potential to convert an embarrassing non-event into a small or large catastrophe. At US contests this important need for a safety cone is routinely overlooked. The flagman stands and does his work in a dangerous location in front of the launch.
>
>
>
> Our contest flagmen are volunteers. I, for one, am very appreciative of all of the contest volunteers. Without the dedicated work of the volunteers, contests wouldn't happen. Certainly, there is a high obligation to not put volunteers at risk.
>
>
>
> The manner by which a glider can come off the runway varies dramatically. Often, the affected pilot is faced with a real dilemma that plays out in a matter of seconds. A wing is low, perhaps dragging on the runway. He believes he can lift the down wing if he simply persists a bit and waits for airspeed to come up. In the mean time he's beginning to veer. If he releases early, the matter is low energy and low consequence. If he holds on for a little longer, he thinks he can raise the wing yet his speed is increasing and the potential for adverse consequences increase perhaps with the square of velocity. Should the pilot fail to get to the release quickly enough and the wing stays low, the resulting veer will be high energy. The veer off the runway can occur at speeds that can do real damage. I've seen it happen.
>
>
>
> In my, thus far, unsuccessful efforts to change contest practice in this regard, I've spoken to several different contest operations managers and I've also spoken to flagmen about the issue. I'm routinely pooh-poohed. The flagman will tell me that he can run out of the way if a wing is coming at him. One flagman told me that he can jump over the wing if he needs to. But wait a minute... what if the wing that is coming at him is coming at 30 or 40 MPH? What if it happens to be the high wing that is coming at him or the fuselage?
>
>
>
> What I observe at contests is that wing drops are sufficiently rare that the flagman always becomes complacent (assuming he or she is aware of the hazard in the first place). As the towplane and glider roar by, he'll be sipping from his water bottle while maybe sauntering a few step out of the way.
>
>
>
> If it were the case that our flagmen were selected for sprinting ability and if their practice was to swing the flag then immediately begin sprinting for the sidelines then perhaps the present hazard wouldn't be. Yet, that is never what happens. Requiring a sprint from the flagman at every launch would be an unreasonable expectation for sure. At any rate, few would have the endurance strength and athleticism to do 30 to 50 successive 25 yard sprints in launch time summer heat.
>
>
>
> It isn't as if there is no alternative to using a flagman for launch control. There is an alternative that works extremely well and puts no one at risk in the safety cone. The launch controller stands aside the sailplane with a handheld radio as the glider is being hooked up and readied for launch. The launch controller gives particular radio commands to take up slack and then a particular distinctive word sequence command to commence the launch. Barb Smith, who's served as operations manager at a few Parowan contests in recent years, seems to have pioneered this method. This is really a very good scheme. There is no double communication required. The launch controller is in a position to easily observe the towline slack and also very well observe the readiness of the wing runner, the glider and the glider pilot too.
>
>
>
> I urge that we adopt the radio method of launch control at US contests. Let's not wait until we've killed the flagman.

I agree- mostly.
The mirror is adequate to know when to take up slack.
When the rope is tight- we're going flying.
Stop the launch- wing down.
Radio only when unusual happens.
UH

[Gav Goudie[_2_]]

>Stop the launch- wing down.

I hope the full sequence includes the glider pilot releasing the rope
before the
wing goes down!


At 03:54 30 June 2014, wrote:
>On Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:04:30 PM UTC-4, Steve Koerner wrote:
>> It hasn't happened yet, but we are going to kill or maim the flagman if
>w=
>e don't change our ways. It's just a matter of time. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> This has become my personal pet peeve. Over the years, I have
>personally=
> observed a lot of gliders drop a wing and veer off the runway. And
>admitt=
>edly a number of times my observation was from the driver's seat. My
own
>=
>launching technique is better now so my odds of staying on the runway are
>n=
>ot as bad as they used to be. Yet, I know it can happen again. It can
>hap=
>pen to anyone. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The matter of how to avoid wing drop is not what this writing is about.

>=
>That's for another thread. This is about the fact that it does happen.
>Th=
>is thread is about a potentially serious consequence when it does.
Having
>=
>a serious veer off the runway is an uncommon event for sure. It's one of
>t=
>hose things where all goes well so often that it's easy to be neglectful
>of=
> the low probability yet high consequence risk scenario that plays out at
>e=
>very contest launch. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> We were all trained that there should be a safety cone in front of the
>gl=
>ider when we launch. That being a zone in which there are no people or
>obj=
>ects that have the potential to convert an embarrassing non-event into a
>sm=
>all or large catastrophe. At US contests this important need for a
>safety=
> cone is routinely overlooked. The flagman stands and does his work in a
>d=
>angerous location in front of the launch.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Our contest flagmen are volunteers. I, for one, am very appreciative
of
>=
>all of the contest volunteers. Without the dedicated work of the
>volunteer=
>s, contests wouldn't happen. Certainly, there is a high obligation to
not
>=
>put volunteers at risk.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The manner by which a glider can come off the runway varies
>dramatically.=
> Often, the affected pilot is faced with a real dilemma that plays out
in
>=
>a matter of seconds. A wing is low, perhaps dragging on the runway. He
>be=
>lieves he can lift the down wing if he simply persists a bit and waits
for
>=
>airspeed to come up. In the mean time he's beginning to veer. If he
>rele=
>ases early, the matter is low energy and low consequence. If he holds on
>f=
>or a little longer, he thinks he can raise the wing yet his speed is
>increa=
>sing and the potential for adverse consequences increase perhaps with the
>s=
>quare of velocity. Should the pilot fail to get to the release quickly
>eno=
>ugh and the wing stays low, the resulting veer will be high energy. The
>v=
>eer off the runway can occur at speeds that can do real damage. I've
seen
>=
>it happen.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> In my, thus far, unsuccessful efforts to change contest practice in
this
>=
>regard, I've spoken to several different contest operations managers and
>I'=
>ve also spoken to flagmen about the issue. I'm routinely pooh-poohed.
>The=
> flagman will tell me that he can run out of the way if a wing is coming
>at=
> him. One flagman told me that he can jump over the wing if he needs
to.
>=
> But wait a minute... what if the wing that is coming at him is coming at
>3=
>0 or 40 MPH? What if it happens to be the high wing that is coming at
him
>=
>or the fuselage?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> What I observe at contests is that wing drops are sufficiently rare
that
>=
>the flagman always becomes complacent (assuming he or she is aware of
the
>h=
>azard in the first place). As the towplane and glider roar by, he'll be
>si=
>pping from his water bottle while maybe sauntering a few step out of the
>wa=
>y. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> If it were the case that our flagmen were selected for sprinting
ability
>=
>and if their practice was to swing the flag then immediately begin
>sprintin=
>g for the sidelines then perhaps the present hazard wouldn't be. Yet,
>that=
> is never what happens. Requiring a sprint from the flagman at every
>launc=
>h would be an unreasonable expectation for sure. At any rate, few would
>ha=
>ve the endurance strength and athleticism to do 30 to 50 successive 25
>yard=
> sprints in launch time summer heat.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> It isn't as if there is no alternative to using a flagman for launch
>cont=
>rol. There is an alternative that works extremely well and puts no one
at
>=
>risk in the safety cone. The launch controller stands aside the
sailplane
>=
>with a handheld radio as the glider is being hooked up and readied for
>laun=
>ch. The launch controller gives particular radio commands to take up
>slack=
> and then a particular distinctive word sequence command to commence the
>la=
>unch. Barb Smith, who's served as operations manager at a few Parowan
>con=
>tests in recent years, seems to have pioneered this method. This is
>reall=
>y a very good scheme. There is no double communication required. The
>laun=
>ch controller is in a position to easily observe the towline slack and
>also=
> very well observe the readiness of the wing runner, the glider and the
>gli=
>der pilot too. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I urge that we adopt the radio method of launch control at US contests.

>=
>Let's not wait until we've killed the flagman.
>
>I agree- mostly.
>The mirror is adequate to know when to take up slack.
>When the rope is tight- we're going flying.
>Stop the launch- wing down.
>Radio only when unusual happens.
>UH
>

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 30, 2014 7:58:07 AM UTC-4, Gav Goudie wrote:
> >Stop the launch- wing down.
>
>
>
> I hope the full sequence includes the glider pilot releasing the rope
>
> before the
>
> wing goes down!

Wing down is stop/hold. If tug pilot does not appear to respond, then release.
No need for stopping the operation to hook up again unless really needed.
Note this is a contest environment with pilots on the top of their game and not the local club operation.
UH
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gav Goudie[_2_]]

So in effect the glider is now in a not ready to launch configuration (the
wing
is on the ground and probably being held there by the wing runner) yet
everything is primed to enable it to launch including the tug pilot who has

150 - 260hp available in an instant.

Unfortunately being at the top of ones game doesn't mitigate the risk that

could develop from the the above scenario and one could provide lots of
evidence where the competition environment can create extra pressure where

basic airmanship and experience evaporate in an instant.

I am all for an efficient launching machine in comps but you have to keep
the
basics in check, relying solely on a visual cue/clue isn't really using all
the
options that are available.

Typical parlance that seems to work on grid launches I have been involved
with as used by the launch marshall goes something like:

"Tug GC, next glider is Discus on the left hand side"
"Tug GC take up slack"
Or
"Tug GC take up slack and hold" (if a relight or a landing tug is on late
finals
etc)
"Tug GC all out, all out" or "STOP STOP STOP" (delete as appropriate)

The tug/towplane pilot has not had to respond to any of this, his or her
actions or rather lack of actions will alert the launch marshall that
he/she has
an issue or is unable to comply leaving them entirely focussed on
configuring
his tug for the launch and keeping his/her eyes moving around the sky, the

runway ahead and glider behind for any conflicts.

GG

(Comp Pilot & Towplane/Comp Towplane Pilot)

At 12:32 30 June 2014, wrote:
>On Monday, June 30, 2014 7:58:07 AM UTC-4, Gav Goudie wrote:
>> >Stop the launch- wing down.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope the full sequence includes the glider pilot releasing the rope
>>
>> before the
>>
>> wing goes down!
>
>Wing down is stop/hold. If tug pilot does not appear to respond, then
>release.
>No need for stopping the operation to hook up again unless really needed.
>Note this is a contest environment with pilots on the top of their game
and
>not the local club operation.
>UH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Brian[_1_]]

On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:28:30 AM UTC-6, Gav Goudie wrote:

> Typical parlance that seems to work on grid launches I have been involved
> with as used by the launch marshall goes something like:
>
> "Tug GC, next glider is Discus on the left hand side"
> "Tug GC take up slack"
> Or
> "Tug GC take up slack and hold" (if a relight or a landing tug is on late
> finals
> etc)
> "Tug GC all out, all out" or "STOP STOP STOP" (delete as appropriate)
>

I am not sure the system you are suggesting came across very well in your post.
I think you are saying that instead of using a signal relay person that you have a radio relay aka a Launch Marshall directing the tow plane.

It is probably a better idea than the signal relay person.
However the concern of course is to not clutter up the radio frequency so bad that aircraft (tow planes) in the pattern can't make adequate position reports with out stepping on each other transmissions.
Very doable, but all aspects of this procedure need to be considered for each site.

Brian
(Comp Pilot & Towplane/Comp Towplane Pilot) also.

[Gav Goudie[_2_]]

Messages get clipped and formatted badly here for some reason?

Brian,

Basically yes.

The launch marshall is in charge of the grid and he directs each tug to
each
glider and then away.

Most operations I have been involved with have a dedicated launch frequency

and with typically < 10 towplanes, clutter is not an issue.
A thorough briefing on towing and recovery routes to/from the drop zone
(and use of similar performance aircraft) and other normal eventualities
(aborted tow/blocked runway etc) reduces the amount of required radio calls

to almost nothing in some cases. On airfields with limited space a little
bit of
inter-towplane RT keeps it all ticking.

And having good tow pilots and a capable launch marshall makes a big
difference to getting the grid away safely and efficiently.

GG



At 15:59 30 June 2014, Brian wrote:
>On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:28:30 AM UTC-6, Gav Goudie wrote:
>
>> Typical parlance that seems to work on grid launches I have been
involved
>
>> with as used by the launch marshall goes something like:
>>
>> "Tug GC, next glider is Discus on the left hand side"
>> "Tug GC take up slack"
>> Or
>> "Tug GC take up slack and hold" (if a relight or a landing tug is on
late
>> finals
>> etc)
>> "Tug GC all out, all out" or "STOP STOP STOP" (delete as appropriate)
>>
>
>I am not sure the system you are suggesting came across very well in your
>post.
>I think you are saying that instead of using a signal relay person that
you
>have a radio relay aka a Launch Marshall directing the tow plane.
>
>It is probably a better idea than the signal relay person.
>However the concern of course is to not clutter up the radio frequency so
>bad that aircraft (tow planes) in the pattern can't make adequate
position
>reports with out stepping on each other transmissions.
>Very doable, but all aspects of this procedure need to be considered for
>each site.
>
>Brian
>(Comp Pilot & Towplane/Comp Towplane Pilot) also.
>

[kirk.stant]

I'm with Uncle Hank: The less chatter on the radio the less chance of a mistake, and leaves the radio available for emergencies ("RED PAWNEE 10 KNOTS FASTER!!!).

As a tuggie (and comp pilot) I prefer to base my decision to go on what I see, not on what someone else is directing (unless it's a STOP command, then It may be something I can't see) - and I can see if the rope is full out and the wings are level. At a comp, that's all I should need - the glider pilot ALWAYS has the option of releasing if he isn't ready!

In a club environment, add a nice rudder waggle, and all I really want the wing runner to do is watch for a problem and be prepared to stop the launch - I'm not going just because he thinks it time to fly!

On a related subject, I'm having a devil of a time convincing our club (non-comp, mainly also power pilots) glider pilots (including our friendly FAA reps!) to not stage at the very end of the runway, putting the initial part of the launch alongside other gliders, cars, spectators, dogs, etc. Aside from the problem of preventing the next gliders waiting to launch from gridding, the concept of a groundloop into the crowd seems inconceivable to these guys - and the usual answer is that they want all the runway available (we have a 2500' grass strip with good overruns and landable options in every direction).

Do other clubs have this problem? And how do you handle it, aside from stopping the launch and yelling at people (which is my usual response....).

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

How about a light bar or light gun? Red - Stop/Hold, Yellow - Takeup
Slack, Green - GO!

Or car headlights? Steady on - Takeup Slack, Flashing - GO!

Now for my pet towing peeve: Takeup slack, STOP, GO. There's no need
to stop. The glider should be ready to launch when the rope is
attached. If the pilot needs more time, he should not have the rope
attached until he is ready. Or he should find another hobby. Rant off.

Dan Marotta

On 6/30/2014 10:29 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> I'm with Uncle Hank: The less chatter on the radio the less chance of a mistake, and leaves the radio available for emergencies ("RED PAWNEE 10 KNOTS FASTER!!!).
>
> As a tuggie (and comp pilot) I prefer to base my decision to go on what I see, not on what someone else is directing (unless it's a STOP command, then It may be something I can't see) - and I can see if the rope is full out and the wings are level. At a comp, that's all I should need - the glider pilot ALWAYS has the option of releasing if he isn't ready!
>
> In a club environment, add a nice rudder waggle, and all I really want the wing runner to do is watch for a problem and be prepared to stop the launch - I'm not going just because he thinks it time to fly!
>
> On a related subject, I'm having a devil of a time convincing our club (non-comp, mainly also power pilots) glider pilots (including our friendly FAA reps!) to not stage at the very end of the runway, putting the initial part of the launch alongside other gliders, cars, spectators, dogs, etc. Aside from the problem of preventing the next gliders waiting to launch from gridding, the concept of a groundloop into the crowd seems inconceivable to these guys - and the usual answer is that they want all the runway available (we have a 2500' grass strip with good overruns and landable options in every direction).
>
> Do other clubs have this problem? And how do you handle it, aside from stopping the launch and yelling at people (which is my usual response....).
>
> Kirk
> 66

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 10:39:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> How about a light bar or light gun? Red - Stop/Hold, Yellow - Takeup
>
> Slack, Green - GO!
>
>
>
> Or car headlights? Steady on - Takeup Slack, Flashing - GO!
>
>
>
> Now for my pet towing peeve: Takeup slack, STOP, GO. There's no need
>
> to stop. The glider should be ready to launch when the rope is
>
> attached. If the pilot needs more time, he should not have the rope
>
> attached until he is ready. Or he should find another hobby. Rant off.
>
>
>
> Dan Marotta

Dan, I totally agree! The more complicated we make the launch process, the more chance for miscommunication and mistakes to happen.

Best solution (non-contest): RADIOS! Glider pilot says READY, tuggie says HERE WE GO. Back it up with wings level (if possible - sometimes you have to do a wing-down launch, so even that isn't a show stopper) and a vigorous rudder waggle from the glider, answered by the tug, then go.

Otherwise, I agree that once hooked up, the glider should be ready to go as soon as the rope is attached. Once the slack is taken up, the wing should be leveled and tug looks for the rudder waggle, then goes - or else the wing is dropped and the rope released.

If you can't see the rope and glider rudder from your towplane, you need better mirrors! We use a Supercub and a Pawnee and in both the rope and glider rudders are easy to see.

And I've had wing runners try to launch with the wing down, or the back canopy on a Blanik open, or the slack not out, etc - they are often students and can't be trusted! The ONLY person who can determine if the launch should go is the glider pilot, so I want to see or hear his decision to go.

Kirk

[Steve Koerner]

Thanks for the comments. I don't really care much how we do it as long as we get the darn flagman out of the picture.

I would say that having attended a couple contests where Barb Smith was the radio controller, that works well by my observation. Her duty cycle on the radio was certainly less than 1% so I don't think there was an impact to safety calls on the radio. With respect to the example case of interfering with a safety call from a glider to it's own tug, there wouldn't really be interference. That because the radio signal power from a glider 200 feet away will not be impaired by the signal from a handheld which is a mile or more distant; it's a 1/r^2 matter, the close radio wins. Aircraft radios use simple amplitude modulation.

[Mark628CA]

I was ground operations director at the last contest Steve entered (Region 9 at Moriarty). Steve expressed his concerns to me while on the grid. I totally agree that safety of the pilots and ground crew are of paramount importance, but unfortunately, this is difficult to achieve when dealing with volunteer crews for flagging, hookup and general awareness. I would be ecstatic to have a crew that was experienced in all of these functions, but recruiting and training an efficient bunch of kids at the last minute is a problem. We had CAP volunteers, but of varying levels of attention, physical ability and general awareness. The flagman and tug positioning flagman were both very experienced glider pilots with a highly developed sense of self-preservation (i.e. they knew when to back out of the way and run if necessary)

With all of the confusion going on with an efficient launch at a contest, the last thing you would want are extraneous radio calls. The radio is for flight ops. Period. It is hard enough for multiple tow pilots to maintain a sense of awareness in the pattern without a bunch of "take up slack" or "hold" calls. And do not even suggest that the tow pilots change between ground and air frequencies.

Visual signals are the absolute best method with a properly briefed ground crew. Yes. in many instances, the risk of a dropped wing and subsequent departure is real. Unfortunately, without a system as sophisticated as something found on a Nimitz Class carrier, visual cues and volunteers are the norm..

If the pilot feels uncomfortable, launch can be declined. If the volunteer flagman feels uncomfortable, he can be advised to allow more clearance. In any case, a mature, alert flagman is a must. A sense of self preservation is a good thing to have when standing beyond the launch line of any accelerating vehicle.

I got some great photos and a couple of scars while ignoring this principle when I was shooting drag racing photos,

Please try to trust the ground crew, but do not hesitate to speak up if you see something obviously wrong or hazardous.

[Steve Koerner]

Mark - please don't interpret that I'm complaining about how Moriarty contest was operated. Not at all. Moriarty was run fantastically well and I'm very appreciative of that.

My issue is generic to all US contests where there's a flagman stationed in front of the launching gliders and that seems to be most contests these days. Any person given that job will assuredly become complacent about the hazard after a few hundred gliders have whizzed by without incident. The hazard is insidious most particularly because it's rare. My issue is that it really won't matter what kind of self preservation instinct someone has when there's 50 feet of wing arcing directly towards him at 30 or 40 MPH. That really can happen. We need to change the scheme before someone gets creamed.

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

The natural human reply to suggestions of change is to say ' we always did
it this way without a problem.' All very well until someone is killed or
seriously injured, then the lawyers get involved.

In UK we happen to have developed procedures using a dedicated radio
frequency for launching a competition grid. It works, and we can launch
100 gliders in an hour apparently safely (the local collision risk is
another matter, but that's dealt with in other ways).

I wouldn't want to be able to say 'I told you so' in the near future.

At 03:34 02 July 2014, Steve Koerner wrote:
>Mark - please don't interpret that I'm complaining about how Moriarty
>conte=
>st was operated. Not at all. Moriarty was run fantastically well and
I'm
>=
>very appreciative of that. =20
>
>My issue is generic to all US contests where there's a flagman stationed
>in=
> front of the launching gliders and that seems to be most contests these
>da=
>ys. Any person given that job will assuredly become complacent about the
>h=
>azard after a few hundred gliders have whizzed by without incident. The
>ha=
>zard is insidious most particularly because it's rare. My issue is that
>it=
> really won't matter what kind of self preservation instinct someone has
>wh=
>en there's 50 feet of wing arcing directly towards him at 30 or 40 MPH.
>Th=
>at really can happen. We need to change the scheme before someone gets
>cre=
>amed.
>

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:58:26 AM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
> The natural human reply to suggestions of change is to say ' we always did
>
> it this way without a problem.' All very well until someone is killed or
>
> seriously injured, then the lawyers get involved.

How fast we forget. Tonopah, Nevada, July 16 2002:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20020724X01192&ntsbno=LAX02LA231&akey=1

Steve is completely right. There is NO need for someone in front of the launch, and any procedure that uses someone in that position should be changed.

Again, as a tow pilot, I would much rather look directly at the glider I'm about to launch than rely on someone else to relay the signal. In a contest, I really only need to watch the rope for slack - it's up to the glider pilot to be ready or release!

Keep it simple and put the responsibility in the hands of those directly involved: the tow pilot and the glider pilot.

Kirk
66

[John Firth[_4_]]

Don't they both have radio?

At the 78 worlds , my wing hit a TV photographer,as I was landing on the
runway, injuring him seriously. He had
walked out to get a better shot. I was leaving room for a glider landing
behind me. It certainly shook me .
JMF

At 12:50 02 July 2014, kirk.stant wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:58:26 AM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
>> The natural human reply to suggestions of change is to say ' we always
>did
>>
>> it this way without a problem.' All very well until someone is killed
or
>>
>> seriously injured, then the lawyers get involved.
>
>How fast we forget. Tonopah, Nevada, July 16 2002:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20020724X01192&ntsbno=LAX02LA231&akey=1
>
>Steve is completely right. There is NO need for someone in front of the
>launch, and any procedure that uses someone in that position should be
>changed.
>
>Again, as a tow pilot, I would much rather look directly at the glider
I'm
>about to launch than rely on someone else to relay the signal. In a
>contest, I really only need to watch the rope for slack - it's up to the
>glider pilot to be ready or release!
>
>Keep it simple and put the responsibility in the hands of those directly
>involved: the tow pilot and the glider pilot.
>
>Kirk
>66
>

[son_of_flubber]

> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:58:26 AM UTC-5, pete purdie wrote:
>
> > The natural human reply to suggestions of change is to say ' we always did it this way without a problem.

Last year my local CAP glider program had a number of bored teens to keep engaged so they put a cadet just in front of the tow plane's right wingtip.

[Tony[_5_]]

I hear you Steve. Valid concern for sure. For some reason I thought that I had read some guidelines in the SSA Contest section of the website recommending at least a 30 degree cone ahead of the glider without people in it. Maybe 45 degrees. Now I can't find that after a short search. Maybe someone else remembers where I saw that. I recall it was in response to the Parowan accident. For a 200 foot rope that would correspond to the flagman at least 115 feet off to the side of the towplane.

On my aborted takeoff at Region 9 in 2013 I was headed right for the corner of the ramp and the runway where the flagman was standing. Crosswind, CG hook, I was heading towards the flagman and the towplane was heading down the runway.

[[email protected]]

I always thought that having someone "on point" - ahead of the towplane - was not primarily to relay signals from the wing runner but was done to monitor the area behind and out of sight of the wing runner for anything that could interfere with the launch and to stop the launch if that happened. I've only seen this happen once in my fifteen years of soaring though and when you come down to it if this was really important you could just have a person stand behind the wing runner to monitor that area.

It's SOP at my club when we have enough people at the field to have someone to do it. It has occurred to me that it does introduce the possibility of the person being hit my the glider or towplane if one of them swings exceedingly badly (to the left in our case) but has this ever happened anywhere? We have a very wide grass field and almost never have any significant amount of crosswind component so our experience probably isn't typical.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Gav Goudie wrote, On 6/30/2014 4:58 AM:
>> Stop the launch- wing down.
>
> I hope the full sequence includes the glider pilot releasing the rope
> before the
> wing goes down!

The pilot may not be aware of the reason for halting the launch. The
reason might be out of his sight, or his actions may be the reason the
launch needs to be halted, so you can not wait for him to release the
rope before putting the wing down. Of course, if he thinks he is in
peril when the wing goes down, he can release at any time.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Bill T]

And at the Tonopah contest. He was not a flag man, but an airport worker that had been asked then told to move farther back. But he felt he knew better.