W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-bKdumM0BMIOs@localhost...


On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:18:37 UTC, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
wrote:

A pilot might aerotow on an aft hook when a forward hook is fitted if:

a/ The forward hook is unserviceable,


That would be ruled out by my " ... is available"


NO!

If the forward hook is unserviceable, then the glider is unserviceable for
aerotow.

Would you aerotow your Pirat on the aft hook if the forward hook is
unserviceable?

Would you winch launch a K21 on the forward hook (with no back release!) if
the aft hook is unserviceable? Would you do it if you could make the
forward hook back release? Would you wire launch any glider on the forward
hook (unless the C. of A. papers specifically allowed it) ?.

The glider has two hooks for a reason. If an apparently otherwise
identical glider has only one hook, that is a bad reason for assuming that
you can treat your glider hooks as interchangeable.



b/ The forward hook is taped over:
to increase performance,
to reduce noise,
to reduce drafts.


And that would be sheer stupidity - the cause, I reckon, of 90% of all
gliding accidents.


What seems stupidity to you may be a habit formed at a site where this has
become normal behaviour over the years.



I think that the tug pilot or the organisation providing the tow would
be fully justified in refusing to tow the pilot in any of these
circumstances.


Agreed. Or to impose conditions. At my club, any visiting pilot who
wishes to tow with a belly hook has to take a check flight in a
two-seater, towed with the belly hook, before she/he may fly,
regardless of experience or qualifications. But then, it's a club which
lost one of its tug pilots, elsewhere, to an upset.


If there were to be an accident, there might be a problem in claiming on
the insurance, and any investigation is likely to be adversely critical,
even if the tow hook position was not a factor in the accident.


The latter point worries me a bit. Accident investigations should, I
think, concentrate on what happened and what mattered. They shouldn't
take side swipes at things the investigator doesn't approve of, if they
are irrelevant. In fact, investigations generally shouldn't be
adversely critical. We can all do that when we see what the causes of
an accident were!


It was meant to worry you.

Like it or not, accident investigators tend to enquire, notice and comment
on the whole operation and not just the immediate causes of the particular
accident. And some underwriters are always on the lookout for an excuse
not to pay.

Have you never visited a site, or noticed a particular pilot or syndicate,
and said to yourself "there is an accident waiting to happen" ? Accident
investigators look for this, as well as the particular factors directly
leading to an accident.


Ian