Super fast assembly and launch...

[KevinFinke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huk_WOxk1oc

After seeing this video, I think I'm going to try and recruit 5 people
to help me assemble my ship instead of just one....

[jcarlyle]

I don't think they did a positive control check. Not too smart...but
oh, well, it was a record attempt, don't you know?

-John

On Nov 14, 12:49 pm, KevinFinke > wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huk_WOxk1oc
>
> After seeing this video, I think I'm going to try and recruit 5 people
> to help me assemble my ship instead of just one....

[Brad[_2_]]

> I don't think they did a positive control check. Not too smart...but
> oh, well, it was a record attempt, don't you know?
>

hah..................you read my mind...........just for a wind-up I
thought I would post this on our clubs BB, sit back and watch the
safety monkeys come un-glued.

Brad

[[email protected]]

On Nov 14, 2:46*pm, Brad > wrote:
> > I don't think they did a positive control check. Not too smart...but
> > oh, well, it was a record attempt, don't you know?
>
> hah..................you read my mind...........just for a wind-up I
> thought I would post this on our clubs BB, sit back and watch the
> safety monkeys come un-glued.
>
> Brad

This is merely reckless, and only moderately so, at that. Any fool
can be reckless. I want to see recklessness that requires real skill
to survive.
At the very least he could have finished the flight with a redline
pass under a bridge.

-T8

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 14, 12:14*pm, wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2:46*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> > > I don't think they did a positive control check. Not too smart...but
> > > oh, well, it was a record attempt, don't you know?
>
> > hah..................you read my mind...........just for a wind-up I
> > thought I would post this on our clubs BB, sit back and watch the
> > safety monkeys come un-glued.
>
> > Brad
>
> This is merely reckless, and only moderately so, at that. *Any fool
> can be reckless. *I want to see recklessness that requires real skill
> to survive.
> At the very least he could have finished the flight with a redline
> pass under a bridge.
>
> -T8

inverted

[KevinFinke]

Be careful Brad. Some of the safety primates read this site too...

I noticed the lack of a PCC as well, and thought that was kind of poor
form. They did do a control check, meaning that they made sure things
moved and opened and closed. The Discus and many other modern
sailplanes all now have automatic control hookups. So what is the risk
of not performing a PCC with automatic hookups? Has anyone with one of
these modern ships ever had a problem that was discovered during a
PCC?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 14, 12:54*pm, KevinFinke > wrote:

> ...Has anyone with one of
> these modern ships ever had a problem that was discovered during a
> PCC?

It's rare, but I have seen it happen: Chad Moore discovered a broken
center elevator hinge on PCC of the auto-connecting elevator on his
Russia. Pulling the stick back would push the elevator aft without
deflecting it up.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:17:11 -0800 (PST), jcarlyle
> wrote:

>I don't think they did a positive control check. Not too smart...but
>oh, well, it was a record attempt, don't you know?

I'd say it set a record, but not precisely the kind they were looking
for.

Wonder if they still have an insurance company?

rj

[brianDG303]

On Nov 14, 1:09*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Nov 14, 12:54*pm, KevinFinke > wrote:
>
> > ...Has anyone with one of
> > these modern ships ever had a problem that was discovered during a
> > PCC?
>
> It's rare, but I have seen it happen: Chad Moore discovered a broken
> center elevator hinge on PCC of the auto-connecting elevator on his
> Russia. Pulling the stick back would push the elevator aft without
> deflecting it up.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Kevin and Brad, I am one of those safety primates, I just don't make a
lot of noise about it. Although I did get a lecture about that 130
knot contest finish.

DG300's are supposed to be auto hookup, but Dan King told me about
managing to get the tail on without the bearing getting into the
funnel, making the elevator useless. That is one failed hookup I don't
want to make. I think the thing about saftey as you're either becoming
more safe or less safe over time, and if you stop thinking about it
then you're probably becoming less safe. The other thing is to weigh
the cost, and the cost of a positive is very low in terms of time and
probably could have been done by that team with no increase in time.


Personally I find safety excites me.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 14, 3:54*pm, KevinFinke > wrote:
Has anyone with one of
> these modern ships ever had a problem that was discovered during a
> PCC?

Yes, ASW27, C/G release check, failure to open; jammed with dirt. That
would have been fun on the winch.

[Z Goudie[_2_]]

They looked switched on enough to have rehearsed this a few times and taken
the safety aspects into consideration.

Given most of the previous comments in the thread I'm not surprised that
soaring is turning into an old farts hobby.

Live a little before you die.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Nov 14, 3:45*pm, Z Goudie > wrote:
> They looked switched on enough to have rehearsed this a few times and taken
> the safety aspects into consideration.
>
> Given most of the previous comments in the thread I'm not surprised that
> soaring is turning into an old farts hobby.
>
> Live a little before you die.

eh? speak up sunny........I caint hear ya?

Brad

PS..............totally agree with you!

[bildan]

It's obvious that they rehearsed this many times to get all the bugs
out of their act. It wasn't a one-time thing. The only way to do it
this fast is to do it exactly right. The winch launch was to prove
they had indeed done it right. I'm applauding their show.

I'd be less concerned about a botched assembly than a smashed
finger. In fact, the assembly errors I've seen come from a too-slow,
interrupted assembly than from an intensely focused fast one.

Some of the oldtimers may recall that contest re-lights used to be
allowed after a nearby off-field landing and a lightning fast
retrieve. Crews actually practiced this sort of thing so they could
get their pilot re-launched before the start gate closed.

I did one while crewing for Bill Ivans and his Sisu 1A at the 1964
Nationals at McCook, Nebraska. It went like this:

Launch Bill at 12:00
Bill lands 5 miles out at 12:30 with Don Wimple and I on hand.
We de-rig the Sisu and hit the road at 12:40
Sisu re-rigged at McCook by 12:55
Launch Bill again at 13:00

Bill D


On Nov 14, 12:17*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> I don't think they did a positive control check. Not too smart...but
> oh, well, it was a record attempt, don't you know?
>
> -John
>
> On Nov 14, 12:49 pm, KevinFinke > wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huk_WOxk1oc
>
> > After seeing this video, I think I'm going to try and recruit 5 people
> > to help me assemble my ship instead of just one....

[[email protected]]

At the Marfa World Soaring Contest in 1970, four of us pulled a
Libelle out of the factory trailer, rigged it and it was rolling on
tow in 4 minutes 5 seconds. That included a positive control check.
The pilot, from New Zealand, had waited longer than he should and was
trapped by overdelopment in the local area. He took 12 or 13 tows that
day - landing off base at the Marfa Muni airport at least 6 times. By
the time we did the fast rig we had already practiced it about half a
dozen times. Needless to say, he was flying dry. Rigging a Libelle was
pretty easy!

Albert Thomas

"4"

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:59:04 -0800 (PST), bildan >
wrote:
[snip]
>
>Some of the oldtimers may recall that contest re-lights used to be
>allowed after a nearby off-field landing and a lightning fast
>retrieve. Crews actually practiced this sort of thing so they could
>get their pilot re-launched before the start gate closed.
>
>I did one while crewing for Bill Ivans and his Sisu 1A at the 1964
>Nationals at McCook, Nebraska. It went like this:
>
I saw one done with somewhat different motivation, when a pilot not to
be named (though now deceased) flew an Astir under the Rio Grande
Gorge Bridge at Taos. His family was waiting on the plateau with the
trailer ready, and they were out of there in fifteen minutes.

The sheriff's office is twenty minutes away...

rj

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:49:45 -0800 (PST), KevinFinke
> wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huk_WOxk1oc
>
>After seeing this video, I think I'm going to try and recruit 5 people
>to help me assemble my ship instead of just one....

In my experience, if two people can rig a ship in fifteen minutes,
five can do it in an afternoon.

rj

[Tuno]

<snip>
four of us pulled a Libelle out of the factory trailer, rigged it and
it was rolling on
tow in 4 minutes 5 seconds.
</snip>

Two questions:
(1) what do you mean by "out of the factory trailer"? (I hope it's not
the first thing that comes to mind :)
(2) Who thought to have a stop watch running on the first go?!

<snip>
He took 12 or 13 tows that day
</snip>

Oh my. That's got to be the record by a long shot. Anyone else come
close?

When I was a student (solo) pilot I tried to kill a December Saturday
by just taking pattern tows all day. I was just warming up when the
instructor asked me how many flights I'd had. A dozen, I replied. He
said "That's more than enough. Call it a day."

I didn't argue but I was a little miffed driving home!

~ted/2NO

[KevinFinke]

Ralph, that is too funny! I'm going to have to add a third
corollary ...

And if it's a dozen club members out to assemble the club two seater,
it'll take the whole day,

Maybe it's not such a good idea to add more help to put my ship
together.

Kevin

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

Many years ago, the fast assembly was sometimes done during off days at
the 1-26 Championships. Note that this is a glider with no automatic
hookups, and you were only allowed to use two guys to do the assembly. I
don't know what the record was, but it was a couple of minutes or so.
And the assembly ended when the guys stood back and said, "It's ready to
fly." Then somebody else did a complete pre-flight and PCC to confirm
that it was indeed flyable.

The fact that this crew omitted the control check is really kind of dumb.
If something had gone wrong, it would have spoiled their whole day.

Jim Beckman

[Derek Copeland]

It's a Discus with self connecting controls, so fairly hard to get wrong.
The most important things are remembering to fix the tailplane and put the
main pin in.

Some years ago a pilot at our club forget to do the latter. The glider
amazingly survived a launch, a short flight and a circuit, with the wings
being held on only by friction, but they fell off shortly after touchdown.
The pilot wasn't hurt, but quite a lot of damage was caused to the glider.


Del Copeland


At 12:30 15 November 2008, Jim Beckman wrote:

>
>The fact that this crew omitted the control check is really kind of dumb.

>If something had gone wrong, it would have spoiled their whole day.
>
>Jim Beckman
>
>

[P Ilatus]

absolutely no purpose for that exercise in fact it's an irresponsible act
that shows total disregard for safe operating procedure. The organisation
who made the film should be ashamed. This is the way moronic clubs
operate.




>At 12:30 15 November 2008, Jim Beckman wrote:
>
>>
>>The fact that this crew omitted the control check is really kind of
dumb.
>
>>If something had gone wrong, it would have spoiled their whole day.
>>
>>Jim Beckman
>>
>>
>

[P Ilatus]

absolutely no purpose for that exercise in fact it's an irresponsible act
that shows total disregard for safe operating procedure. The organisation
who made the film should be ashamed. This is the way moronic clubs
operate.




>At 12:30 15 November 2008, Jim Beckman wrote:
>
>>
>>The fact that this crew omitted the control check is really kind of
dumb.
>
>>If something had gone wrong, it would have spoiled their whole day.
>>
>>Jim Beckman
>>
>>
>

[Z Goudie[_2_]]

At 14:00 15 November 2008, P Ilatus wrote:

>absolutely no purpose for that exercise in fact it's an irresponsible
act
>that shows total disregard for safe operating procedure. The
organisation
>who made the film should be ashamed. This is the way moronic clubs
>operate.

Do I detect the smell of methane in the air?

[sisu1a]

On Nov 15, 10:15*am, Z Goudie > wrote:
> At 14:00 15 November 2008, P Ilatus wrote:
>
>
>
> >absolutely no purpose for that exercise in fact it's an irresponsible
> act
> >that shows total disregard for safe operating procedure. *The
> organisation
> >who made the film should be ashamed. This is the way moronic clubs
> >operate.
>
> Do I detect the smell of methane in the air?

ancient methane...

[Bruce]

P Ilatus wrote:
> absolutely no purpose for that exercise in fact it's an irresponsible act
> that shows total disregard for safe operating procedure. The organisation
> who made the film should be ashamed. This is the way moronic clubs
> operate.
>
>
>
>
>> At 12:30 15 November 2008, Jim Beckman wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that this crew omitted the control check is really kind of
> dumb.
>>> If something had gone wrong, it would have spoiled their whole day.
>>>
>>> Jim Beckman
>>>
>>>

OK - I am one of the safety primates.
Would I approve of doing this?

Probably - it would raise the competence of club members substantially.
I see lots of planning, and absolute adherence to an operating plan.

There is risk inherent in everything we do - One assumes they did this
with an airframe they had checked very carefully, and then practised
getting it right, many times. Risk known, managed and minimised much
more than many of the things that happen at airfields.

Personally I would put the risk of mis-assembly on this one at way lower
than the glider assembled by a few amiable chaps collected randomly by
the guy with a trailer...

As to whether they proved anything meaningful - that is for them to
know. I know many people wonder what meaning I find in getting into a
little glass fibre enclosure with long skinny wings and going and doing
something that appears to an external observer to be high risk,
uncomfortable and pointless. Point is I find it meaningful and enjoyable
flying my glider - they found it meaningful to demonstrate how fast they
could safely assemble a Discus. Each to his own, but lets stay away from
name calling.

As an exercise - consider whether there really was no control check. I
can see there was no "normal" positive control check. But I can't see
from the video whether the controls were moved deliberately during
assembly with someone observing a specific sequence of stick movements.
Or maybe there was an agreed quick control movement sequence from the
pilot with observers for each surface. I don't know if they did, and I
am not convinced it would make a huge difference if they had, but we
can't be sure there was no check. There is an awful lot going on in the
video - Ask any magician how they get people to not see things...

Similarly I have more than once seen things that were "postively
checked" fail to be in the state that more than one person had only
moments before been prepared to swear that they had confirmed.

The biggest problem with safety is the complacency arising from the
mistaken assumption that our actions have ensured it.

In this case I expect everyone involved was very aware of the real and
immediate possibility of things going wrong. That is much better for
safety than lots complacency.

Would I do this myself? - probably not - but not because I think it unsafe.

Maybe a little more than 2c worth, so I'll get off the soap box now.

Bruce

[[email protected]]

Let's see...

A group of glider jockeys, of all ages, working together as a team,
having FUN (I know I know, not allowed in most soaring environs). Yep.
This is all bad and these guys should be kicked off the planet. But ya
know what. I wanna go with them and buy them a bier.

Bob

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 2:12*pm, " >
wrote:
> Let's see...
>
> A group of glider jockeys, of all ages, working together as a team,
> having FUN (I know I know, not allowed in most soaring environs). Yep.
> This is all bad and these guys should be kicked off the planet. But ya
> know what. I wanna go with them and buy them a bier.
>
> Bob

Were you intentionally spelling, "BIER" ?? As in:
–noun
1. a frame or stand on which a corpse or the coffin containing it is
laid before burial.
2. such a stand together with the corpse or coffin.
(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bier)

- John

[[email protected]]

>
> Were you intentionally spelling, "BIER" ?? *As in:
> –noun
> 1. a frame or stand on which a corpse or the coffin containing it is
> laid before burial.
> 2. such a stand together with the corpse or coffin.
> (source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bier)
>
> - John

Nope John

That's how we spell stuff made from hops, malt and water!

I live in Bavaria and we take the stuff pretty seriously, Bier that
is!

Come on over and fly with me in the Alps and I'll show you how we
spell and drink bier. We keep the Nimbus rigged most of the time so we
wouldn't be able to test these guys time! Of course with the Nimbus
you would need a lot more people and much more time!

Bob

[P Ilatus[_1_]]

At 18:46 15 November 2008, sisu1a wrote:
>On Nov 15, 10:15=A0am, Z Goudie wrote:
>> At 14:00 15 November 2008, P Ilatus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >absolutely no purpose for that exercise in fact it's an
irresponsible
>> act
>> >that shows total disregard for safe operating procedure. =A0The
>> organisation
>> >who made the film should be ashamed. This is the way moronic clubs
>> >operate.
>>
>> Do I detect the smell of methane in the air?
>
>ancient methane...
>



funny what getting near a Discus does to some people - here is an
alternative for Discophants who put safety second:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/brain+bank+appealing+for+donors/2825042

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 19:12 15 November 2008, wrote:
>Let's see...
>
>A group of glider jockeys, of all ages, working together as a team,
>having FUN (I know I know, not allowed in most soaring environs). Yep.

The business about assembling the glider in minimum time
is all well and good. Entertainment for a slow afternoon.
As I mentioned, the 1-26 fanatics did the same thing, and
with a smaller crew and rather more complicated assembly.
The difference in behavior arises after the assembly was
(allegedly) complete. Hey, there's a reason all those
1-26 guys get to be so old!

I can't see that actually launching the glider immediately
proved anything, except that they were willing to bet
their butts (well, at least one guy was willing to make
that bet) on what they had just done.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 18:57 15 November 2008, Bruce wrote:
>
>Personally I would put the risk of mis-assembly on this one at way lower

>than the glider assembled by a few amiable chaps collected randomly by
>the guy with a trailer...

Possibly true, but after the leisurely assembly around
the trailer, the guy whose butt is going to be at risk
checks the work of everybody else.

>As an exercise - consider whether there really was no control check. I
>can see there was no "normal" positive control check. But I can't see

>from the video whether the controls were moved deliberately during
>assembly with someone observing a specific sequence of stick movements.
>Or maybe there was an agreed quick control movement sequence from the
>pilot with observers for each surface.

But that rather avoids the import of the 'P' in the PCC
sequence, doesn't it?

Jim Beckman

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Nov 15, 6:00*am, P Ilatus >
wrote:

> ...absolutely...

> ...irresponsible...

> ...total disregard...

> ...ashamed...

> ...moronic...

I am so pleased with the restraint you demonstate. The last thing we
need here is an excess of hyperbole.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

There is a break in the constant filming of the glider, the spot where the
winch is shown, and then a return to the glider for launching. We cannot
know how much time passed before the return to the glider; could have been
10 minutes. The sound was added after the film was edited so as to make it
look like constant, uninterrupted flow from start to finish. My guess is
that a PCC was done in that interlude and you have all been fooled by a
cinematographer's trick.

At 21:15 15 November 2008, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 18:57 15 November 2008, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>Personally I would put the risk of mis-assembly on this one at way
lower
>
>>than the glider assembled by a few amiable chaps collected randomly by
>>the guy with a trailer...
>
>Possibly true, but after the leisurely assembly around
>the trailer, the guy whose butt is going to be at risk
>checks the work of everybody else.
>
>>As an exercise - consider whether there really was no control check. I
>>can see there was no "normal" positive control check. But I can't
see
>
>>from the video whether the controls were moved deliberately during
>>assembly with someone observing a specific sequence of stick movements.

>>Or maybe there was an agreed quick control movement sequence from the
>>pilot with observers for each surface.
>
>But that rather avoids the import of the 'P' in the PCC
>sequence, doesn't it?
>
>Jim Beckman
>
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Funny coincidence; the use of the English word bier in this connection.

John, offer a German a swig of Scottish Mist and see what happens, Mist
being a German word for dung.

At 20:10 15 November 2008, wrote:
>On Nov 15, 2:12=A0pm, "
>wrote:
>> Let's see...
>>
>> A group of glider jockeys, of all ages, working together as a team,
>> having FUN (I know I know, not allowed in most soaring environs). Yep.
>> This is all bad and these guys should be kicked off the planet. But ya
>> know what. I wanna go with them and buy them a bier.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Were you intentionally spelling, "BIER" ?? As in:
>=96noun
>1. a frame or stand on which a corpse or the coffin containing it is
>laid before burial.
>2. such a stand together with the corpse or coffin.
>(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bier)
>
>- John
>

[Jonathan Ross]

The video's not too clear but it looks like the guy removing the fuselage
lifts the entire weight of the tail by the rudder. Is this normal? I've
never seen anyone at our club lift a glider using the control surfaces.

Jon

[Tim Ward[_1_]]

"Jim Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> At 18:57 15 November 2008, Bruce wrote:
> >
> >Personally I would put the risk of mis-assembly on this one at way lower
>
> >than the glider assembled by a few amiable chaps collected randomly by
> >the guy with a trailer...
>
> Possibly true, but after the leisurely assembly around
> the trailer, the guy whose butt is going to be at risk
> checks the work of everybody else.
>
> >As an exercise - consider whether there really was no control check. I
> >can see there was no "normal" positive control check. But I can't see
>
> >from the video whether the controls were moved deliberately during
> >assembly with someone observing a specific sequence of stick movements.
> >Or maybe there was an agreed quick control movement sequence from the
> >pilot with observers for each surface.
>
> But that rather avoids the import of the 'P' in the PCC
> sequence, doesn't it?
>
> Jim Beckman
>

So, granted that they didn't do a PCC, what minimum time after assembly
should they have waited before launching in order to be safe?

Tim Ward

[[email protected]]

On Nov 15, 6:00*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Funny coincidence; the use of the English word bier in this connection.

Yeah... that's why I wanted to know if it was supposed to be a double-
entendre :) I also speak French and understand a bit of German, so I
considered the possibility of it being another language. It was just
an interesting irony.

I'd love to go to the Alps, and flying a Nimbus would be a real
treat. Unfortunately, for now, that's to remain a dream for the
future. I fly in southern Ontario, Canada... it's VERY flat here
(okay, not as flat as the Prairies!)... need to go fly the Ridge,
once I learn more and get used to my ship -- and my wife lets me go :)

Ah, winter dreams of springtime pleasures!

[KevinFinke]

> So, granted that they didn't do a PCC, what minimum time after assembly
> should they have waited before launching in order to be safe?
>
> Tim Ward

Tim,
I'm awfully confused. If one assumes the absence of a PCC, what
purpose would waiting a certain amount of time before launch make it
safer? Waiting a set period of time and not doing anything to the
airplane isn't going to magically fix any potential mechanical
problems? I don't understand.

Bravo to the Safety Primate Bruce. Well spoken arguments on risk,
awareness, and acceptance.

Also, I had to correct Brad and his use of the term Safety Monkey.
We're in the same club and I'm unaware of any members with tails. Thus
the correction to primate. :)

See you tonight Brad.

-Kevin

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

At 23:49 15 November 2008, Tim Ward wrote:
>
>So, granted that they didn't do a PCC, what minimum time >after
assembly should they have waited before launching in >order to be safe?
>
>Tim Ward
>

One hour. Or, is that how long you should stay out of the water after you
eat? I can never keep those two straight, dang it!

Is it no smoking within 8 hours or drinking within 50 feet of the plane?
Dang! This is too hard!

Steve

And, no. It is VERY poor form to lift the tail of the glider out of the
trailer by the rudder. Glasflugel issued ADs on all their models to
replace part of the rudder drive because of damage caused by that practice
(or a ground loop and a broken fuselage). Schempp-Hirth rudder drive is
different, but I am sure that practice is not good for the lower rudder
hinge.

[rlovinggood]

Bob,

When, in a different life, I lived in Germany, I asked one of the
Germans who worked with me:

(The following is written in my G.I. German)

"Herr Schultz: Was ist das bestest bier?"

"Das bestest bier is FREI bier!"



Naturlich!


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[Ralph Jones[_2_]]

On 15 Nov 2008 23:00:07 GMT, Nyal Williams >
wrote:

>Funny coincidence; the use of the English word bier in this connection.
>
>John, offer a German a swig of Scottish Mist and see what happens, Mist
>being a German word for dung.

And toss in a nice Gift...

rj

[Z Goudie[_2_]]

At 23:00 15 November 2008, Nyal Williams wrote:

>John, offer a German a swig of Scottish Mist and see what happens

Don't know why anyone would want to bottle Scottish mist. Generally
cold, dank and nasty stuff.

Charlie Ross, one of the pioneers of Scottish wave soaring, carried a hip
flask of good malt whisky to stave off the cold at height. Said it
reduced his oxygen flow requirement too.

What would the self appointed Soaring Safety Police make of that I wonder?

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 23:00 15 November 2008, Nyal Williams wrote:
> My guess is
>that a PCC was done in that interlude and you have all been fooled by a
>cinematographer's trick.

I wondered about that myself. Then again, if that's true,
then aren't they lying to us about how fast they got from
trailer to launch?

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 23:49 15 November 2008, Tim Ward wrote:
>
>So, granted that they didn't do a PCC, what minimum time after
assembly
>should they have waited before launching in order to be safe?

If they intend to go ahead and fly without doing a PCC after
assembly, then there's no reason to wait. I think we would
all prefer, however, that they not do this in front of any
students that might be on the field.

Jim Beckman

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 23:49 15 November 2008, Tim Ward wrote:
>
>So, granted that they didn't do a PCC, what minimum time after
assembly
>should they have waited before launching in order to be safe?

Actually, on the field where I usually fly, in a situation
like this where a glider has just been assembled, either
the tow pilot or the guy running the line would ask the
PIC if the PCC had been completed. He could go ahead
and lie if he felt like it. OTOH he could have waited. All
afternoon.

Jim Beckman

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

They could rationalize that stopping the clock for a PCC was not cheating
because the rigging/launching program did not proceed during the timeout.

At 14:00 16 November 2008, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 23:00 15 November 2008, Nyal Williams wrote:
>> My guess is
>>that a PCC was done in that interlude and you have all been fooled by a
>>cinematographer's trick.
>
>I wondered about that myself. Then again, if that's true,
>then aren't they lying to us about how fast they got from
>trailer to launch?
>
>Jim Beckman
>
>

[Uncle Fuzzy]

They claim 1 minute, 40 seconds. In the video, it is 37 seconds from
the time the lady says 'go', to the time the winch starts spinning.
It's pretty reasonable to expect a PCC was done sometime during the
missing minute, but this 'stunt' was edited and narrated with 'Joe
Average', not 'Joe Glider Pilot' in mind. A PCC would look like so
much wasted motion to people who don't fly. It would be a different
video if it were edtited and narrated by Mr. Knauff. You and I might
like it better, but the general public? Not so much.

[Jim Archer]

Agree with Uncle Fuzzy and Bruce.

And it appears to be one of the safest assemblies I've seen. I'd have
taken the tow, if there was lift.

And I've been waiting 40 post for someone to point out one detail...
Where did the trailer go? This is evidence that there is more to it than
the video shows. It may not even be the same assembly/launch, not that
I'm doubting it was done in the time claimed. Camera right is the only
option for the trailer and it seems strange to take it that way. And I
bet they still did not do a PCC on this autohookup glider, and gosh, it
worked out OK this one time. On the other hand, it would only add a few
seconds to do it with a crew so attentive to detail.

Surprised again at how quickly some can take the fun out of a post, and
presumably soaring as well. There have been llllloooooonnnnnnggggg
discussions about PCC procedures on here before, and much of that was
dribble anyway.

I'm for safety!

[Jim Archer]

Agree with Uncle Fuzzy and Bruce.

And it appears to be one of the safest assemblies I've seen. I'd have
taken the tow, if there was lift.

And I've been waiting 40 post for someone to point out one detail...
Where did the trailer go? This is evidence that there is more to it than
the video shows. It may not even be the same assembly/launch, not that
I'm doubting it was done in the time claimed. Camera right is the only
option for the trailer and it seems strange to take it that way. And I
bet they still did not do a PCC on this autohookup glider, and gosh, it
worked out OK this one time. On the other hand, it would only add a few
seconds to do it with a crew so attentive to detail.

Surprised again at how quickly some can take the fun out of a post, and
presumably soaring as well. There have been llllloooooonnnnnnggggg
discussions about PCC procedures on here before, and much of that was
dribble anyway.

I'm for safety!

[Jim Archer]

Agree with Uncle Fuzzy and Bruce.

And it appears to be one of the safest assemblies I've seen. I'd have
taken the tow, if there was lift.

And I've been waiting 40 post for someone to point out one detail...
Where did the trailer go? This is evidence that there is more to it than
the video shows. It may not even be the same assembly/launch, not that
I'm doubting it was done in the time claimed. Camera right is the only
option for the trailer and it seems strange to take it that way. And I
bet they still did not do a PCC on this autohookup glider, and gosh, it
worked out OK this one time. On the other hand, it would only add a few
seconds to do it with a crew so attentive to detail.

Surprised again at how quickly some can take the fun out of a post, and
presumably soaring as well. There have been llllloooooonnnnnnggggg
discussions about PCC procedures on here before, and much of that was
dribble anyway.

I'm for safety!

[P Ilatus[_1_]]

gee, sorry to take the **** out of your darwin award idea - a bunch of
grumpy old ******s doing things bass ackwards over there if you think
that's what soaring's about..

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

I believe that the 1 minute 40 seconds included the winch launch to 400
metres (1300ft), which would take about 40 seconds in itself. As the
Discus has self connecting controls, a positive control check is probably
not totally necessary, although desirable.

Del Copeland


At 15:54 16 November 2008, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
>They claim 1 minute, 40 seconds. In the video, it is 37 seconds from
>the time the lady says 'go', to the time the winch starts spinning.
>It's pretty reasonable to expect a PCC was done sometime during the
>missing minute, but this 'stunt' was edited and narrated with 'Joe
>Average', not 'Joe Glider Pilot' in mind. A PCC would look like so
>much wasted motion to people who don't fly. It would be a different
>video if it were edtited and narrated by Mr. Knauff. You and I might
>like it better, but the general public? Not so much.
>
>

[rk]

Interesting trivia about this video: the pilot is two times world
champion (guess who!) and one member of the rigging team is well known
aviation insurance agent. I bet their insurance coverage was more than
ok during this attempt...

rk

[Dan Silent[_2_]]

At 23:45 14 November 2008, Z Goudie wrote:
>They looked switched on enough to have rehearsed this a few >times and
taken the safety aspects into consideration.
>Given most of the previous comments in the thread I'm
>not surprised that soaring is turning into an old farts hobby.
>Live a little before you die.


Yes, one could look at this as a very carefully planned demonstration,
where you can notice that the brain of the
operation is a blond Finnish, carefully supervising and
certainly ready to stop the op if the need arise.

It is also amazing to notice that particular sailplane holding itself
together with one bolt and one pin only.

IS NOT THIS SOME KIND OF MAGIC!!!!
(a wonder of German engineering)

and....they did not seal the gaps...................
but........what a great show...........................

PCC was maybe skipped,
but could certainly be performed without loosing a single sec

[Dan Silent[_2_]]

At 23:45 14 November 2008, Z Goudie wrote:
>They looked switched on enough to have rehearsed this a few >times and
taken the safety aspects into consideration.
>Given most of the previous comments in the thread I'm
>not surprised that soaring is turning into an old farts hobby.
>Live a little before you die.


Yes, one could look at this as a very carefully planned demonstration,
where you can notice that the brain of the
operation is a blond Finnish, carefully supervising and
certainly ready to stop the op if the need arise.

It is also amazing to notice that particular sailplane holding itself
together with one bolt and one pin only.

IS NOT THIS SOME KIND OF MAGIC!!!!
(a wonder of German engineering)

and....they did not seal the gaps...................
but........what a great show...........................

PCC was maybe skipped,
but could certainly be performed without loosing a single sec