Letter to the FAA

Originally Posted by [_1_]

There are treatments for PTSD that don't involve the FAA.

The odds of anything rational and positive coming from involving .GOV is really poor.

Please tell me what treatment is available to a dead tow pilot who tried to release a glider with a Schweizer hook and died as a result of a well documented flaw of that release?

Walt

Originally Posted by Tango Eight

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 2:43:07 PM UTC-4, Walt Connelly wrote:

I would think the same Tom but apparently the SSA is less concerned with
safety and more concerned with who is and who is not a member of the
club. But for that matter every club and commercial operation out there
still flying with Schweizer hooks and release handles not immediately
accessable by the tow pilot are not concerned with safety either.

Walt

So you weren't concerned with safety, either, until very recently?

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, I would say that your thought process needs some work.

Walt

Originally Posted by

Why should the SSA engage with a nonmember who seeks to increase government regulation of soaring? Keeping the government out of soaring is the SSA's job. Walt is no different than a farmer mcnastyneighbor trying to shut down a gliderport. I know the response, save your safety talk for your wives.. Walt ain't about safety. Walt is about bitterness and revenge via bureaucracy warfare.
Sounds to me as if Mr. Northcutt needs to find another job where he could be a bit more effective and concerned about the overall safety issues involved. Walt, go straight to OK, City, I can assure you that the response will be different.

For that VERY reason Mr Ballou. The SSA has very few teeth but it appears that what teeth it has is unconcerned with this condition. If the SSA was truly interested in keeping the FAA out of soaring then the SSA would be doing everything possible to correct conditions which would bring the SSA and Soaring to the attention of the FAA. Had the rope not broken, how much attention do you think the FAA would be giving to SLGP and the SSA.

You do not know me and I can assure you I was quite pleased at being terminated. I had decided to leave the first day I was back when the manager and VP showed up. I was appalled at their response and the push back I received. If bitterness and revenge was in the cards a simple phone call to the local FAA office would have done the trick. I saw an a--hole do that in the past, I have NO intention of acting like him.

I understand that by the time my facility ordered three Tost rings they were on a 3 week back order. Perhaps my comments on this board woke up more than one operator? I hope so.

Have a great day.

Walt

Walt

At 12:56 11 June 2017, Walt Connelly wrote:

[_1_ Wrote:
;948656']There are treatments for PTSD that don't involve the
FAA.

The odds of anything rational and positive coming from
involving .GOV is
really poor.

Please tell me what treatment is available to a dead tow pilot who
tried
to release a glider with a Schweizer hook and died as a result of a
well
documented flaw of that release?

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

From another thread it has been confirmed that in Australia low tow
is the standard position behind the tug.
Does using low tow offer a solution to the ring jam with a Schweizer
hook given that there is almost no chance of glider getting too high
behind the tug?
Tug upsets should be almost unknown in Australia, are they? If they
are it would seen that we could easily increase tug safety at no cost
whatsoever and do away with the need for expensive modification to
tugs.
Is there a cogent argument against using low tow? The only
difference that I can see, from a tuggies point of view is that he will
find it more difficult to see the glider. Is that important?
Of course the reverse applies, the glider can always see the tug.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:45:04 UTC+10, Don Johnstone wrote:

From another thread it has been confirmed that in Australia low tow
is the standard position behind the tug.

Definitely. All our training from the first tow is in low position for climb. We'll go high if doing a cross-country tow, and some clubs use high tow for the first couple of hundred feet of the launch, but low is our teaching here.

There is, however, a second factor: All gliders have been mandated to have nose hooks installed when brought into the country. This was instituted in mid 80's after a couple of upset accidents resulting in multiple deaths. It is rare to see a glider with only a belly release. Mandated nose releases as a local requirement were removed a couple of years ago as CS22 effectively mandated them for aerotow certification anyway. No need to duplicate the rules.

Also, I believe Schweizer tow hooks here are illegal. I've only ever seen TOSTs on tugs here. Don't quote me on that though. I've been doing a quick search while writing this up and can't find out either way.

Does using low tow offer a solution to the ring jam with a Schweizer
hook given that there is almost no chance of glider getting too high
behind the tug?
Tug upsets should be almost unknown in Australia, are they?

I haven't heard of one in the last 30 years or so (I started gliding in 1987). There's been a few ground loops from wing drops in paddocks on CG releases, but nothing resulting in a tug pilot looking at the ground due to kiting.

The belief that low-tow significantly reduces the risk of sling-shot tug
upsets is mistaken. The trigger is if the glider pitches up to about 30
degrees above the line of the rope. Being in low-tow when that happens
simple makes the sunsequent event take about half a second longer - not
enough extra time to greatly increase the chance of releasing before the
critical point.

At 08:42 20 June 2017, Justin Couch wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:45:04 UTC+10, Don Johnstone wrote:

From another thread it has been confirmed that in Australia low tow=20
is the standard position behind the tug.

Definitely. All our training from the first tow is in low position for
clim=
b. We'll go high if doing a cross-country tow, and some clubs use high
tow
=
for the first couple of hundred feet of the launch, but low is our
teaching=
here.=20

There is, however, a second factor: All gliders have been mandated to
have
=
nose hooks installed when brought into the country. This was instituted
in
=
mid 80's after a couple of upset accidents resulting in multiple deaths.
It=
is rare to see a glider with only a belly release. Mandated nose
releases=
as a local requirement were removed a couple of years ago as CS22
effectiv=
ely mandated them for aerotow certification anyway. No need to duplicate
th=
e rules.=20

Also, I believe Schweizer tow hooks here are illegal. I've only ever seen
T=
OSTs on tugs here. Don't quote me on that though. I've been doing a
quick
=
search while writing this up and can't find out either way.=20

Does using low tow offer a solution to the ring jam with a Schweizer=20
hook given that there is almost no chance of glider getting too high=20
behind the tug?=20
Tug upsets should be almost unknown in Australia, are they?=20

I haven't heard of one in the last 30 years or so (I started gliding in
198=
7). There's been a few ground loops from wing drops in paddocks on CG
relea=
ses, but nothing resulting in a tug pilot looking at the ground due to
kiti=
ng.

At 13:38 20 June 2017, Chris Rollings wrote:
The belief that low-tow significantly reduces the risk of sling-shot tu
upsets is mistaken. The trigger is if the glider pitches up to about 3
degrees above the line of the rope. Being in low-tow when that
happen
simple makes the sunsequent event take about half a second longer
- no
enough extra time to greatly increase the chance of releasing before
th
critical point.

That may be so Chris, but would the start of the sequence be more
obvious to both the glider and towplane pilot? In low tow the tug is
definitely above the glider, the divergent situation should be more
immediately recognisable.

I accept that the statistics in Australia may be skewed by the
requirement for a nose hook but do they show a decrease in the
number of tug upsets?

Is it not worth some study? Are there other challenges to the use of
low tow instead of high tow? Is a procedure which is only marginally
safer still a valid consideration?

The argument that low tow might substantially decrease the chances of tug upsets is limited. As was pointed out by a previous poster this might only increase the chance to react by half a second. My personal experience is that in a sudden kiting situation it's happened before you could react. If it is a slowly evolving circumstance you might have a chance to release. There is an altitude below which the outcome will be disastrous no matter what kind of hook is being used.

In my two experiences both gliders had nose hooks. While the CG hook might enhance the kiting incident the nose hook requirements are not going to eliminate it. While I am all for extra training and vigilance the bottom line is that the human element is still in the picture and humans make mistakes even with the best of training. One moment of failure to pay attention on the part of the glider pilot can result in the death or serious injury of the tow pilot.

The Schweizer hook is well documented to be incapable of releasing the glider under certan circumstances. The Tost hook on the other hand does not seem to have these limitations. In virtually every document I have read regarding this it states, "In some towhook systems, the high pressure loading on the towhook causes towhook seizure, and the tow pilot may not be able to release the towline from the towplane. This situation can be critical if it occurs at altitudes below 500 feet above ground level (AGL). Upon losing sight of the towplane, the glider pilot must release immediately." For this reason it is beyond my ability to comprehend why Schweizer hooks are still in use. At a minimum they should be inverted and the release handle should be such that olympic level calesthenics are not necessary for actuation.

My letter is nearing completion and I fully intend to submit it to the FAA. Will it cause disruption to the sport? Perhaps, but the fact is that the SSA and their assigns have demonstrated to me that they are unwilling to step forward in the name of safety and act.

Walt

Step away from this Walter. Establish your own limitation, what you will accept.
Allow others the same. Trust me on this.

Romeo

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 9:43:20 PM UTC+3, Walt Connelly wrote:
The argument that low tow might substantially decrease the chances of
tug upsets is limited. As was pointed out by a previous poster this
might only increase the chance to react by half a second. My personal
experience is that in a sudden kiting situation it's happened before you
could react. If it is a slowly evolving circumstance you might have a
chance to release. There is an altitude below which the outcome will be
disastrous no matter what kind of hook is being used.

In my two experiences both gliders had nose hooks. While the CG hook
might enhance the kiting incident the nose hook requirements are not
going to eliminate it. While I am all for extra training and vigilance
the bottom line is that the human element is still in the picture and
humans make mistakes even with the best of training. One moment of
failure to pay attention on the part of the glider pilot can result in
the death or serious injury of the tow pilot.

The Schweizer hook is well documented to be incapable of releasing the
glider under certan circumstances. The Tost hook on the other hand does
not seem to have these limitations. In virtually every document I have
read regarding this it states, "In some towhook systems, the high
pressure loading on the towhook causes towhook seizure, and the tow
pilot may not be able to release the towline from the towplane. This
situation can be critical if it occurs at altitudes below 500 feet above
ground level (AGL). Upon losing sight of the towplane, the glider pilot
must release immediately." For this reason it is beyond my ability to
comprehend why Schweizer hooks are still in use. At a minimum they
should be inverted and the release handle should be such that olympic
level calesthenics are not necessary for actuation.

My letter is nearing completion and I fully intend to submit it to the
FAA. Will it cause disruption to the sport? Perhaps, but the fact is
that the SSA and their assigns have demonstrated to me that they are
unwilling to step forward in the name of safety and act.

Like others here, I don't have any expectation that involving the FAA will have any good results, and almost certainly not net good results. Quite the opposite.

If I were you, I'd send off a few dozen friendly and informative letters with your experiences and concerns addressed to "The Chief Tow Pilot" at every US gliding organisation I could find the address of.