Winch Signals

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Our club has yet to try winching, though a half-dozen members have
experienced it elsewhere sometime across the last fifty years.

Reading Piggot, I discover the command "All Out" for the beginning of
the launch. Is this the customary command in other places besides
England? Why this? What does it reall mean? At first I took it to mean
"Everyone stand clear" or some such, but apparently it means "Give 'er
the gun" in US slang. Does this Britishism have some colloquial meaning
for them that doesn't exist elsewhere?

Seems to me, such a command would be the same one a glider pilot who has
no wing runner (aero retrieve from a landout) uses on the radio to tell a
tow pilot to begin the launch after the rope is taut. I've heard, "Go,
go, go." which I don't really like but can't say why.

What have you heard? Anyone have any comments to offer?

[JS]

On Apr 9, 8:15 am, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Our club has yet to try winching, though a half-dozen members have
> experienced it elsewhere sometime across the last fifty years.
>
> Reading Piggot, I discover the command "All Out" for the beginning of
> the launch. Is this the customary command in other places besides
> England? Why this? What does it reall mean? At first I took it to mean
> "Everyone stand clear" or some such, but apparently it means "Give 'er
> the gun" in US slang. Does this Britishism have some colloquial meaning
> for them that doesn't exist elsewhere?
>
> Seems to me, such a command would be the same one a glider pilot who has
> no wing runner (aero retrieve from a landout) uses on the radio to tell a
> tow pilot to begin the launch after the rope is taut. I've heard, "Go,
> go, go." which I don't really like but can't say why.
>
> What have you heard? Anyone have any comments to offer?

[Mike the Strike]

On Apr 9, 8:15*am, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Our club has yet to try winching, though a half-dozen members have
> experienced it elsewhere sometime across the last fifty years.
>
> Reading Piggot, I discover the command "All Out" for the beginning of
> the launch. *Is this the customary command in other places besides
> England? *Why this? *What does it reall mean? *At first I took it to mean
> "Everyone stand clear" or some such, but apparently it means "Give 'er
> the gun" in US slang. Does this Britishism have some colloquial meaning
> for them that doesn't exist elsewhere?
>
> Seems to me, such a command would be the same one a glider pilot who has
> no wing runner (aero retrieve from a landout) uses on the radio to tell a
> tow pilot to begin the launch after the rope is taut. *I've heard, "Go,
> go, go." which I don't really like but can't say why.
>
> What have you heard? *Anyone have any comments to offer?

As an expatriot Brit, "all out" to me means full speed - whether it's
the winch or tow plane.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines all out as "completely,
wholeheartedly"

Mike

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

In the UK the commands for both aerotows and winch launches are 'Take up
slack' which means slowly take up any excess slack cable, followed by
'All out', which means that all the slack has been taken out and you now
gun the throttle to start the launch.

For winch launching we normally use light signals, which are a slow
flashing white light for take up slack, followed by faster flashes for all
out. Stop is a continuous light.

However you can also use radio, if you can guarantee nobody stomping on a
vital transmission, or as the Germans do, use a fixed land line telephone.
If your winch run is fairly short and flat, you can also use a signalling
bat.

Derek Copeland

At 15:15 09 April 2009, Nyal Williams wrote:
>Our club has yet to try winching, though a half-dozen members have
>experienced it elsewhere sometime across the last fifty years.
>
>Reading Piggot, I discover the command "All Out" for the beginning of
>the launch. Is this the customary command in other places besides
>England? Why this? What does it reall mean? At first I took it to
mean
>"Everyone stand clear" or some such, but apparently it means "Give
'er
>the gun" in US slang. Does this Britishism have some colloquial meaning
>for them that doesn't exist elsewhere?
>
>Seems to me, such a command would be the same one a glider pilot who has
>no wing runner (aero retrieve from a landout) uses on the radio to tell
a
>tow pilot to begin the launch after the rope is taut. I've heard,
"Go,
>go, go." which I don't really like but can't say why.
>
>What have you heard? Anyone have any comments to offer?
>

[JS]

It's unique, because you want a unique signal for a unique situation.
"All Out" or "Full Power" are phrases that wouldn't be misconstrued.
"NO" on the radio sounds very much like "GO". You should pull the
yellow handle and use "STOP" but in the heat of the moment...
Jim

What was the film about skydiving where someone had a load of laundry
instead of a chute, their friend found out, and wrote NO GO on the
ground, but read upside down it looked like GO ON????

[rlovinggood]

Nyal,

In our club in Germany, if I can remember, there were three commands.

1. Fertig (Ready, the pilot is ready to be launched.)
2. Seil straff (All of the slack is out of the cable)
3. Frei (The glider has cleared the ground)

These commands were relayed to the winch operator via a "field
telephone", the kind where you would turn the little crank to ring the
bell on the other end of the line.

In this club, winch launching was, and probably still is, the primary
way of launching. They do A LOT of winching. I wonder if they have
changed their ways and have different commands now.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
PS: Happy Winching!

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 9, 8:15*am, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> What have you heard? *Anyone have any comments to offer?

I was going to guess that it referred to the dampers on steam engine
boilers but this reference
http://www.answers.com/topic/all-out states the term has been in use
since 1300. That obviously predates the steam engine, but perhaps not
other flue dampers.

Dampers can be rotary valves or sliding plates. Pulling a sliding
plate flue damper "all out" gives maximum flue draw and the hottest
fire.


Andy

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Ray,

Mine was the Belgian Air Force club in Cologne. They did it in Flemish or
French and that was in 1954; I don't remember the commands. (Pulling
strings got me, an American GI attached to the Belgian Army I Corps, into
the club.

At 16:16 09 April 2009, rlovinggood wrote:
>Nyal,
>
>In our club in Germany, if I can remember, there were three commands.
>
>1. Fertig (Ready, the pilot is ready to be launched.)
>2. Seil straff (All of the slack is out of the cable)
>3. Frei (The glider has cleared the ground)
>
>These commands were relayed to the winch operator via a "field
>telephone", the kind where you would turn the little crank to ring the
>bell on the other end of the line.
>
>In this club, winch launching was, and probably still is, the primary
>way of launching. They do A LOT of winching. I wonder if they have
>changed their ways and have different commands now.
>
>Ray Lovinggood
>Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
>PS: Happy Winching!
>
>
>
>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 9, 9:31*am, Andy > wrote:
> *Pulling a sliding
> plate flue damper "all out" gives maximum flue draw and the hottest
> fire.

On further reflection the term could have come from pipe organs where
"stops" are pulled out to control airflow and hence sound volume.
Pipe organs predate 1300. ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_organ

There must be a reference to the origin somewhere on the internet but
I didn't find it yet.

Andy

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Andy,

Funny you should metion that; I used to work on pipe organs, but this
never occurred to me. I'm really interested to know the history of the
phrase.

At 16:54 09 April 2009, Andy wrote:
>On Apr 9, 9:31=A0am, Andy wrote:
>> =A0Pulling a sliding
>> plate flue damper "all out" gives maximum flue draw and the hottest
>> fire.
>
>On further reflection the term could have come from pipe organs where
>"stops" are pulled out to control airflow and hence sound volume.
>Pipe organs predate 1300. ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_organ
>
>There must be a reference to the origin somewhere on the internet but
>I didn't find it yet.
>
>Andy
>

[Gavin Short[_2_]]

At 17:45 09 April 2009, Nyal Williams wrote:
>Andy,
>
>Funny you should metion that; I used to work on pipe organs, but this
>never occurred to me. I'm really interested to know the history of the
>phrase.
>
>At 16:54 09 April 2009, Andy wrote:
>>On Apr 9, 9:31=A0am, Andy wrote:
>>> =A0Pulling a sliding
>>> plate flue damper "all out" gives maximum flue draw and the hottest
>>> fire.
>>
>>On further reflection the term could have come from pipe organs where
>>"stops" are pulled out to control airflow and hence sound volume.
>>Pipe organs predate 1300. ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_organ
>>
>>There must be a reference to the origin somewhere on the internet but
>>I didn't find it yet.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>

I learnt to winch at Dartmoor Gliding Society. We winched using an ex RAF
winch with a 7 Litre Diesel engine. They had previously experimented with
land lines (run around the perimeter fence and then later burying them) but
sheep and other rodents got to eat/chew them. Now there is a dedicated
ground frequency for the club. The launch point, winch and retrieve
vehicle can all communicate with each other. Its more flexible than a
land line because if the launch point is short handed one person can wing
run and talk to the winch using a hand held transceiver. The retrieve
vehicle can communicate which is useful if mending a cable break etc. In
addition the launch point and winch are out of sight of each other due to
the slope on the runway in either direction. No one has transmitted on
our private frequency when we are launching.

The radio calls are:

'Take up slack (type of glider) (solo if a two seater and only one pilot)
North/South cable'.

The winch driver then takes the cable in slowly until all slack is taken
up.

When all slack has been taken up:

'All out, All out'

The winch driver give appropriate initial throttle according to
weight/type of glider and wind. When it comes over the crest the winch
diver controls the winch by eyeballing the catenary of the cable. If too
fast the pilot wags the rudder - yaws. If too slow the pilot puts the
nose down to regain speed.

Any problems the launch point calls ' STOP, STOP, STOP' and the winch
driver immediate cuts the power.

Note take up slack is said once,
'all out' is said twice
and
'STOP' three times.
Even if the engine is noisy or the radio distorted then the difference is
always clear.

In Belgium I winch in Flemish and German. Tost V8 auto winch atop a ex
German army truck. We use land lines and field telephones. The routine
is basically the same but a bit more wordy. The differences are that the
cables are colour coded - important because we use a 2 winch set up,
Flemish and German winches side by side and whoever is next in the queue
takes the next cable irrespective of the club membership of the pilot or
whose winch it is.

We don't wag the tail as a signal for too fast but the pilot calls the
speed in kph and the launch point relays the radio call via the land line
(which is permanently open during the winch launch) to the winch driver
who corrects the speed appropriately. The airfield is dead flat so the
winch driver can see everything.

Its horses for courses. After having over 3 years of doing it the British
way and over 3 years of doing it the Belgian/German way there isn't much
in it and I wouldn't be so bold to say that one way is better than the
other.

Whatever calls/routine you do adopt stick to it and make sure everybody
uses the same terminology and calls each and every time. Non-standard
calls causes confusion and accidents.




Gavin
Std Cirrus, CNN now G-SCNN, #173
LSV Viersen, Keiheuvel, Belgium

[Bruce Hoult]

On Apr 10, 3:51*am, JS > wrote:
> What was the film about skydiving where someone had a load of laundry
> instead of a chute, their friend found out, and wrote NO GO on the
> ground, but read upside down it looked like GO ON????

A story circulated in NZ around the time of the Mt Erebus crash that
the phrase "take off power please" had opposite meanings in the DC10
manual/procedures than it did in the Boeing 737's Air NZ operated.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 19:00 09 April 2009, Gavin Short wrote:


>The radio calls are:
>
>'Take up slack (type of glider) (solo if a two seater and only one
pilot)
>North/South cable'.
>
>The winch driver then takes the cable in slowly until all slack is taken
>up.
>
>When all slack has been taken up:
>
>'All out, All out'
>
>The winch driver give appropriate initial throttle according to
>weight/type of glider and wind. When it comes over the crest the winch
>diver controls the winch by eyeballing the catenary of the cable. If
too
>fast the pilot wags the rudder - yaws. If too slow the pilot puts the
>nose down to regain speed.
>
>Any problems the launch point calls ' STOP, STOP, STOP' and the winch
>driver immediate cuts the power.
>
>Note take up slack is said once,
>'all out' is said twice
>and
>'STOP' three times.
>Even if the engine is noisy or the radio distorted then the difference
is
>always clear.
>

The UK verbal launch signals are said once in my experience but on a
similar vein -it had never occurred to me before but only a couple of
weeks ago it was pointed out to me by Don Irving (Chairman of the BGA
Instructors committee) that the best reason for sticking to them is
similar to Gavin's point:

Take up slack = 3 words
All Out = 2 words
Stop = 1 word

The verbal signals are called by the wing runner to the light signaller.
The winch receives the equivalent light signals (long slow flashes, faster
flashes, constant light)

Nowadays the pilot does not call launch commands. When he has accepted a
cable attachment he is deemed to be ready to launch and the the wing
runner (or a designated other) is responsible for making the calls
properly.

John Galloway

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:00:08 +0000, John Galloway wrote:

> The UK verbal launch signals are said once in my experience
>
Only in some clubs. Mine repeats the phrase continuously during that
phase of the launch but with a pause at the end of each repetition. This
makes them unambiguous despite background and/or wind noise. The back
channel is the light on the winch, which has three states:

- off: winch is stopped or out of gear. Cable is safe to handle.
- flashing: winch is in gear, cable is live and must not be touched
or approached
- continuously on: the winch driver has stopped or is holding the launch.
The launch marshal will use the radio to find out why the stop light
is on.

> similar vein -it had never occurred to me before but only a couple of
> weeks ago it was pointed out to me by Don Irving (Chairman of the BGA
> Instructors committee) that the best reason for sticking to them is
> similar to Gavin's point:
>
> Take up slack = 3 words
> All Out = 2 words
> Stop = 1 word
>
Agreed. I think the exact phrase is important vecause all three are quite
distinctive.

We have a hump in the middle of our field and so we use radio on a
dedicated channel to control winch launches.

Before the launch starts the winch driver is told who the pilot is, the
glider registration and type and which cable is to be used. This is
repeated back to the launch marshal for confirmation.

The pilot accepts the cable when he is ready to be launched and control
passes to the launch marshal for the rest of the launch unless the pilot
releases the cable. If there's an external hold the cable is also
released, this time under the launch marshal's direction.

When the launch marshal has checked and announced all is clear above and
behind he radios:

"winch, for the [TYPE] glider on your [left/right] cable, take up
slack ... take up slack ...", repeating the last phrase until the cable
is tight. Then he changes to:

"all out ... all out ... all out ... " until the glider is high enough to
be clearly visible to the winch driver, at which point transmission
ceases.

If anybody at the launch point sees an emergency developing he can stop
the launch by alerting the launch marshal, who changes his call to

"stop ... stop ... stop".

As you can see, the sound of the three calls is quite distinct, even over
wind noise on the mic and the sound of the winch. Most launch marshals
also emphasize the spoken rhythms to make the phrases as different as
possible.

That's for the winch. We use the same calls for an aero tow, prefixed
with the tug's call sign since this is a shared frequency but without any
repetition except that the stop call would still probably be "stop stop
stop".


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

On Apr 9, 11:15*am, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> Our club has yet to try winching, though a half-dozen members have
> experienced it elsewhere sometime across the last fifty years.
>
> Reading Piggot, I discover the command "All Out" for the beginning of
> the launch. *Is this the customary command in other places besides
> England? *Why this? *What does it reall mean? *At first I took it to mean
> "Everyone stand clear" or some such, but apparently it means "Give 'er
> the gun" in US slang. Does this Britishism have some colloquial meaning
> for them that doesn't exist elsewhere?
>
> Seems to me, such a command would be the same one a glider pilot who has
> no wing runner (aero retrieve from a landout) uses on the radio to tell a
> tow pilot to begin the launch after the rope is taut. *I've heard, "Go,
> go, go." which I don't really like but can't say why.
>
> What have you heard? *Anyone have any comments to offer?

In our club (Carolina Soaring Asociation), we use 'Take up slack' ,
'All out - All out' and 'Stop-Stop-Stop'. The glider controls the
speed and if he cannot do so anymore because he is over-speeding, the
pilot calls out 'down 5kts'. So far, this method has worked for us.
Last weekend, we got our fully loaded TwinAstir to 1,800ft several
times :-) The enthusiasm for and interest in winching is growing!
Uli Neumann

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

At 21:00 09 April 2009, John Galloway wrote:
>
>
>Nowadays the pilot does not call launch commands. When he has accepted a
>cable attachment he is deemed to be ready to launch and the the wing
>runner (or a designated other) is responsible for making the calls
>properly.
>
When I first started gliding in the UK, the pilot used to control the
launch by holding up one finger, stationary, for 'up slack' and then two
fingers, waved in a sort of Churchillian Victory salute, for all out. The
problem was that student pilots often went on signalling all the way up
the launch and would then make a grab for the wrong knob when they got to
the top. I had students who tried to open the canopy, or pull the flap or
airbrake levers, when trying to release the cable!

When the arrangement outlined by John above came into force, there was
quite a lot of British resistance to it, as it was felt to be too
'French'. The French have a system where levelling the wings means 'all
out'. I always used to get shouted at in France for absent-mindedly
picking up wings before the glider was ready to launch, so you can see the
disadvantages of that system; at least when the 'Stupid Roast Beef
English' are around! They now normally back the signal up with a radio
call.

The current UK system also says that one person hooks the cable on and
then walks to the wingtip and picks it up, so less chance of launching
with somebody in front of the glider. The pilot should be holding the
release knob so that he/she can pull off immediately, if a problem such as
a wing drop occurs.

Derek Copeland

[Malcolm Austin]

One point that others haven't come up with is the number of words used in
each command.

1/ Take up slack = 3
2/ All out = 2
3/ Stop = 1

When you're in a noisy winch, (or tug) that gives another hint to what is
being said.

Malcolm..


"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Our club has yet to try winching, though a half-dozen members have
> experienced it elsewhere sometime across the last fifty years.
>
> Reading Piggot, I discover the command "All Out" for the beginning of
> the launch. Is this the customary command in other places besides
> England? Why this? What does it reall mean? At first I took it to mean
> "Everyone stand clear" or some such, but apparently it means "Give 'er
> the gun" in US slang. Does this Britishism have some colloquial meaning
> for them that doesn't exist elsewhere?
>
> Seems to me, such a command would be the same one a glider pilot who has
> no wing runner (aero retrieve from a landout) uses on the radio to tell a
> tow pilot to begin the launch after the rope is taut. I've heard, "Go,
> go, go." which I don't really like but can't say why.
>
> What have you heard? Anyone have any comments to offer?

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:16:54 -0700 (PDT), rlovinggood
> wrote:

>Nyal,
>
>In our club in Germany, if I can remember, there were three commands.
>
>1. Fertig (Ready, the pilot is ready to be launched.)
>2. Seil straff (All of the slack is out of the cable)
>3. Frei (The glider has cleared the ground)
>
>These commands were relayed to the winch operator via a "field
>telephone", the kind where you would turn the little crank to ring the
>bell on the other end of the line.
>
>In this club, winch launching was, and probably still is, the primary
>way of launching. They do A LOT of winching. I wonder if they have
>changed their ways and have different commands now.


No change at all, Ray.:)

p.s.: Did you already receive a small booklet from Landau?

[Marian Aldenhövel[_2_]]

Hi,

> 1. Fertig (Ready, the pilot is ready to be launched.)
> 2. Seil straff (All of the slack is out of the cable)
> 3. Frei (The glider has cleared the ground)

The official standardized phraseology as laid down in the SBO
(Segelflugbetriebsordnung)[1] is:

0) Inform the winch driver about type of glider, seats taken,
ballast, anything that may affect his choice of power to be
applied. Also information about things like plans for a
simulated cable-break. And on multi-drum winches identification
of the cable being used. "Am Bonner Seil eine ASK-21,
doppelsitzig, startklar."

1) "Seil anziehen".

2) When all slack is taken up: "Seil straff". At this point we
release the brake on our winch but do not apply any power
above idle.

3) When the glider starts rolling: "Fertig". This is the point
where launch power is (smoothely) applied. This is not
necessarily full power, depending on winch, aircraft and
conditions like wind.

4) "Frei" as the glider leaves the ground. After this point
the winch driver can see the glider.

At any time "Halt Stop! Halt Stop! Halt Stop!" to abort.

> These commands were relayed to the winch operator via a "field
> telephone", the kind where you would turn the little crank to ring the
> bell on the other end of the line.

It is also required that there is a _reliable_ (emphasis from the SBO)
voice-link between the launch point and the winch. Using aircraft
radio/frequency is explicitly disallowed.

So it usually is a fixed telephone line.

Ciao, MM

[1] http://www.daec.de/se/downfiles/SBOstand01-11-2008.pdf

[The Real Doctor]

On 9 Apr, 21:10, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 3:51*am, JS > wrote:
>
> > What was the film about skydiving where someone had a load of laundry
> > instead of a chute, their friend found out, and wrote NO GO on the
> > ground, but read upside down it looked like GO ON????
>
> A story circulated in NZ around the time of the Mt Erebus crash that
> the phrase "take off power please" had opposite meanings in the DC10
> manual/procedures than it did in the Boeing 737's Air NZ operated.

An airliner crashed somewhere in the far east (Taiwan?) after the air
traffic controller departed from standard phraseology with "descend
two five hundred feet"

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 9 Apr, 22:00, John Galloway > wrote:

> Take up slack = 3 words
> All Out = 2 words
> Stop = 1 word

The point of the different number of words is rather lost at clubs
which use "take up slack take up slack take take up slack all out all
out all out all out all out"

> Nowadays the pilot does not call launch commands. When he has accepted a
> cable attachment he is deemed to be ready to launch and the the wing
> runner (or a designated other) is responsible for making the calls
> properly.

Yeah, but that'll be changed again next time someone wants to make a
name for themselves in the BGA.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 10 Apr, 09:15, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> At 21:00 09 April 2009, John Galloway wrote:
>
> >Nowadays the pilot does not call launch commands. When he has accepted a
> >cable attachment he is deemed to be ready to launch and the the wing
> >runner (or a designated other) is responsible for making the calls
> >properly.
>
> When I first started gliding in the UK, the pilot used to control the
> launch by holding up one finger, stationary, for 'up slack' and then two
> fingers, waved in a sort of Churchillian Victory salute, for all out. The
> problem was that student pilots often went on signalling all the way up
> the launch and would then make a grab for the wrong knob when they got to
> the top. I had students who tried to open the canopy, or pull the flap or
> airbrake levers, when trying to release the cable!
>
> When the arrangement outlined by John above came into force, there was
> quite a lot of British resistance to it, as it was felt to be too
> 'French'.

Not just for that reason. The ostensible reason for the change was to
make sure that pilots had a hand free for the release in an emergency.
One might well point out that there ain't a much better guarantee that
a hand is free (and not fiddling with the electronics) than seeing it
waving around but no, that didn't do. And so now we are all free to
have our hands on the release know when the launch starts, thereby
greatly increasing the change of an unintentional release. Which
someone will in due course notice, and change it all again.

The problem with the new system is that the ground launch controllers
have to be good (which is not always the case) and carefully briefed
if there is anything odd about the type. The worst problems I have had
are when the glider starts moving with a bit of a jerk and slackens
the cable a bit. In the old days one just continued with the "take up
slack" until things were all lined up again - now the prodent pilot
pulls the bung and shouts "stop" in case one has one of the idiot
signallers who thinks any movement of the glider is the cue for "all
out".

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 9 Apr, 16:15, Nyal Williams > wrote:

> What have you heard? *Anyone have any comments to offer?

As well as the spoken and light commands I have used

single bat: bottom quadrant sweeps = "take up slack", top quadrant =
"all out", held above head = "stop"

double bat: same, with scissoring movements below and above for the
first two

no bat: rock wings = "take up slack", hold level = "all out"

As a winch driver I detest lights unless automated, because the
quality of signalling is dreadfully variable, particularly when people
forget the time lag in an incandescent bulb. I'd ban all light
signalling if I could. Bats are fine, as are clearly spoken words on a
telephone. "All out" just the once is fine, guys, you don't have to
keep yacking at me.

Ian

[TonyV[_2_]]

> An airliner crashed somewhere in the far east (Taiwan?) after the air
> traffic controller departed from standard phraseology with "descend
> two five hundred feet"


Back in the days when there were flight engineers, during an emergency
the captain ordered "take off power". The FE dutifully pulled the
throttles back - that was not what the captain wanted.

Tony V.

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

If you have a winch run that is long enough (1km+) to give decent high
launches, then bats are very difficult to see from the winch, unless they
are so big as to be unwieldy and difficult to handle in any sort of wind.
Also the winch driver will not be able to see them if you launch over a
hump, which we do on one of the runs at our airfield.

I agree that light signals should be automated so the winch driver can
easily distinguish between 'take up slack' (slow flashes) and 'all
out' (faster flashes). My club did this years ago. Also we have two
lights, so that a stop signal is unlikely to be compromised by a single
bulb failure.

Derek C

At 20:48 11 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 9 Apr, 16:15, Nyal Williams wrote:
>
>> What have you heard? =A0Anyone have any comments to offer?
>
>As well as the spoken and light commands I have used
>
>single bat: bottom quadrant sweeps =3D "take up slack", top quadrant
=3D
>"all out", held above head =3D "stop"
>
>double bat: same, with scissoring movements below and above for the
>first two
>
>no bat: rock wings =3D "take up slack", hold level =3D "all out"
>
>As a winch driver I detest lights unless automated, because the
>quality of signalling is dreadfully variable, particularly when people
>forget the time lag in an incandescent bulb. I'd ban all light
>signalling if I could. Bats are fine, as are clearly spoken words on a
>telephone. "All out" just the once is fine, guys, you don't have to
>keep yacking at me.
>
>Ian
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

If you go back far enough the stop light was a red light, this was fine
until it was remembered that there is no requirement for colour blindness
testing for glider pilots, let alone winch drivers. The only real problem
with lights only is the confusion between a long dash and the stop signal.

Without doubt the most efficient and safe way is voice radio backed up by
a STOP light. Clarity with no ambiguity




At 06:15 12 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>If you have a winch run that is long enough (1km+) to give decent high
>launches, then bats are very difficult to see from the winch, unless
they
>are so big as to be unwieldy and difficult to handle in any sort of
wind.
>Also the winch driver will not be able to see them if you launch over a
>hump, which we do on one of the runs at our airfield.
>
>I agree that light signals should be automated so the winch driver can
>easily distinguish between 'take up slack' (slow flashes) and 'all
>out' (faster flashes). My club did this years ago. Also we have two
>lights, so that a stop signal is unlikely to be compromised by a single
>bulb failure.
>
>Derek C
>
>At 20:48 11 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>On 9 Apr, 16:15, Nyal Williams wrote:
>>
>>> What have you heard? =A0Anyone have any comments to offer?
>>
>>As well as the spoken and light commands I have used
>>
>>single bat: bottom quadrant sweeps =3D "take up slack", top quadrant
>=3D
>>"all out", held above head =3D "stop"
>>
>>double bat: same, with scissoring movements below and above for the
>>first two
>>
>>no bat: rock wings =3D "take up slack", hold level =3D "all out"
>>
>>As a winch driver I detest lights unless automated, because the
>>quality of signalling is dreadfully variable, particularly when people
>>forget the time lag in an incandescent bulb. I'd ban all light
>>signalling if I could. Bats are fine, as are clearly spoken words on a
>>telephone. "All out" just the once is fine, guys, you don't have to
>>keep yacking at me.
>>
>>Ian
>>
>

[The Real Doctor]

On 12 Apr, 07:15, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> If you have a winch run that is long enough (1km+) to give decent high
> launches, then bats are very difficult to see from the winch, unless they
> are so big as to be unwieldy and difficult to handle in any sort of wind.
> Also the winch driver will not be able to see them if you launch over a
> hump, which we do on one of the runs at our airfield.

Indeed. In which case radio or telephone should be used.

> I agree that light signals should be automated so the winch driver can
> easily distinguish between 'take up slack' (slow flashes) and 'all
> out' (faster flashes).

Anyone signalling to the winch should, I think, be obliged to spend
some time at the business end to see what the winch driver can see,
and appreciate what's needed and what the limitations of a particular
system are.

To give an example, I was winching at one club where the signaller had
been told (by a BGA instructor no less) to give the "all out" as a
series of fast flashes - 2 per second or thereabouts. The signalling
lamp was incandescent, which meant that the signal emerged as a
slightly fluctuating dim blur. So I interpreted it as a "stop" and cut
the power at once (ie right at the beginning of the ground run). After
a certain amount of re-education we were able to proceed in rather
greater safety.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 12 Apr, 11:15, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> If you go back far enough the stop light was a red light, this was fine
> until it was remembered that there is no requirement for colour blindness
> testing for glider pilots, let alone winch drivers. The only real problem
> with lights only is the confusion between a long dash and the stop signal.

I think there are worse problems - mainly the need for the person
pressing the button to know (a) what signal he is trying to give and
(b) how the light system reacts to the button being pressed.

Talking of blindness, though, I used to get launched by a blind winch
driver - or at least by one whose eyesight was so bad that he
certainly couldn't see the cable and could barely see the glider.
"Exciting" was one word for it.

Ian

[Tom Gardner]

On Apr 12, 7:15*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> Also we have two
> lights, so that a stop signal is unlikely to be compromised by a single
> bulb failure.

When I'm winching, I'm grateful that we have three lights:
* two for the normal up slack and all out
* stop = all three lights on continuously
I find I process that extra visual cue noticably faster than the
difference
between stop and the other signals. One day that half second might be
important.

We also have a buzzer that sounds in sync with the lights. I find
that useful confirmation of what I can see.

[Del C[_2_]]

The signalling lights at our site are located on the top deck of a double
decker bus, so you can still see then over the hump.

In the UK there are only about 3 commonly available gliding frequencies,
and some gliding clubs are not that far apart. I could well imagine trying
to launch a glider on instructions that come from another club! Also winch
launching (and speed calls) would tie up a frequency that is often
required for other purposes.

Land lines have been tried in the UK, but it has been reported that they
were chewed through by rats, rabbits, sheep and other assorted critters.
even when buried in the ground. And yes I know that the Germans have to
use this system by the decree of the LBA. How do they avoid critter
damage?

Derek C

At 10:31 12 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 12 Apr, 07:15, Derek Copeland wrote:
>> If you have a winch run that is long enough (1km+) to give decent high
>> launches, then bats are very difficult to see from the winch, unless
>they
>> are so big as to be unwieldy and difficult to handle in any sort of
>wind.
>> Also the winch driver will not be able to see them if you launch over
a
>> hump, which we do on one of the runs at our airfield.
>
>Indeed. In which case radio or telephone should be used.
>
>> I agree that light signals should be automated so the winch driver can
>> easily distinguish between 'take up slack' (slow flashes) and 'all
>> out' (faster flashes).
>
>Anyone signalling to the winch should, I think, be obliged to spend
>some time at the business end to see what the winch driver can see,
>and appreciate what's needed and what the limitations of a particular
>system are.
>
>To give an example, I was winching at one club where the signaller had
>been told (by a BGA instructor no less) to give the "all out" as a
>series of fast flashes - 2 per second or thereabouts. The signalling
>lamp was incandescent, which meant that the signal emerged as a
>slightly fluctuating dim blur. So I interpreted it as a "stop" and cut
>the power at once (ie right at the beginning of the ground run). After
>a certain amount of re-education we were able to proceed in rather
>greater safety.
>
>Ian
>

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:45:02 +0000, Del C wrote:

> In the UK there are only about 3 commonly available gliding frequencies,
> and some gliding clubs are not that far apart. I could well imagine
> trying to launch a glider on instructions that come from another club!
> Also winch launching (and speed calls) would tie up a frequency that is
> often required for other purposes.
>
Our ground operations are managed on a dedicated frequency - I've never
heard any other traffic on it. No, I don't know what the frequency is
except its almost certainly outside the air band. We have a separate set
of handhelds which are locked to this frequency and don't have a
frequency display or a channel switch. I have no idea how we got the
frequency allocated.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[The Real Doctor]

On 12 Apr, 13:45, Del C > wrote:

> In the UK there are only about 3 commonly available gliding frequencies,
> and some gliding clubs are not that far apart. I could well imagine trying
> to launch a glider on instructions that come from another club! Also winch
> launching (and speed calls) would tie up a frequency that is often
> required for other purposes.

No need to use an airband frequency for the job.

> Land lines have been tried in the UK, but it has been reported that they
> were chewed through by rats, rabbits, sheep and *other assorted critters.
> even when buried in the ground. And yes I know that the Germans have to
> use this system by the decree of the LBA. How do they avoid critter
> damage?

As far as I know, my current club hasn't had any significant problems
with this. Mind you, I think the telephone cable may be proper
armoured stuff.

Ian

[Free Flight 107]

> Our ground operations are managed on a dedicated frequency - I've never
> heard any other traffic on it. No, I don't know what the frequency is
> except its almost certainly outside the air band. We have a separate set
> of handhelds which are locked to this frequency and don't have a
> frequency display or a channel switch. I have no idea how we got the
> frequency allocated.
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Martin,

This sounds like a common set of commercial walkie talkies, they are
used by businesses all over the world as comms in hotels, resorts,
Security personnel, construction sites, and by IT personnel stringing
cable, etc. Only the person that set them up to start with knows the
freq or channel they're on, which can be one of a great many bands
dedicated to this commercial service. The providers of this service
normally advise the buyer which band/frequency is not used in a
specific area.

This sounds like an excellent use of this service, once you're away
from city areas that will possibly have a great many of them being
used throughout the day.


I've been following this thread with great interest since our club,
AGCSC has been re-invigorated by the complete overhaul of our 1940's
era Barrage Balloon Winch which now has a large block Chevy V8 engine,
improved drum drive, and Spectra line. Much, much better than the old
steel cables we used before.

Right now we are flying out of Torrey Pines Historic Gliderport in San
Diego, CA under a temporary permit good till the end of April.
Normally we fly out of remote airports in the east county, well away
from anyone else and power traffic.

We use the local Unicom, or CTAF, at these locations, as it is the
best way to inform approaching aircraft of our operations while giving
us excellent control of the launch operations. THIS WILL NOT WORK IN A
BUSY AREA! because of the large amount of traffic found in that
environment.

The pilot uses his radio to announce, "All Ready (type of plane, # of
persons aboard if dual)" to inform the winch driver, who acknowledges
"Ready", to standby for launch, "Take up slack", and then "Go, Go,
Go!," for starting the launch, at this point the winch driver
"Listens' for the PIC to inform him if Too Slow, Too Fast, or give him
AirSpeed of Plane if the PIC wishes to do it that way. Emergencies are
announced "Stop, Stop, Stop" by either end of the launch.

This system works very well as we only have very experienced pilots
driving the winch. Training as a winch driver is a very big deal, and
involves a lot of instruction and 'Dual" control before an individual
is allowed/qualified to drive the winch. This system works well for us
and has been in use for over 10 years, before we used a flagman on a
"Lookout" stand where he had little feed back from the pilots or winch
drivers, a big improvement for sure.


I think the most important aspect of communications here is the use of
"Standard" phrases throughout the Launch Cycle. This helps to keep it
very clear, and confusion to a minimum. While I find some of the above
phrases 'Quaint' to say the least, "All Out" means the end of the
cable to me!, as long as they are understood by all parties and
included in the training for PIC, Flight Marshall, and Winch Driver it
will work properly.


Thanks again to everyone for all the great information on Winch Ops,
it's been very helpful,

Wayne

[Del C[_2_]]

We do actually use PMR radios to inform the winch driver what he is
launching next and for sorting out problems, but we normally use lights
for the actual signals, as they are considered more fail safe.

There are exceptions to this rule. For example I winch drive for an
evening instructional group, and due to the East-West orientation of our
main runway, there are occasions when I am looking right into the sunset
and the lights are difficult to see. My club also made the mistake of
mounting the signalling lights behind the upstairs front windows of a
double decker bus, so you can get short periods, when launching to the
east, when the setting sun reflects off the window glass and makes it
impossible to see the lights. Then we may use the PMRs for signalling for
a few launches.

Incidentally, if you do mount signalling lights on a vehicle, it is best
to make them externally mounted, with a matt black background, and not
behind glass, for the reason discussed above.

Derek Copeland


At 16:51 12 April 2009, Free Flight 107 wrote:
>
>> Our ground operations are managed on a dedicated frequency - I've
never
>> heard any other traffic on it. No, I don't know what the frequency is
>> except its almost certainly outside the air band. We have a separate
set
>> of handhelds which are locked to this frequency and don't have a
>> frequency display or a channel switch. I have no idea how we got the
>> frequency allocated.
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org |
>
>Martin,
>
>This sounds like a common set of commercial walkie talkies, they are
>used by businesses all over the world as comms in hotels, resorts,
>Security personnel, construction sites, and by IT personnel stringing
>cable, etc. Only the person that set them up to start with knows the
>freq or channel they're on, which can be one of a great many bands
>dedicated to this commercial service. The providers of this service
>normally advise the buyer which band/frequency is not used in a
>specific area.
>
>This sounds like an excellent use of this service, once you're away
>from city areas that will possibly have a great many of them being
>used throughout the day.
>
>
>I've been following this thread with great interest since our club,
>AGCSC has been re-invigorated by the complete overhaul of our 1940's
>era Barrage Balloon Winch which now has a large block Chevy V8 engine,
>improved drum drive, and Spectra line. Much, much better than the old
>steel cables we used before.
>
>Right now we are flying out of Torrey Pines Historic Gliderport in San
>Diego, CA under a temporary permit good till the end of April.
>Normally we fly out of remote airports in the east county, well away
>from anyone else and power traffic.
>
>We use the local Unicom, or CTAF, at these locations, as it is the
>best way to inform approaching aircraft of our operations while giving
>us excellent control of the launch operations. THIS WILL NOT WORK IN A
>BUSY AREA! because of the large amount of traffic found in that
>environment.
>
>The pilot uses his radio to announce, "All Ready (type of plane, # of
>persons aboard if dual)" to inform the winch driver, who acknowledges
>"Ready", to standby for launch, "Take up slack", and then "Go, Go,
>Go!," for starting the launch, at this point the winch driver
>"Listens' for the PIC to inform him if Too Slow, Too Fast, or give him
>AirSpeed of Plane if the PIC wishes to do it that way. Emergencies are
>announced "Stop, Stop, Stop" by either end of the launch.
>
>This system works very well as we only have very experienced pilots
>driving the winch. Training as a winch driver is a very big deal, and
>involves a lot of instruction and 'Dual" control before an individual
>is allowed/qualified to drive the winch. This system works well for us
>and has been in use for over 10 years, before we used a flagman on a
>"Lookout" stand where he had little feed back from the pilots or winch
>drivers, a big improvement for sure.
>
>
>I think the most important aspect of communications here is the use of
>"Standard" phrases throughout the Launch Cycle. This helps to keep it
>very clear, and confusion to a minimum. While I find some of the above
>phrases 'Quaint' to say the least, "All Out" means the end of the
>cable to me!, as long as they are understood by all parties and
>included in the training for PIC, Flight Marshall, and Winch Driver it
>will work properly.
>
>
>Thanks again to everyone for all the great information on Winch Ops,
>it's been very helpful,
>
>Wayne
>

[The Real Doctor]

On 12 Apr, 20:45, Del C > wrote:
> We do actually use PMR radios to inform the winch driver what he is
> launching next and for sorting out problems, but we normally use lights
> for the actual signals, as they are considered more fail safe.

If your lights fail, you cannot give a stop signal. That's not fail
safe!

Were I designing a signalling system from scratch I would (a) use
wires if possible and (b) ensure that a link failure automatically
gave the driver a "stop".

Ian

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Andreas, I am unaware of anything about a small booklot from Landau.

Nyal

At 00:54 11 April 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:16:54 -0700 (PDT), rlovinggood
> wrote:
>
>>Nyal,
>>
>>In our club in Germany, if I can remember, there were three commands.
>>
>>1. Fertig (Ready, the pilot is ready to be launched.)
>>2. Seil straff (All of the slack is out of the cable)
>>3. Frei (The glider has cleared the ground)
>>
>>These commands were relayed to the winch operator via a "field
>>telephone", the kind where you would turn the little crank to ring the
>>bell on the other end of the line.
>>
>>In this club, winch launching was, and probably still is, the primary
>>way of launching. They do A LOT of winching. I wonder if they have
>>changed their ways and have different commands now.
>
>
>No change at all, Ray.:)
>
>p.s.: Did you already receive a small booklet from Landau?
>
>
>

[Del C[_2_]]

I don't see why a duplicated (or triplicated as another correspondent
mentioned) lights system should be considered less reliable or fail-safe
than a single PMR or airband transceiver link, or a single telephone
landline. The reason that the UK BGA insists on light signals (or bats) is
the same reason as the German LBA insists on lineline telephones: That is
they are not prone to interference, or calls being blocked out by other
users. Our old Tost winches were quite noisy in the cabs, so you might not
hear a radio call during the launch, but you can see the lights. I have to
admit that the cab our Skylaunch winch is much quieter and more
civilised.

In the unlikely event of a double or triple light failure. we still have
the PMR radios as a back up. The only thing that can sometimes interfere
with light signals is low angle sunlight in certain launch directions, but
this only really affects a tiny minority of launches, first thing in the
morning shortly after sunrise, or just before sunset in the evening.

Derek C


At 20:40 12 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 12 Apr, 20:45, Del C wrote:
>> We do actually use PMR radios to inform the winch driver what he is
>> launching next and for sorting out problems, but we normally use
lights
>> for the actual signals, as they are considered more fail safe.
>
>If your lights fail, you cannot give a stop signal. That's not fail
>safe!
>
>Were I designing a signalling system from scratch I would (a) use
>wires if possible and (b) ensure that a link failure automatically
>gave the driver a "stop".
>
>Ian
>
>

[The Real Doctor]

On 13 Apr, 02:00, Del C > wrote:
> The reason that the UK BGA insists on light signals (or bats) is
> the same reason as the German LBA insists on lineline telephones: That is
> they are not prone to interference, or calls being blocked out by other
> users.

Since when has the BGA insisted on lights?

Ian

[John Roche-Kelly]

My understanding is that the BGA recommends lights, but with
radio back-up.
As well as being noise independent lights require only one
power source whereas radios require two, one at each end!




At 12:13 13 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 13 Apr, 02:00, Del C wrote:
>> The reason that the UK BGA insists on light signals (or bats)
is
>> the same reason as the German LBA insists on lineline
telephones: That
>is
>> they are not prone to interference, or calls being blocked
out by other
>> users.
>
>Since when has the BGA insisted on lights?
>
>Ian
>
Best wishes

JohnR-K

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:30:04 +0000, John Roche-Kelly wrote:

> My understanding is that the BGA recommends lights, but with radio
> back-up.
> As well as being noise independent lights require only one power source
> whereas radios require two, one at each end!
>
Same goes for lights: you need them on the winch too. They provide a back
channel, let people on the field know when the cables are live, and on
some fields are needed to control airfield traffic.

I'd be MOST unhappy to be at a club that didn't have lights on the winch.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Big Wings]

Laws & Rules edn 16.3 does not say that the BGA recommends lights... I
could interpret it to mean the opposite!

5.6 One of the following procedures must be used for all launches, other
than bungey launches,

unless a serviceable telephone or radio system is installed between the
person in charge of the glider end of the cable and the winch or car
driver or tug pilot.


ONE BAT METHOD - Bats to be easily visible at the distance required:
(a) Take up slack, take off path being clear: One bat moved to and fro in
front of
the body.
(b) All out: One bat moved to and fro above the head.
(c) Stop: One bat held stationary, vertically above the head.
TWO BAT METHOD -
(a) Take up slack, take off path being clear: One bat moved up and down
(b) All out: Two bats moved up and down.
(c) Stop: Two bats held vertically above the head.
LIGHT METHOD –
(a) Take up slack, take off path being clear: Dashes of one second
duration and
three seconds interval.
(b) All out: Quick dots at one second interval.
(c) Stop: Steady light. Light may not be red or green.
5.7 When telephonic or radio signalling is used, means must exist for an
emergency stop
signal which can be received, notwithstanding the noise of the engine.



At 17:30 13 April 2009, John Roche-Kelly wrote:
>My understanding is that the BGA recommends lights, but with
>radio back-up.
>As well as being noise independent lights require only one
>power source whereas radios require two, one at each end!
>
>
>
>
>At 12:13 13 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>On 13 Apr, 02:00, Del C wrote:
>>> The reason that the UK BGA insists on light signals (or bats)
>is
>>> the same reason as the German LBA insists on lineline
>telephones: That
>>is
>>> they are not prone to interference, or calls being blocked
>out by other
>>> users.
>>
>>Since when has the BGA insisted on lights?
>>
>>Ian
>>
>Best wishes
>
>JohnR-K
>

[Del C[_2_]]

The BGA Operational Regulations, Section 5 state the following (slightly
paraphrased to keep it short):

5.5 An adequate system of communication must exist between the person in
charge of launching and the winch or tow-car driver or tug pilot.

5.6 One of the following procedures must be used for all launches, other
than bungey launches, unless a serviceable telephone or radio system is
installed between the person in charge of the glider end of the cable and
the winch or car driver or tug pilot.

ONE BAT METHOD Bats to be easily visible at the distance required:
a) Take up slack: One bat moved to and fro in front of the body
b) All out: One bat moved to and fro above the head.
c) Stop: One bat held stationary, vertically above the head.

TWO BAT METHOD
a) Take up slack: One bat moved up and down
b) All out: Two bats moved up and down
c) Stop: Two bats held vertically above the head.

LIGHT METHOD:
a) Take up slack: Dashes of one second duration and three seconds
interval
b) All out: Quick dots at one second intervals
c) Stop: Steady light. Light may not be red or green.

5.7 When telephonic or radio signalling is used, means must exist for an
emergency stop signal which can be received, notwithstanding the noise of
the engine.

The lights requirement for winch launching exists because you are
generally too far away for bats to be effective (OK for car launching),
and because of the requirements of section 5.7.

Derek Copeland

At 17:30 13 April 2009, John Roche-Kelly wrote:
>My understanding is that the BGA recommends lights, but with
>radio back-up.
>As well as being noise independent lights require only one
>power source whereas radios require two, one at each end!
>

>At 12:13 13 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>On 13 Apr, 02:00, Del C wrote:
>>> The reason that the UK BGA insists on light signals (or bats)
>is
>>> the same reason as the German LBA insists on lineline
>telephones: That
>>is
>>> they are not prone to interference, or calls being blocked
>out by other
>>> users.
>>
>>Since when has the BGA insisted on lights?
>>
>>Ian
>>
>Best wishes
>
>JohnR-K
>

[jcarlyle]

I'm sitting here wondering how the heck you see a bat a 2,000 feet.
Heck, they're only about 2 inches in diameter, and made of light ash.

-John

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Old tennis racquets?


At 21:56 13 April 2009, jcarlyle wrote:
>I'm sitting here wondering how the heck you see a bat a 2,000 feet.
>Heck, they're only about 2 inches in diameter, and made of light ash.
>
>-John
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

When we used signalling bats for autotowing, they where about 2ft diameter
orange plastic lids bolted to wooden sticks.

In the UK the general understanding of the BGA winch launching operational
regulations are that you can use radios if you must, but you must still
have a mechanical or lights method of signalling stop. To the best of my
knowledge all UK clubs normally use bats or lights for signalling, as do
the Dutch.

Derek Copeland


At 01:15 14 April 2009, Nyal Williams wrote:
>Old tennis racquets?
>
>
>At 21:56 13 April 2009, jcarlyle wrote:
>>I'm sitting here wondering how the heck you see a bat a 2,000 feet.
>>Heck, they're only about 2 inches in diameter, and made of light ash.
>>
>>-John
>>
>

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

Derek Copeland wrote:

> To the best of my
> knowledge all UK clubs normally use bats or lights for signalling, as do
> the Dutch.
>

I've only winched launched at seven UK clubs, but all used either radio
(most common) or fixed line telephony, with lights as a backup system
only. None used bats.

When I drove the winch I always wanted to know who the pilot was,
something you can't signal with lights. The UK too fast (lower nose) and
too slow (wag tail) signals needed some intuitive interpretation in the
case of a student or inexperienced pilot, some of whom flew the entire
launch in a continuous state of mild pitch/yaw changes!

[The Real Doctor]

On 13 Apr, 22:11, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:

> Same goes for lights: you need them on the winch too. They provide a back
> channel, let people on the field know when the cables are live, and on
> some fields are needed to control airfield traffic.
>
> I'd be MOST unhappy to be at a club that didn't have lights on the winch.

It's a good idea. For safety, though, the rule should be "light OUT =
cable LIVE". Does anywhere do it this way?

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 13 Apr, 22:56, jcarlyle > wrote:
> I'm sitting here wondering how the heck you see a bat a 2,000 feet.
> Heck, they're only about 2 inches in diameter, and made of light ash.

Silly man. They're about six inches in diameter, and the rubber
coating stands out very well.

Ian

[Del C[_2_]]

We must fly at a different set of clubs then! At my club we use Private
Mobile Radios (PMRs) to inform the winch driver what type of glider he (or
she, one of our winch drivers is a lady) is launching next, for sorting out
problems and for general communications on the site, not only related to
winch launching. The actual signalling is done by lights unless conditions
(such as a low sun) preclude this. We don't name the pilots being
launched, although we usually say if it's a first solo, or a first winch
launch on type.

Another club I regularly fly at use CB radios for general communications,
but again lights for signalling.

To use radios safely you have to be pretty sure than no outsiders can
interfere with or step on your transmissions.

I agree that the way some trainee pilots fly up the launch can be a bit
confusing. All you can do then is to give about the average power setting
for the glider type and hope. In any case there is always an instructor in
the back who can take over if things get too bad.

Derek Copeland

At 09:37 14 April 2009, Chris Reed wrote:
>>
>
>I've only winched launched at seven UK clubs, but all used either radio

>(most common) or fixed line telephony, with lights as a backup system
>only. None used bats.
>
>When I drove the winch I always wanted to know who the pilot was,
>something you can't signal with lights. The UK too fast (lower nose) and

>too slow (wag tail) signals needed some intuitive interpretation in the
>case of a student or inexperienced pilot, some of whom flew the entire
>launch in a continuous state of mild pitch/yaw changes!
>

[Del C[_2_]]

You should always treat winch cables as live, unless the winch driver has
confirmed that they are not!

We have rotating amber beacons on our winches and launch point vehicles
that come on when the signalling starts and a drum is selected on the
winch. These are a warning that the cables are very definitely LIVE.

Derek Copeland

At 10:36 14 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 13 Apr, 22:11, Martin Gregorie
>wrote:
>
>> Same goes for lights: you need them on the winch too. They provide a
>back
>> channel, let people on the field know when the cables are live, and on
>> some fields are needed to control airfield traffic.
>>
>> I'd be MOST unhappy to be at a club that didn't have lights on the
>winch.
>
>It's a good idea. For safety, though, the rule should be "light OUT =
>cable LIVE". Does anywhere do it this way?
>
>Ian
>

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:36:51 -0700, The Real Doctor wrote:

> On 13 Apr, 22:11, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>> Same goes for lights: you need them on the winch too. They provide a
>> back channel, let people on the field know when the cables are live,
>> and on some fields are needed to control airfield traffic.
>>
>> I'd be MOST unhappy to be at a club that didn't have lights on the
>> winch.
>
> It's a good idea. For safety, though, the rule should be "light OUT =
> cable LIVE". Does anywhere do it this way?
>
That's equally problematic. How do you distinguish an actual live cable
from when the winch driver has gone for lunch leaving the winch stopped
with its main switch off?

We have a rotating yellow road repair type beacon that runs when the
winch is in gear. I'll grant you its been known to fail (and be rapidly
fixed), but an LED repeater in the cab that monitors current drawn by the
beacon should give warning of that.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[jcarlyle]

On Apr 14, 6:38 am, The Real Doctor > wrote:
> Silly man. They're about six inches in diameter, and the rubber
> coating stands out very well.
>
> Ian

For someone who fancies himself "the real doctor" you're singularly
uninformed. What you describe is not a Lousiville slugger, and thus is
not a bat. You'd never make it to first base using such an
abomination.

-John

[The Real Doctor]

On 14 Apr, 14:01, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> You'd never make it to first base using such an
> abomination.

Oh, how often I have heard that. Mostly in the changing rooms at the
swimming pool.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 14 Apr, 13:04, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:36:51 -0700, The Real Doctor wrote:

> > It's a good idea. For safety, though, the rule should be "light OUT =
> > cable LIVE". Does anywhere do it this way?
>
> That's equally problematic. How do you distinguish an actual live cable
> from when the winch driver has gone for lunch leaving the winch stopped
> with its main switch off?

Easy. For a start you shouldn't have cables out unless they are going
to be used, and if you must leave them out you have a battery powered
beacon on the winch flashing to let everyone - on the ground and in
the air - know.

> We have a rotating yellow road repair type beacon that runs when the
> winch is in gear. I'll grant you its been known to fail (and be rapidly
> fixed), but an LED repeater in the cab that monitors current drawn by the
> beacon should give warning of that.

The repeater idea is good.

Ian

[jcarlyle]

On Apr 14, 10:14 am, The Real Doctor >
wrote:
> On 14 Apr, 14:01, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
>
>
> > You'd never make it to first base using such an
> > abomination.
>
> Oh, how often I have heard that. Mostly in the changing rooms at the
> swimming pool.
>
> Ian

Since you brought it up, I must point out that we were talking about
things that people would have a difficult time seeing.

-John

[Bruce Hoult]

On Apr 15, 2:14*am, The Real Doctor > wrote:
> On 14 Apr, 14:01, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > You'd never make it to first base using such an
> > abomination.
>
> Oh, how often I have heard that. Mostly in the changing rooms at the
> swimming pool.

Strange. Usually the equipment check isn't until 3rd base though
perhaps a real professional might check all equipment before the game
starts.

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Well, the thread is dead; we got to 50 entries before it got turned into
jokes.

I started it, mainly to discover if there were alternate verbal signals to
"All Out," which to my mind does not say "full launch power." I
presumed this to be a Britishism. I'm not interested in creating a new
signal to be used only at my US club, but nothing else has turned up.

I found all the posts interesting.


At 20:25 14 April 2009, jcarlyle wrote:
>On Apr 14, 10:14 am, The Real Doctor
>wrote:
>> On 14 Apr, 14:01, jcarlyle wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > You'd never make it to first base using such an
>> > abomination.
>>
>> Oh, how often I have heard that. Mostly in the changing rooms at the
>> swimming pool.
>>
>> Ian
>
>Since you brought it up, I must point out that we were talking about
>things that people would have a difficult time seeing.
>
>-John
>

[The Real Doctor]

On 14 Apr, 22:49, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2:14*am, The Real Doctor > wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr, 14:01, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > You'd never make it to first base using such an
> > > abomination.
>
> > Oh, how often I have heard that. Mostly in the changing rooms at the
> > swimming pool.
>
> Strange. Usually the equipment check isn't until 3rd base though
> perhaps a real professional might check all equipment before the game
> starts.

Daily inspection, old chap.

Ian

[Nigel Pocock[_2_]]

At 09:37 14 April 2009, Chris Reed wrote:

>I've only winched launched at seven UK clubs, but all used either radio

>(most common) or fixed line telephony, with lights as a backup system
>only. None used bats.
>
>When I drove the winch I always wanted to know who the pilot was,
>something you can't signal with lights. The UK too fast (lower nose) and

>too slow (wag tail) signals needed some intuitive interpretation in the
>case of a student or inexperienced pilot, some of whom flew the entire
>launch in a continuous state of mild pitch/yaw changes!
>

Was I the only one who picked this up?
The too fast signal is the rudder yawing the glider. The too slow is lower
nose. He has it round the wrong way
If you yaw the glider on the verge of the stall because you are too slow
that is asking for a spin which on the wire is potentially fatal.
Nigel

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

Nigel Pocock wrote:
> Was I the only one who picked this up?
> The too fast signal is the rudder yawing the glider. The too slow is lower
> nose. He has it round the wrong way
> If you yaw the glider on the verge of the stall because you are too slow
> that is asking for a spin which on the wire is potentially fatal.
> Nigel
>

Nigel, you are correct and may claim your gold star.

The brain seems to interpret what one reads so as to make sense (thus I
didn't notice I had typed these back to front). At least I fly these the
right way, even if I can't type them correctly.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 21:45 13 April 2009, Big Wings wrote:
>Laws & Rules edn 16.3 does not say that the BGA recommends lights... I
>could interpret it to mean the opposite!
>
>5.6 One of the following procedures must be used for all launches, other
>than bungey launches,
>
>unless a serviceable telephone or radio system is installed between the
>person in charge of the glider end of the cable and the winch or car
>driver or tug pilot.
>

Big Wings is correct. it can only mean the opposite. Bats or lights are a
fall back system if the primary system of a radio or telephone is not
available. That is how the current rules are written.

Another gliding myth then that lights are the primary system. I suspect
this may come from the Air Cadets where lights are, or were compulsory,
but the BGA has always done things differently. As a matter of interest
the Air Cadets are still using the old system of the pilot giving the
signal to launch, one or two fingers waved appropriately. Makes a complete
nonsense of the assertion that the launch marshall system is safer. Both
systems are safe if used correctly, one wonders how a particular system
can be safe in one organisation and viewed as unsafe in another. One thing
the Air Cadets can say with absolute certainty is that they have never
launched a dead or unconcious pilot.

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

It is far safer to have your left hand on the release knob than waving
fingers of that hand around in the air. That way you can release quickly
in the event of a wing drop, loss of directional control, or any other
emergency situation.

Also a launch marshall or launch point controller has a much better all
round view and situational awareness than the pilot, who can't see what
is happening behind him or her. If the pilot does see a problem ahead
he/she should just pull off and shout or radio "Stop".

Air Cadets, being young and fit, should be less likely to die or become
unconcious at the controls, than the general, somewhat aged, UK glider
pilot poulation. If I am acting as launch point controller, I would
certainly recheck that the pilot is still OK and ready to launch if there
is any delay between hooking the cable on and taking up slack.

Most of the major clubs in the south of England use light signals as the
primary method of signalling, including mine. It is simple, reliable and
free from possible interferences. Bats would be difficult to see from the
winch if you have a decent length winch run, or if the airfield is at all
humped.

On the subject of glider to winch speed signals, the UK system is to yaw
the glider with rudder for 'too fast' and to lower the nose for 'too
slow'. The latter also reduces the chance of stalling or spinning by
reducing the effective wing loading, notwithstanding the dangers of
manoeuvring close to the stall. BTW, we no longer ease forward to unload
the glider before signalling too fast, as this could initially be
misinterpreted as a too slow signal. If the launch is very much too fast,
or doesn't slow down after signalling, pilots are advised to climb to a
minimum safe circuit height and then pull off. The biggest loads on the
glider's structure occur near the top of the launch.

Some of the German Clubs I have flown at rocked the wings for too fast and
waggled the rudder rather rapidly over a small range for too slow. The
latter was intended as a signal to the launch marshall to tell the winch
driver to speed up via the landline telephone that they have to have in
that country.

Derek Copeland



At 23:30 15 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 21:45 13 April 2009, Big Wings wrote:
>>Laws & Rules edn 16.3 does not say that the BGA recommends lights...
I
>>could interpret it to mean the opposite!
>>
>>5.6 One of the following procedures must be used for all launches,
other
>>than bungey launches,
>>
>>unless a serviceable telephone or radio system is installed between the
>>person in charge of the glider end of the cable and the winch or car
>>driver or tug pilot.
>>
>
>Big Wings is correct. it can only mean the opposite. Bats or lights are
a
>fall back system if the primary system of a radio or telephone is not
>available. That is how the current rules are written.
>
>Another gliding myth then that lights are the primary system. I suspect
>this may come from the Air Cadets where lights are, or were compulsory,
>but the BGA has always done things differently. As a matter of interest
>the Air Cadets are still using the old system of the pilot giving the
>signal to launch, one or two fingers waved appropriately. Makes a
complete
>nonsense of the assertion that the launch marshall system is safer. Both
>systems are safe if used correctly, one wonders how a particular system
>can be safe in one organisation and viewed as unsafe in another. One
thing
>the Air Cadets can say with absolute certainty is that they have never
>launched a dead or unconcious pilot.
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 06:15 16 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>It is far safer to have your left hand on the release knob than waving
>fingers of that hand around in the air. That way you can release quickly
>in the event of a wing drop, loss of directional control, or any other
>emergency situation.

If that were the case then we should have seen the result by now. The
statistics just do not support the assertion that the one method is safer,
or less safe than the other. Given that the organisation that is solely
winch launched still uses the pilot in command system one would have
thought there should be some statistical evidence by now. The reality is
that Air Cadet winch launching is statistically far safer than other
organisations.

>
>Air Cadets, being young and fit, should be less likely to die or become
>unconcious at the controls, than the general, somewhat aged, UK glider
>pilot poulation. If I am acting as launch point controller, I would
>certainly recheck that the pilot is still OK and ready to launch if
there
>is any delay between hooking the cable on and taking up slack.
>
It is absolutely certain that an incapicitated pilot is not going to give
the signal. If he is so incapicitated that he is unable to initiate a STOP
then he certainly cannot give the go. The potentially fatal flaw is the
possibility of launching an incapacitated pilot remembering that the
system relies on an unknown quality of launch marshall. Your argument that
incapacitation is less likely makes AC operations more suitable for launch
marshalls however they steadfastly refuse to convert because of the
inherent dangers involved, and the statistical data that shows they are
right not to change.

Neither system is perfect, both are perfectly valid and safe IF OPERATED
CORRECTLY and therein lies the nub, it does seem that many of our rules
are formulated because of a basic inability to ensure correct procedures
are followed, and instead of working on correcting a problem we invent a
way of avoiding it. Sometimes this medicine is more harmful than the
disease.
OK we probably got away with killing a pilot who was launched when
incapacitated once, we may not be so lucky again.
Before this gets flamed, all I am suggesting is that the evidence does not
support the assertion that the pilot control method was unsafe, rather the
contrary.
On balance I suppose the launching of an incapacitated pilot is not that
much of a problem, not likely to occur very often, and of course the pilot
is unlikely to complain.

[John Roche-Kelly]

Once again there is the BGA way and there is Don's way!

The BGA recommendations are distilled wisdom and best
practice. It allows for common methodologies and a lack of
misunderstanding.

When P1 my left hand is going to be on the release; if I am
launch controller and the pilot waves fingers at me I will abort
the launch. The pilot may be experiencing tingling in the fingers
and about to have a heart attack!

As to never having launched a dead or unconscious pilot,
hmmm. How dead Don? Only from the neck up!
Best wishes

JohnR-K

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

"OK we probably got away with killing a pilot who was launched when
incapacitated once, we may not be so lucky again."

What????????

Is that the luck o' the Irish?


At 09:30 16 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 06:15 16 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>It is far safer to have your left hand on the release knob than waving
>>fingers of that hand around in the air. That way you can release
quickly
>>in the event of a wing drop, loss of directional control, or any other
>>emergency situation.
>
>If that were the case then we should have seen the result by now. The
>statistics just do not support the assertion that the one method is
safer,
>or less safe than the other. Given that the organisation that is solely
>winch launched still uses the pilot in command system one would have
>thought there should be some statistical evidence by now. The reality is
>that Air Cadet winch launching is statistically far safer than other
>organisations.
>
>>
>>Air Cadets, being young and fit, should be less likely to die or become
>>unconcious at the controls, than the general, somewhat aged, UK glider
>>pilot poulation. If I am acting as launch point controller, I would
>>certainly recheck that the pilot is still OK and ready to launch if
>there
>>is any delay between hooking the cable on and taking up slack.
>>
>It is absolutely certain that an incapicitated pilot is not going to
give
>the signal. If he is so incapicitated that he is unable to initiate a
STOP
>then he certainly cannot give the go. The potentially fatal flaw is the
>possibility of launching an incapacitated pilot remembering that the
>system relies on an unknown quality of launch marshall. Your argument
that
>incapacitation is less likely makes AC operations more suitable for
launch
>marshalls however they steadfastly refuse to convert because of the
>inherent dangers involved, and the statistical data that shows they are
>right not to change.
>
>Neither system is perfect, both are perfectly valid and safe IF OPERATED
>CORRECTLY and therein lies the nub, it does seem that many of our rules
>are formulated because of a basic inability to ensure correct procedures
>are followed, and instead of working on correcting a problem we invent a
>way of avoiding it. Sometimes this medicine is more harmful than the
>disease.
>OK we probably got away with killing a pilot who was launched when
>incapacitated once, we may not be so lucky again.
>Before this gets flamed, all I am suggesting is that the evidence does
not
>support the assertion that the pilot control method was unsafe, rather
the
>contrary.
>On balance I suppose the launching of an incapacitated pilot is not that
>much of a problem, not likely to occur very often, and of course the
pilot
>is unlikely to complain.
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 12:30 16 April 2009, John Roche-Kelly wrote:
>Once again there is the BGA way and there is Don's way!

Not my way at all, the way of the Air Cadet movement who have the benefit
of advice from the Central Flying School and the Flight Safety
organisation, Royal Air Force. They deem the launch marshall system to be
unsafe and unfit for purpose, I happen to agree with them.
>
>The BGA recommendations are distilled wisdom and best
>practice. It allows for common methodologies and a lack of
>misunderstanding.
>
>When P1 my left hand is going to be on the release; if I am
>launch controller and the pilot waves fingers at me I will abort
>the launch. The pilot may be experiencing tingling in the fingers
>and about to have a heart attack!

The current winch launch marshall was introduced as a response to a
perceived problem by pilots being unable to operate the release if their
hand was not on it. There was very little distilled wisdom involved.
Analysis of the statistical data since introduction provides no evidence
to support this assertion, in fact the opposite. If the original assertion
had been correct there would have been a divergence in accident rates
between the two organisations and a reduction in launch events within the
BGA related to late release. I have seen no evidence to show that either
is the case, if you have evidence please produce it.
Given that the AC movement carry out a large number of winch launches one
would expect that the statistics would have highlighted a disparity by
now, why have they not?
>
>As to never having launched a dead or unconscious pilot,
>hmmm. How dead Don? Only from the neck up!
>Best wishes

Allowing a third party to initiate a launch always carries the risk that
the marshall is not aware of the full picture, depending on his
competence. If a pilot suffers incapacitation between having the cable
attached and the launch, it is possible for the launch to take place
despite that incapacitation, that is a matter of fact not conjecture. If a
pilot is incapcitated to the level that prevents him giving a stop signal
it follows that he would be unable to give the signal to initiate the
launch.

Why you have to make this a personal thing beats me, what happened to open
discussion. It is only by full and open discusiion that problems will be
solved, not by slavish adherence to the status quo or name calling.

>
>JohnR-K
>

[John Roche-Kelly]

How much time is there between accepting the cable to being
launched? What likelihood is there of the pilot being
incapacitated in this short time?

I would opine that P1 is more likely to drop a wing and would
therefore concentrate on this risk, therefore hand on the
release. I am sure I am not the only person, when LM, who
looks at the pilot as well as around and behind as I give the
signals. This covers all the bases don't you think?

My apologies if the remarks were seen as personal, they were
not intended to be, after all, that I can do that to your face, can
I not?
Best wishes

JohnR-K

[The Real Doctor]

On 16 Apr, 00:30, Don Johnstone > wrote:

> As a matter of interest
> the Air Cadets are still using the old system of the pilot giving the
> signal to launch, one or two fingers waved appropriately. Makes a complete
> nonsense of the assertion that the launch marshall system is safer. Both
> systems are safe if used correctly, one wonders how a particular system
> can be safe in one organisation and viewed as unsafe in another.

No system like this is "safe" or "unsafe" - it's all a matter of
degree, The BGA change was pushed through because a few argumentative
people shouted IT'S SAFER and nobody like to argue against safety.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 16 Apr, 07:15, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> It is far safer to have your left hand on the release knob than waving
> fingers of that hand around in the air. That way you can release quickly
> in the event of a wing drop, loss of directional control, or any other
> emergency situation. *

And pull the knob accidentally in a gust or when a wheel hits a bump.
Having your hand on th erelease at take-off is a Very Bad Idea ... in
my humble opinion, of course.

Anyway, who's to say that the hand is on the release knob? When
fingers were waved, you knew that a hand was available for release and
not titivating the GPS.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 16 Apr, 10:30, Don Johnstone > wrote:

> Neither system is perfect, both are perfectly valid and safe IF OPERATED
> CORRECTLY and therein lies the nub, it does seem that many of our rules
> are formulated because of a basic inability to ensure correct procedures
> are followed, and instead of working on correcting a problem we invent a
> way of avoiding it.

Hear, hear. Many, many people have died - in many areas of human
endeavour - because they thought that A System would keep them safe.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 16 Apr, 13:30, John Roche-Kelly >
wrote:
> Once again there is the BGA way and there is Don's way!
>
> The BGA recommendations are distilled wisdom and best
> practice.

And we peasants mustn't forget that, eh?

There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of all,
it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
recommendation to have pilot signals? Was that not distilled wisdom
and best practice? And if that was wrong, how can we be sure that the
current method is right?

> It allows for common methodologies and a lack of
> misunderstanding.

We have already established that four different winch signalling
methods are currently used. That does not seem to cause any
significant problems.

Ian

[Tom Gardner]

On Apr 16, 10:43*pm, The Real Doctor >
wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 07:15, Derek Copeland > wrote:

> Anyway, who's to say that the hand is on the release knob? When
> fingers were waved, you knew that a hand was available for release

.... or for the airbrake, by mistake in the heat of the moment.

Don't forget that the "best practice" has to take into account
inexperienced
pilots and/or pilots that fly multiple different types in quick
succession.

As you note elsewhere, no system will, on its own, keep people safe.
It is case of which set of practices is least bad across a wide range
of circumstances.

OT: I remember people seriously arguing that seat belts shouldn't be
compulsory
because they would cause some people to drown, if their car went into
a river!

[Tom Gardner]

On Apr 16, 10:50*pm, The Real Doctor >
wrote:

> There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of all,
> it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
> wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
> recommendation to have pilot signals?

If new evidence is presented, I am prepared to change my mind.
Would you refuse to change your mind?

> Was that not distilled wisdom
> and best practice? And if that was wrong, how can we be sure that the
> current method is right?

I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances :) But that's not
the point.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 08:45 17 April 2009, Tom Gardner wrote:
>On Apr 16, 10:50=A0pm, The Real Doctor
>wrote:
>
>> There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of all,
>> it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
>> wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
>> recommendation to have pilot signals?
>
>If new evidence is presented, I am prepared to change my mind.
>Would you refuse to change your mind?
>
>> Was that not distilled wisdom
>> and best practice? And if that was wrong, how can we be sure that the
>> current method is right?
>
>I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances :) But that's
not
>the point.
>
I think the evidence exists to show that neither system is unsafe and that
the solution dictated (launch marshalls) did nothing to improve matters.
I agree there was/is a problem with people releasing early enough when
there is a winch launch problem, and to a lesser extent aerotwow. I
suggest that the problem is not one of procedure but of training and
awareness. How often do we see a wing touch the ground and the launch
continue and become normal. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and goes back
to what they are doing. The accident didn't happen, but if it had, the
cause would be nothing to do with were the pilot happened to have his
hand, but with his possibly TIBBIN state. The introduction of launch
marshalls was never ever going to solve the real problem, in fact it could
only make it worse, and we lost out again by circumventing a percieved
problem instead of tackling the real one.
The main objection to the launch marshall system is that it introduced to
UK gliding one of the most dangerous practices known, that of negative
consent. Something will happen as the result of third party action unless
first party action is taken to stop it. One can only wonder at the
towering intellect and distilled wisdom that considered introducing
negative consent to a safety critical procedure. The statistics are now
showing that we did not solve the original problem at all, just masked it
and yet we fail to learn. There are no easy solutions, knee jerk reactions
seldom work. To solve problems you first have to identify the problem, then
find a solution that is not worse than the problem we already have. In this
case the solution was in my view.
1. More effective education and instruction of the dangers of failing to
make an early release. Ensuring that pilots were thinking about what they
were doing. (Prior to the change the hand had to be near the release when
not actually signalling, you had to think what you we doing, now you
don't, as long as your hand is on the release you are safe, Yeah
right!!!!!!!)
2. Moving the position of the release to ensure that it is close to hand
and not hidden away in the dark recesses of the cockpit. (This was
mandated for tugs following the fatal tug accident at Aboyne)

Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.

[Del C[_2_]]

Personally, I think the idea that accepting the cable to be hooked on means
that you have completed your preflight checks and are ready to launch, and
then the launch is initiated by the launch marshall when he has checked
that it is safe to do so, is a good one! It leaves the pilot free to
concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the release
knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other emergency.

Before this change in the rules, I often found that students, in
attempting to release the cable in a hurry, made a grab for the canopy
catch, the airbrake lever, the flap lever or the the undercarriage lever.
None of these would exactly help in a difficult situation!!!

The only possible downside I can see is the infinitely small probability
of the pilot dying or passing out in the few seconds between hooking the
cable on and starting the signalling. Over the years we have many more
serious groundloop and cartwheel accidents than those caused by launching
unconcious or dead pilots!

Derek Copeland


At 11:15 17 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 08:45 17 April 2009, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>On Apr 16, 10:50=A0pm, The Real Doctor
>>wrote:
>>
>>> There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of all,
>>> it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
>>> wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
>>> recommendation to have pilot signals?
>>
>>If new evidence is presented, I am prepared to change my mind.
>>Would you refuse to change your mind?
>>
>>> Was that not distilled wisdom
>>> and best practice? And if that was wrong, how can we be sure that the
>>> current method is right?
>>
>>I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances :) But that's
>not
>>the point.
>>
>I think the evidence exists to show that neither system is unsafe and
that
>the solution dictated (launch marshalls) did nothing to improve matters.
>I agree there was/is a problem with people releasing early enough when
>there is a winch launch problem, and to a lesser extent aerotwow. I
>suggest that the problem is not one of procedure but of training and
>awareness. How often do we see a wing touch the ground and the launch
>continue and become normal. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and goes
back
>to what they are doing. The accident didn't happen, but if it had, the
>cause would be nothing to do with were the pilot happened to have his
>hand, but with his possibly TIBBIN state. The introduction of launch
>marshalls was never ever going to solve the real problem, in fact it
could
>only make it worse, and we lost out again by circumventing a percieved
>problem instead of tackling the real one.
>The main objection to the launch marshall system is that it introduced
to
>UK gliding one of the most dangerous practices known, that of negative
>consent. Something will happen as the result of third party action
unless
>first party action is taken to stop it. One can only wonder at the
>towering intellect and distilled wisdom that considered introducing
>negative consent to a safety critical procedure. The statistics are now
>showing that we did not solve the original problem at all, just masked
it
>and yet we fail to learn. There are no easy solutions, knee jerk
reactions
>seldom work. To solve problems you first have to identify the problem,
>then
>find a solution that is not worse than the problem we already have. In
>this
>case the solution was in my view.
>1. More effective education and instruction of the dangers of failing to
>make an early release. Ensuring that pilots were thinking about what
they
>were doing. (Prior to the change the hand had to be near the release
when
>not actually signalling, you had to think what you we doing, now you
>don't, as long as your hand is on the release you are safe, Yeah
>right!!!!!!!)
>2. Moving the position of the release to ensure that it is close to hand
>and not hidden away in the dark recesses of the cockpit. (This was
>mandated for tugs following the fatal tug accident at Aboyne)
>
>Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
>remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.
>
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

This is a world audience. What is TIBBIN?

At 11:15 17 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 08:45 17 April 2009, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>On Apr 16, 10:50=A0pm, The Real Doctor
>>wrote:
>>
>>> There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of all,
>>> it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
>>> wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
>>> recommendation to have pilot signals?
>>
>>If new evidence is presented, I am prepared to change my mind.
>>Would you refuse to change your mind?
>>
>>> Was that not distilled wisdom
>>> and best practice? And if that was wrong, how can we be sure that the
>>> current method is right?
>>
>>I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances :) But that's
>not
>>the point.
>>
>I think the evidence exists to show that neither system is unsafe and
that
>the solution dictated (launch marshalls) did nothing to improve matters.
>I agree there was/is a problem with people releasing early enough when
>there is a winch launch problem, and to a lesser extent aerotwow. I
>suggest that the problem is not one of procedure but of training and
>awareness. How often do we see a wing touch the ground and the launch
>continue and become normal. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and goes
back
>to what they are doing. The accident didn't happen, but if it had, the
>cause would be nothing to do with were the pilot happened to have his
>hand, but with his possibly TIBBIN state. The introduction of launch
>marshalls was never ever going to solve the real problem, in fact it
could
>only make it worse, and we lost out again by circumventing a percieved
>problem instead of tackling the real one.
>The main objection to the launch marshall system is that it introduced
to
>UK gliding one of the most dangerous practices known, that of negative
>consent. Something will happen as the result of third party action
unless
>first party action is taken to stop it. One can only wonder at the
>towering intellect and distilled wisdom that considered introducing
>negative consent to a safety critical procedure. The statistics are now
>showing that we did not solve the original problem at all, just masked
it
>and yet we fail to learn. There are no easy solutions, knee jerk
reactions
>seldom work. To solve problems you first have to identify the problem,
>then
>find a solution that is not worse than the problem we already have. In
>this
>case the solution was in my view.
>1. More effective education and instruction of the dangers of failing to
>make an early release. Ensuring that pilots were thinking about what
they
>were doing. (Prior to the change the hand had to be near the release
when
>not actually signalling, you had to think what you we doing, now you
>don't, as long as your hand is on the release you are safe, Yeah
>right!!!!!!!)
>2. Moving the position of the release to ensure that it is close to hand
>and not hidden away in the dark recesses of the cockpit. (This was
>mandated for tugs following the fatal tug accident at Aboyne)
>
>Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
>remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.
>
>

[Del C[_2_]]

I think it's an acronym for TIBenham Brain In Neutral. Tibenham (Norfolk
Gliding Club) is one of the places where Don flies.

Derek C

At 15:30 17 April 2009, Nyal Williams wrote:
>This is a world audience. What is TIBBIN?
>
>At 11:15 17 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>At 08:45 17 April 2009, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>On Apr 16, 10:50=A0pm, The Real Doctor
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of
all,
>>>> it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
>>>> wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
>>>> recommendation to have pilot signals?
>>>
>>>If new evidence is presented, I am prepared to change my mind.
>>>Would you refuse to change your mind?
>>>
>>>> Was that not distilled wisdom
>>>> and best practice? And if that was wrong, how can we be sure that
the
>>>> current method is right?
>>>
>>>I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances :) But that's
>>not
>>>the point.
>>>
>>I think the evidence exists to show that neither system is unsafe and
>that
>>the solution dictated (launch marshalls) did nothing to improve
matters.
>>I agree there was/is a problem with people releasing early enough when
>>there is a winch launch problem, and to a lesser extent aerotwow. I
>>suggest that the problem is not one of procedure but of training and
>>awareness. How often do we see a wing touch the ground and the launch
>>continue and become normal. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and goes
>back
>>to what they are doing. The accident didn't happen, but if it had, the
>>cause would be nothing to do with were the pilot happened to have his
>>hand, but with his possibly TIBBIN state. The introduction of launch
>>marshalls was never ever going to solve the real problem, in fact it
>could
>>only make it worse, and we lost out again by circumventing a percieved
>>problem instead of tackling the real one.
>>The main objection to the launch marshall system is that it introduced
>to
>>UK gliding one of the most dangerous practices known, that of negative
>>consent. Something will happen as the result of third party action
>unless
>>first party action is taken to stop it. One can only wonder at the
>>towering intellect and distilled wisdom that considered introducing
>>negative consent to a safety critical procedure. The statistics are now
>>showing that we did not solve the original problem at all, just masked
>it
>>and yet we fail to learn. There are no easy solutions, knee jerk
>reactions
>>seldom work. To solve problems you first have to identify the problem,
>>then
>>find a solution that is not worse than the problem we already have. In
>>this
>>case the solution was in my view.
>>1. More effective education and instruction of the dangers of failing
to
>>make an early release. Ensuring that pilots were thinking about what
>they
>>were doing. (Prior to the change the hand had to be near the release
>when
>>not actually signalling, you had to think what you we doing, now you
>>don't, as long as your hand is on the release you are safe, Yeah
>>right!!!!!!!)
>>2. Moving the position of the release to ensure that it is close to
hand
>>and not hidden away in the dark recesses of the cockpit. (This was
>>mandated for tugs following the fatal tug accident at Aboyne)
>>
>>Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
>>remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.
>>
>>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 17, 4:15*am, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
> remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.

I know the thread is about winch launch but there is a similar
situation at most US contests. To maintain the required aerotow
launch rates the glider pilot is required to be ready before his tug
arrives. Once the rope is hooked up the pilot has no further control
of the launch except to abort. The take up slack and all out signals
are initiated and made by the launch marshal.

Contest launches used to be made with pilot signals and I flew with
that procedure before the transition. I don't know if the launch rate
was increased or not, but I have no concern that the new procedure is
unsafe. Note that the US aerotow "all out" is a rudder wag so there
is no difference in the availability of the left hand for tow release.

Andy

[The Real Doctor]

On 17 Apr, 09:45, Tom Gardner > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:50*pm, The Real Doctor >
> wrote:
>
> > There are problems with this nanny-knows-best approach. First of all,
> > it's all very well to say that "BGA recommendations are distilled
> > wisdom and best practice" ... so what about the previous BGA
> > recommendation to have pilot signals?
>
> If new evidence is presented, I am prepared to change my mind.
> Would you refuse to change your mind?

Not at all. As Don has pointed out, there should now be ample evidence
of the effectiveness of the change, and if it supports the new systems
I shall embrace launch marshalls warmly.

Ian

[The Real Doctor]

On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C > wrote:
> It leaves the pilot free to
> concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the release
> knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other emergency.

Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.

And when did this "on the release" lark come in? I was always taught
"near, but not on" the release.

Ian

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

At 20:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C wrote:
>> It leaves the pilot free to
>> concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the
release
>> knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other
emergency.
>
>Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
>the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
>the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.
>
>And when did this "on the release" lark come in? I was always taught
>"near, but not on" the release.
>
>Ian
>
All the above settings should be done in the 'instruments' part of the
pre-flight check list.

If you have to pull off under high tension during the ground run, the
force to operate the release knob can be surprisingly high. If you are not
holding it quite tightly, it is possible for your hand to slip round a
round knob, as happened twice in the series of photos below:

http://www.flightbox.net/galleries/wingdrop/wingdrop_1.htm

These were taken on a rather cold spring day. The instructor was wearing
gloves made out a synthetic material and it took him three attempts to
pull off after the launch started to go wrong.

BTW, our CFI wanted to fit T-handle release knobs to all our K13s after
this incident, but found that without spending a small fortune for an
'approved modification' under EASA rules, this would have invalidated
their Certificates of Airworthiness! I never cease to be amazed by the
bureaucratic stupidity of this organisation, who recently tried to mandate
airspeed indicators for hot air balloons!

Derek Copeland

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

Thinking about this, for some strange reason the Norfolk Gliding Club at
Tibenham Airfield has acquired the nickname of the 'R.I.P. Gliding
Club'. So perhaps they winch launch dead or brain dead pilots on a
regular basis, in which case I apologise to Don!

Derek C

At 15:45 17 April 2009, Del C wrote:
>I think it's an acronym for TIBenham Brain In Neutral. Tibenham
(Norfolk
>Gliding Club) is one of the places where Don flies.
>
>Derek C
>
>At 15:30 17 April 2009, Nyal Williams wrote:
>>This is a world audience. What is TIBBIN?
>>
>>At 11:15 17 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>At 08:45 17 April 2009, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>On Apr 16, 10:50=A0pm, The Real Doctor
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances :) But that's
>>>not
>>>>the point.
>>>>
>>>I think the evidence exists to show that neither system is unsafe and
>>that
>>>the solution dictated (launch marshalls) did nothing to improve
>matters.
>>>I agree there was/is a problem with people releasing early enough when
>>>there is a winch launch problem, and to a lesser extent aerotwow. I
>>>suggest that the problem is not one of procedure but of training and
>>>awareness. How often do we see a wing touch the ground and the launch
>>>continue and become normal. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and goes
>>back
>>>to what they are doing. The accident didn't happen, but if it had,
the
>>>cause would be nothing to do with were the pilot happened to have his
>>>hand, but with his possibly TIBBIN state. The introduction of launch
>>>marshalls was never ever going to solve the real problem, in fact it
>>could
>>>only make it worse, and we lost out again by circumventing a percieved
>>>problem instead of tackling the real one.
>>>The main objection to the launch marshall system is that it introduced
>>to
>>>UK gliding one of the most dangerous practices known, that of
negative
>>>consent. Something will happen as the result of third party action
>>unless
>>>first party action is taken to stop it. One can only wonder at the
>>>towering intellect and distilled wisdom that considered introducing
>>>negative consent to a safety critical procedure. The statistics are
now
>>>showing that we did not solve the original problem at all, just masked
>>it
>>>and yet we fail to learn. There are no easy solutions, knee jerk
>>reactions
>>>seldom work. To solve problems you first have to identify the problem,
>>>then
>>>find a solution that is not worse than the problem we already have. In
>>>this
>>>case the solution was in my view.
>>>1. More effective education and instruction of the dangers of failing
>to
>>>make an early release. Ensuring that pilots were thinking about what
>>they
>>>were doing. (Prior to the change the hand had to be near the release
>>when
>>>not actually signalling, you had to think what you we doing, now you
>>>don't, as long as your hand is on the release you are safe, Yeah
>>>right!!!!!!!)
>>>2. Moving the position of the release to ensure that it is close to
>hand
>>>and not hidden away in the dark recesses of the cockpit. (This was
>>>mandated for tugs following the fatal tug accident at Aboyne)
>>>
>>>Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
>>>remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[The Real Doctor]

On 17 Apr, 22:00, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> At 20:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>
> >On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C *wrote:
> >> It leaves the pilot free to
> >> concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the
> release
> >> knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other
> emergency.
>
> >Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
> >the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
> >the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.

> All the above settings should be done in the 'instruments' part of the
> pre-flight check list.

Should, yes. Wing tips shouldn't touch the ground, either.

Ian

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

A wing drop can occur because of gusts, especially in a cross wind, or
because the wing tip runner doesn't hold the wings level or lets go too
soon. They can also be caused by student pilots not using the ailerons
aggressively enough to keep the wings level during the ground run, as
happens in the following video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_VIfxOV8U

And yes, the instructor should have taken over or pulled off, but he was
very newly qualified at the time, and probably didn't realise how far
some inexperienced students can be behind the action.

Most gliders have to be balanced on a single mainwheel, so a wing drop
during the ground run is always possible and pilots must be prepared for
this. They certainly don't want to be fiddling with assorted bits of kit
or 'scratching their crotches' once they are hooked on to a winch or
aerotow!

Derek C


At 23:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>On 17 Apr, 22:00, Derek Copeland wrote:
>> At 20:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>
>> >On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C =A0wrote:
>> >> It leaves the pilot free to
>> >> concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the
>> release
>> >> knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other
>> emergency.
>>
>> >Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
>> >the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
>> >the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.
>
>> All the above settings should be done in the 'instruments' part of
the
>> pre-flight check list.
>
>Should, yes. Wing tips shouldn't touch the ground, either.
>
>Ian
>

[The Real Doctor]

On 18 Apr, 05:00, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> A wing drop can occur because of gusts, especially in a cross wind, or
> because the wing tip runner doesn't hold the wings level or lets go too
> soon.

I think a principal reason is wing runners who use force to keep the
wings level. No matter when they let go, the wing will drop. If the
wing wants to go down - before the launch starts - the runner should
let it do so until the pilot corrects with aileron. And the launch
marshal should not start the launch until s/he is satisfied that the
glider is balanced. Too many fail to do this, or don't even understand
the issue.

> Most gliders have to be balanced on a single mainwheel, so a wing drop
> during the ground run is always possible and pilots must be prepared for
> this. They certainly don't want to be fiddling with assorted bits of kit
> or 'scratching their crotches' once they are hooked on to a winch or
> aerotow!

Couldn't agree more. Why don't we use a signalling system which shows
the launch signaller that the pilot is not doing these things, by
demonstrating a free hand?

Ian

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

TIBBIN - Thumb in bum, brain in neutral.

I have always been very unhappy with the concept of negative consent, the
requirement that a pilot has to take action to stop the launch proceeding
rather than giving the positive "take up slack" and "all out" signals
himself.
The current procedure, (launch marshal) was introduced to replace the
necessity for the pilot to raise the one finger for take up slack or two
for all out. This rather negates the idea that the hand could be fiddling
with anything I would have thought. In fact the current procedure lends
itself more to misuse as neither of the pilots hands can be seen under the
current procedure.
The problem, I would suggest, was one of pilots not being prepared rather
than their hands being in the "wrong" place. All the current procedure
does, with it's insistance on the hand being on the release, is to give
an assurance of safety by the action rather than the underlying decision
process that needs to take place. Addressing the process and reinforcing
pilot thinking was generally ignored in favour of a requirement for hand
placement.
Whatever the reasoning the statistics show that the incidents continue at
roughly the same rate and there is no disparity in rates between the
organisations using the original procedure and the launch marshall system.
Simply put the incident rates do not appear to have reduced in the BGA
compared with the Air Cadets, in fact I believe the contrary may be true.
We have in place a system which carries a risk, however small, of
launching an incapacitated pilot, and which has shown no benefit in
solving the perceived problem.
On a final note, pilots do not pull off in their gliders one hopes. They
operate the release or pull the release. I know the hand that is not
holding the control column is no longer visible, and I do not know Lasham
that well, but I find Dels description hard to give credence to.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 21:00 17 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:


>
>BTW, our CFI wanted to fit T-handle release knobs to all our K13s after
>this incident, but found that without spending a small fortune for an
>'approved modification' under EASA rules, this would have invalidated
>their Certificates of Airworthiness! I never cease to be amazed by the
>bureaucratic stupidity of this organisation, who recently tried to
mandate
>airspeed indicators for hot air balloons!
>
>Derek Copeland

This would have been a very valid solution and done more to address the
problem. The release knob in my ASW17, and all early ASWs was very small
and buried in the recesses of the cockpit where it was very difficult to
get to. It would tend to hide underneath my legs. My solution was a loop
of para cord secured to the release and around my wrist, with sufficient
slack to avoid accidental release, which ensured that I never had to
search for the release and, just as important allowed me to have my hand
on the flap lever where it was needed in the early stage of the launch.
>

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 18, 8:00*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> At 21:00 17 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >BTW, our CFI wanted to fit T-handle release knobs to all our K13s after
> >this incident, but found that without spending a small fortune for an
> >'approved modification' under EASA rules, this would have invalidated
> >their Certificates of Airworthiness! I never cease to be amazed by the
> >bureaucratic stupidity of this organisation, who recently tried to
> mandate
> >airspeed indicators for hot air balloons!
>
> >Derek Copeland
>
> This would have been a very valid solution and done more to address the
> problem. The release knob in my ASW17, and all early ASWs was very small
> and buried in the recesses of the cockpit where it was very difficult to
> get to. It would tend to hide underneath my legs. My solution was a loop
> of para cord secured to the release and around my wrist, with sufficient
> slack to avoid accidental release, which ensured that I never had to
> search for the release and, just as important allowed me to have my hand
> on the flap lever where it was needed in the early stage of the launch.
>
>

My BGA senior inspector removed my device of similar reliability and
offered to swage a proper fitting. Seems that was unacceptable pre-
EASA.

[Del C[_2_]]

I am not quite sure why the concept of hooking on only when you are ready
to launch constitutes 'negative consent'? If you subsequently see a
problem developing ahead, feel the need to fiddle with bit of kit, scratch
your crotch, or start to feel unwell, then pull off and call stop. I did
exactly that last weekend, when I noticed a motor glider starting its take
off run at the same time as as the Launch Point Controller (Marshal) was
signalling up slack for my winch launch. (To be fair to him, the pilot of
the motorglider had called some time before that he 'ready to depart',
but had delayed his actual departure for some reason. The LPC thought it
had already gone, and it was also taking off from a grass area that was
behind his back.) It doesn't remove all responsibility from the pilot.

You equally well argue that under Don's preferred system, you could be
accidentally launched if you raise one finger to pick your nose, and then
two fingers to tell the launch marshal what you think of him!

We have been teaching the BGA preferred system for quite a few years now.
That is, by accepting the cable to be hooked on you are ready to launch,
and that you will have your left hand on the release knob. If you have a
flapped glider, just set zero (or plus 1) flap for the take off run and
then reset them if necessary, once you are safely in the air. The rapid
acceleration on a winch launch should give you almost instant aileron
control, so a flapped glider in neutral flap should be no worse off than a
normal unflapped glider.

Under the old 'two finger' launching system, I often used to find that
student pilots went on signalling all the way up the launch, even though
there was nobody out there to see it at 1000ft (!), and then make a grab
for the canopy release knob, the airbrake lever, the flap lever or the
undercarriage lever when it was time to release. Obviously this would be
even more worrying if they had to pull off because a problem developed
during the ground run! I can't remember this happening since the
change.

Derek Copeland


At 01:15 19 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>TIBBIN - Thumb in bum, brain in neutral.
>
>I have always been very unhappy with the concept of negative consent,
the
>requirement that a pilot has to take action to stop the launch
proceeding
>rather than giving the positive "take up slack" and "all out"
signals
>himself.
>The current procedure, (launch marshal) was introduced to replace the
>necessity for the pilot to raise the one finger for take up slack or two
>for all out. This rather negates the idea that the hand could be
fiddling
>with anything I would have thought. In fact the current procedure lends
>itself more to misuse as neither of the pilots hands can be seen under
the
>current procedure.
>The problem, I would suggest, was one of pilots not being prepared
rather
>than their hands being in the "wrong" place. All the current procedure
>does, with it's insistance on the hand being on the release, is to give
>an assurance of safety by the action rather than the underlying decision
>process that needs to take place. Addressing the process and reinforcing
>pilot thinking was generally ignored in favour of a requirement for hand
>placement.
>Whatever the reasoning the statistics show that the incidents continue
at
>roughly the same rate and there is no disparity in rates between the
>organisations using the original procedure and the launch marshall
system.
>Simply put the incident rates do not appear to have reduced in the BGA
>compared with the Air Cadets, in fact I believe the contrary may be
true.
>We have in place a system which carries a risk, however small, of
>launching an incapacitated pilot, and which has shown no benefit in
>solving the perceived problem.
>On a final note, pilots do not pull off in their gliders one hopes. They
>operate the release or pull the release. I know the hand that is not
>holding the control column is no longer visible, and I do not know
Lasham
>that well, but I find Dels description hard to give credence to.
>
>