Winch Signals

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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