The rudder waggle signal does not work

On Jul 22, 3:34*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.

Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

Yes, and the pragmatists know the moralists are wrong. :-)

Darryl

On Jul 22, 4:34*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.

Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

Nothing to do with morals or pragmatism but just people not learning
what they need to know to stay alive - which is very frustrating.

Radios are fine and I advocate them - but they can fail for a lot of
reasons. We will always need a backup visual signal and we have a
good one. Instructors need to do their job so pilots recognize it
when they see it. From now on it's the first question on a Flight
Review - if the pilot doesn't know the right answer, my signature
isn't going in their logbook.

No, I'm not perfect, I just read the manual - but that may be unusual.

On Jul 22, 4:42*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:34*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:

The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.

Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

Yes, and the pragmatists know the moralists are wrong. :-)

Darryl

Right on Darryl
And as the following post demonstrates, moralists don't realize they
are wrong even when you show them the facts and explain over and
over..
I am happy to be a pragmatist, I think pragmatists are safer since
they know their limitations

"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message
...
It's been a few years since I was an active CFIG, but we tested the rudder
waggle on every flight review. I don't recall anyone failing to release when
they got the waggle except for a few cases when they were briefed immediately
before the flight.. As far as I can see, the signal is well intended, but a
complete failure.

Vaughn

Uh I assume that was an unintended typo and you meant failing to
release when they got the rock-off signal?

Nope, I meant just what I said. Virtually all pilots did the wrong thing,
(released when the got the rudder waggle) unless they were briefed right before
the flight and knew what was going to happen. We would typically do this as an
excercise on the first "pattern" flight of the flight review. On the ground, we
would then have a productive discussion about that signal

Vaughn

For what it's worth I offer this suggestion to soaring pilots and
CFIGs:

In light of the common confusion over the "wing-rock vs rudder-wag"
signals, as a CFIG I have taught to think of the Rudder-Wag as a "SLAP
IN THE FACE" signal to wake up, pay attention, ... something is
wrong. The "visual" of a rudder slapping your face seems to catch
on. Pilots that I have given that memory aide to seem to remember it
clearly, hopefuly reducing the chance of confusing it with the
"Release" signal in a real emergency.

Please consider that approach.

Rudder-Wag = "SLAP IN THE FACE"

Curt Lewis - 95
Genesis 2
SGS 1-26B

Interesting discussion, but I think that most of the commenters have
missed the point.

The issue isn't the failure of the towpilot or the glider pilot to do
the right thing. And it certainly isn't about radios.

The issue is why, after all these years, have we failed to teach
something that seems so basic? And, make no mistake, we have
certainly failed. The towplane rudder waggle has been directly
responsible for two fatalities!

I can think of only two explanations:

1. We have suddenly lost the ability to teach tow signals, or

2. Creating a second "urgent" message from the towpilot was a bad
idea. Humans don't deal well with urgent messages.

The latter seems more plausible.

It's time to drop the rudder waggle from the list of standard
signals. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but experience has
proven otherwise. We should go back to the old way of dealing with
the situation: drag the glider up to circuit height and release it
overhead. If that isn't possible, just release the glider. Granted,
it's not a very satisfactory plan, but it sure beats suffering these
tragic, stupid, avoidable fatal accidents.

-Pat

On Jul 22, 6:38*pm, CLewis95 wrote:
For what it's worth I offer this suggestion to soaring pilots and
CFIGs:

In light of the common confusion over the "wing-rock vs rudder-wag"
signals, as a CFIG I have taught to think of the Rudder-Wag as a "SLAP
IN THE FACE" signal to wake up, pay attention, ... something is
wrong. *The "visual" of a rudder slapping your face seems to catch
on. *Pilots that I have given that memory aide to seem to remember it
clearly, hopefuly reducing the chance of confusing it with the
"Release" signal in a real emergency.

Please consider that approach.

Rudder-Wag = "SLAP IN THE FACE"

Curt Lewis - 95
Genesis 2
SGS 1-26B

I like that! SLAP IN THE FACE! PAY ATTENTION! May I use that?

We have radios, radios fail or get "walked on" when you need them.
We teach "rudder wag" above 250 ft, just in case the student makes the
wrong decision and releases.
We also teach the "wave off". Our DPE has been known to pre coordinate
with the tow pilot for a signal during a check ride.

T -CFIG

On Jul 22, 6:34*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
"Darryl Ramm" wrote in message

...

It's been a few years since I was an active CFIG, but we tested the rudder
waggle on every flight review. I don't recall anyone failing to release when
they got the waggle except for a few cases when they were briefed immediately
before the flight.. As far as I can see, the signal is well intended, but a
complete failure.

Vaughn

Uh I assume that was an unintended typo and you meant failing to
release when they got the rock-off signal?

Nope, I meant just what I said. *Virtually all pilots did the wrong thing,
(released when the got the rudder waggle) unless they were briefed right before
the flight and knew what was going to happen. *We would typically do this as an
excercise on the first "pattern" flight of the flight review. *On the ground, we
would then have a productive discussion about that signal

Vaughn

Thanks. Jeez that is sad. I totally advocate the tow pilot doing
nothing if low and that is possible, then radio, then rudder fan if
needed....

Darryl

The most fundamental problem is that we invented too many towplane
signals. Consider if there were only one signal, then there could
never be this fatal problem of misinterpretation. The signal should
simply be "tow problem". If I get a "tow problem" signal from the
tug, I look to see if the tow problem is coming from my end of the
rope (check dive brakes). If it is, I immediately correct the
problem. If the tow problem is not at my end of the rope, it must be
at the tugs end. In which case, I wait until I am certain that I can
make a safe return to the field and then I release.

What need have we for more than one signal?

Originally Posted by T8

On Jul 22, 1:33*pm, Bill D wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:14*am, Ramy wrote:

Folks, the problem is not just lack of knowledge or practice,

Sorry, that's EXACTLY what it is. *Blaming human psychology is a cop
out.

Learning to fly is overcoming panic reactions and misguided natural
instincts.

Thread winner, right there.

-T8

I'd second the above on both counts. In my time gliding I have seen all to often the emergency procedures glossed over and not properly and effectively trained UNTIL they become ingrained, automatic responses.

Colin