I believe they call that: "Negligence".

I, too, have stayed out of this discussion until now, and I have only one
word to describe the proposed method: Stupid.

Please don't do what you're proposing.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...
I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.

In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with
launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights.
The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do
them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to
correct in time if done wromg.

On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end
of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course.
And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the
other how to teach and how to cope.

We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to
new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and
training organizations.

There is also a general guideline which I believe all should practice – do a
risk analysis, and don’t have too many new things at one time, and never
more than one major new thing at a time.


Here we have a low gliding hours pilot with several things new to him, going
to teach himself, by a method he thinks better thsn what almost everyone
else uses. If he goes ahead, I hope he does not damage his new toy, but if
he does, don’t anyone be surprised.

I second the posts above – working backwards from the accident report, it
would have been obvious that it was too likely.

In the USA, do insurers have a concept of contributory negligence which can
impact upon thje pay out in the event of a claim? It has been raised on
occasion over here, when people who the insurers thought should know better
took a risk that they knew or had been warned about about.


Chris N.