[jimrooney]

So.
We have pilots in this group that started at Wallaby. Some say they didn't have their hands on the bar on their initial flight. Fair enough... good to hear.

But we also have ones that say they did have their hands on the bar.

Not only this, we have video... very recent video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyZqX8SQE84

Sorry guys... this IS done at Wallaby.
This IS NOT done anywhere else.

For clarity... "This"... first time student, hands on the basebar, instructor with left hand on the upright.

I stand by my original assessment... this floors me.
Jim

[lostgriz]

I know that Wallaby has a great safety record, and I will be doing some flying with them myself in a couple weeks. However, when it comes to safety, nobody should be above constructive criticism.

[Wingspan34]

I was thinking of going to WW Demo Days this month, but my finances aren't looking good. However, if I were able to go, . . .

Well, I'm master rated (big woop!), I've taught hang gliding, and done truck towing (ATOL) and aerotowing (Cosmos trike) and I've got a modest number of tandems under my belt (but no longer hold that rating).

Given all that, I would not WANT to have any input during my first launch during my (as I understand it - required) tandem check out flight at Wallaby. I'd be unfamiliar with the glider, the site, and the tow method. I'd want to be CONSERVATIVE and SAFE on the first tow. Let the tandem pilot get the bird in the air!

In place of the above, I'd be happy to pilot my own wing, solo, on a mellow morning flight in order to demonstrate my skills.

But my point here is that, as a knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced hang glider pilot, I'd still want the tandem pilot to maintain total control during take off. Tandem rigs are sluggish and bears to fly. While generally low performance, they still aren't your average hang glider. Creating an opportunity for things to go wrong just doesn't make sense.

Heck, I'm kind of ashamed I didn't notice Wallaby's tandem technique during that Al Rocker video - from months (a year?) ago.

I'd also like to mention that it could easily be true that some unexpected cross wind picked up during the launch and THAT was what sent the glider off to the left. But you can't know that from the video, and there's nothing to say or do if that was the cause. That'd just be the (bad) luck of the draw.

But a newbie having the possibility of effective and negative control input IS A CLEAR POSSIBILITY from what we see in that (and at least one other) Wallaby tandem video.

Question: What would we all have said if that had happened during Al Roker's flight? Bad methods can reflect on the whole sport - particularly when tandems are involved!

[IcRus]

Thanks Rob McKenzie for your "Mature" Comments.
I think this thread is going the same place it did on the Other Report...
Some people here (JR) are BB Vultures waitng to bash Wallaby.
Let's try to keep this a discussion about what happened, what could have caused it, how can we learn from it....
I was also taught at WR and Steve was my instructor, I would love to hear from him..
Here are a few things to think about...

WR has a great safety record

Steve is a great instructor (Instructor of the year)

WR is the only AT training facility that I know of that restricts tandem to morning and evening (near perfect conditions). Some AT parks have over / under and yet will take up first timers in very turbulent conditions (to the point of puking)
just for the almighty dollar...

Even if you tell a new student (tourist) to hold onto the Instructors harness, what would keep them from grabbing the base tube in a panick attack during rollout? or even a down tube, sidewire?? What's next? handcuff them to your harness??

Both over/under and side by side have their advantages / disadvantages.

I guess my point is that things go wrong quickly as we see here, Steve did a great job....next.......

[Captian Matt]

AMEN!

[rfh12345]

I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up that he was awarded flight instructor of the year. He's a great guy and a great pilot. He does tandems all day long. It was a great save. Nobody got hurt. It doesn't even look like any equipment was really damaged.

When I was taking lessons, I think I had 3 training hill lessons and I wanted to cheat and get some real air time. The 5-10 second "flights" were such a tease, so I took a tandem. I was an actual student, midway through my progression, and I didn't touch the bar until a minute or so after we released at 2500 ft.

I was instructed on how things worked etc all the way up. I had my right arm across PIC's back, finger in a loop, my left hand holding another small loop on the PIC's left side, JUST like "wingspan" said.

When he gave me the bar he had my do some small turns, pull in for speed, out to slow, linked 180's, track a straight line etc. At about 1000' he took the bar back and I went into my previous position. I actually liked it that way as I didn't have to worry about anything and for a large portion of the flight I got to just lay there and take it all in. It was a great lesson and I think really helped me back on the training hill.

I personally wouldn't think a pilot should have their hands anywhere near the bar during take-off and landings until at least their 3rd time up and they should be an actual student working on their H-1. (but what do I know, I don't have zillions of hours and Wallaby does have an excellent track record, at least that I'm aware of)

It's still possible there was a failure of some type with the equipment and may have had nothing to do with anything else. We'll have to wait and see, but Wallaby prob should reassess it's training procedure. Steve is a great pilot though and the fact they walked away unscathed after pinning off so low and having to land downwind is surely proof of that. Great save Steve

[Windlord]

[sg]

I'm going to take a contrarian/statistical approach to this.

If I were a researcher studying hang gliding, tandem flying, proper instruction technique etc, what would I observe?


a) A flight park with a great safety record
b) A student on the basetube technique at this flight park
c) Another flight park with a great safety record, where the students are NOT on the basetube during early flights
d) A huge # of statistically significant tandem flights over a large # of years and passengers/students
--------------------------------------------------
Logical conclusion: New student on or off the basetube has no noteworthy correlation to safety.


Anything other than this is a mere assumption not supported by the facts.

If there was any real safety issue with this technique, it would have been reflected in the numbers when were talking about 10,000+ flights.

We can argue all day long that its a bad idea for reasons X,Y,Z, but if the stats dont support your reasons, then your reasons are flawed.

Often, things that seem like a good or bad idea on the surface, simply arent.

For the record: I learned with hands off the basetube at first.

[Rebardan]

sg thats exactly what I derived as well.
in the aerotow flight park environment, the probability of a disastrous outcome in either case is insignificant in the hands of competent tandem pilot in command.

[Sky_Walker]

I'm curious how would you go about checking the safety record for a given flight park. Are close calls documented by all flight parks or only accidents that result in an injury. Is there a even a standard for what is considered safe operation ??? Do all flight parks document "Incidents" in the same way ???

It seems like it would be pretty difficult to compare the safety record of two different flight parks. We all know that you can get away with doing things wrong for along time until if finally bites you. I'm totally clueless to what the regulations are in regards to reporting accidents and near accidents, any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

A quick check of a few websites shows that almost all flight parks claim an impeccable safety record. A google search doesnt really turn up much useful safety information for a total newbie.

[SlingBlade]

I think you have to be careful in justifying not taking safety precautions from "it hasn't killed many people yet". If you can make a change that logically should reduce risk, and has little cost, why not do it? It may not be very likely that a student will freak out at the wrong time and that the instructor wouldn't be able to recover, but it certainly could happen. The fact is accidents are so rare that there is no statistically significant way of determining safety precautions from statistics alone. You have to analyze incidents and determine the causes, and go from there.

[sg]

[SlingBlade]

The difference is that you can't make a reasoned argument that a pink ribbon can impact safety. My argument was against trying to use statistics alone to justify/not justify safety precautions. For your method to work it has to be something that greatly impacts safety to the point that it's killed a few people. That's not how any sane person would go about assessing risk.

There are plenty of things that we do that have almost no impact on safety but are done anyway because logically it could save a life. We have a backup strap even though you could easily go 10,000 flights without ever breaking the hang strap, especially if you replaced it frequently. In aerotow people carry hook knives even though it is very unlikely both a primary and secondary release would fail. We all carry parachutes even though non-acro pilots are very unlikely to ever deploy.

But at some point someone probably had a close call (or worse) and decided it was worth having that extra precaution. Even if it was "statistically insignificant".

[sg]

[chinchan]

Sooner or later... I feel this topic should be buried before it gets anymore out of hand...

[rafaelcjr]

[Wagner24314]

i learned at wallaby and i told my little brother thats where he was going to learn to fly.