Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

topic: Matt Taber (5 articles)

Talking about silos

Thu, Nov 19 2009, 9:20:25 am PST

Matt Taber finds fault with my judgment about the USHPA plans for competition

Foundation for Free Flight|Matt Taber|record|Steve Kroop|USHGA|USHPA

Matt Taber has taken me to task for my article on the USHPA Competition Committee proposals for the future structure of the USHPA Competition and Event System found here. He has challenged me to review my article and look at where the positives about the proposed program might lie. He is concerned that there have been countless volunteer hours put into these proposals (and others) and that because I have pointed out what I see as negatives, volunteers will be discouraged. That the USHPA relies on volunteer efforts and if I'm always pointing out the problems, the USHPA may not be able to count of them in the future.

He is concerned that a small percentage of USHPA members are involved in the current USHPA competition program, and that this needs to be extended to encourage more participation. That all of us see that extending the reach of competition could encourage membership retention (and therefore aid growth in membership). That cross country flying is the most prevalent form of advanced pilot flight and that having a national cross country champion based on a points system would be a very good thing. That aerobatic competition and speed gliding create interest and make our sports visible.

Matt wants me to list the benefits of the proposals, before I listing what I find wasteful about them. He sees this as a more balanced and fair approach, in the original meaning of those terms (until they were turned into their opposite by Faux News). Matt would like it if I were more positive, if I broadcast the good news, and was not "unbalanced, biased, and contentious."

He states that the USHPA has gone from 10,000 hang gliding members in 1999 to 5,000 ten years later and that clearly the leadership of the USHPA is trying its best to correct that slide. He wants my help in taking on that task, instead of engaging in "the constant undeserved criticism and toxic reporting."

Well, first of all my thanks to Matt for taking the time and making the effort to write to me about these deeply felt issues. I consider Matt to be one of the good guys, a BOD member who has made the effort to understand the issues about the current USHPA competition program and to protect the existing system from unwarranted intrusions. I certainly take his criticism seriously even if I in part disagree with it.

Let me go back and, out of the heat of the battle and on the line reporting, look at first where this all came from, the 2005 USHGA Strategic Plan:

Flying Events

Fly-Ins and competitions provide USHGA many opportunities for all aspects of the strategic plan. For internal marketing, flying events are a significant factor in promoting an overall sense of community and should not be understated.

More competitions at the local and regional level need to be fostered and encouraged. This will require examination of USHGA's current competition structure with evaluation and modification to focus on growth of the sports. Fly-ins also need to be fostered and encouraged at the local level.

Action: Competition Committee to work with Membership and Development Committee to develop programs to increase the number of fly-ins and unsanctioned "fun" competitions.

Action: Competition Committee to develop program to increase the number of sanctioned competitions, focusing on Regional and National Level. This includes a comprehensive review of the USHGA Competition System and how it can be revised to support the long term goals of the Association.

Timeline: Status Report to EC by August 2006 Conference Call. Competition Committee to have action plan developed for presentation at Spring 2007 BOD Meeting. Finalized version of plan to be presented at Fall BOD Meeting with implementation starting January 1, 2008.

The current proposal from the Competition Committee for dividing up our competition program is the latest response to the second action item above. Here again is the graphic that displays the overall structure:

This chart was originally produced in September by the Competition Workgroup, according to my sources. It was produced in recognition that there was just too much resistance to the proposed changes to the NTSS and that it was best to separate out other types of competition from Race to Goal types of competition.

You can find the complete Competition Workgroup proposal to the BOD here: a power point display, http://bit.ly/3aZ4bQ.

I support this proposal. I think (and wrote earlier) that it is an excellent idea to keep separate types of competition separate. That is doesn't make much sense to try to shoe horn in "open distance" competitions with race to goal type competitions. That both are valid competition types, and that both provide great tests of our pilots' hang gliding skills.

Unlike some pilots, I also wrote (long before this proposal came to light) that it was quite legitimate to have a national champion based on an "open distance" competition and that "open distance" competitions were a completely legitimate form of competition.

So let me state again (and repeat myself) that I support the proposal and appreciate the effort that went into creating it and salute the Competition Workgroup for coming up with it.

Let me state that I support open distance flying. I, like Matt, think that it is advanced flight and I certainly support it as can be seen from my efforts since 2000 with the World record Encampment, with my position as meet organizer for the Chelan Cross Country Classic in the late nineties, and from my long history of encouragement of cross country flying.

I support the idea of a national cross country champion, a national aerobatic champion, and even though it isn't mentioned, a national speed gliding champion, and even a national on-line contest champion. I think that it would be great to be able to do this. I think that it could be done.

I also support local competitions and encourage more of them. Local competitions and Sport Class are excellent ways to bring new pilots into competitions (of all kinds).

Now let's look back at my article about this chart and the Competition Workgroup presentation and evaluate it. It sure looks really negative, and it sure doesn't seem to reflect the statements I'm making above. What's going on here?

In that article I am focusing on one thing, to the detriment, no doubt of the big picture: the money. The money and the process that the Competition Workgroup has proposed to go about implementing this proposal. In my narrow focus about the implementation plan, I ignore (no doubt to my peril) the proposal itself. What is the implementation plan:

Motion to direct the Competition Committee to organize a Symposium for Competitions and Events as soon as practicable and not later than 4/30/10 as said symposium is described in the Competition Work Group Presentation to USHPA’s Board of Directors in its presentation of 11/12/09. And, to authorize up to $500 per participant and $7,000 total for the reimbursement of reasonable expenses of its participants associated with attending this symposium.

How here is where I found the problem. But first let me say, as Matt asks, what I liked about this proposal. Well, I liked the fact that the USHPA was putting money into competition and thereby supporting competition. Okay?

Now, what is problematic?

1) Why a symposium? Why not a virtual get together with no travel expenses and no outlay of $500/participant? Couldn't that work as well or better?

2) Why not use a small portion of the money to hire someone to set up a USHPA supported HOLC (hang gliding on-line contest) for the US, each region, each flying site that wanted one?

3) Why not find the influencers in each competition type and ask them if they think that a national program would be helpful? Would it encourage participation in the Chelan Cross Country Classic, for example, or the King Mountain meet?

4) Why not use a small portion of the money to implement Team Challenge type events at suitable sites around the country?

5) Why not hire someone part time to network a bit, see who is doing local competitions, get the lay of the land so to speak, determine what competitions are out there locally (Steve Kroop says that there are about 30 each year) and see what they want in the way of support from the USHPA?

6) How about shelling out a little prize money to the King Mountain meet and the CXCC to encourage participation?

7) Why not appoint chairmen of each of the subcommittees of the Competition Committee devoted to each of the competition types and let them organize their sub-committees of pilots interested in those sports to come up with programs?

8) Why not encourage a bottom up approach contacting pilots out in the community and let them design a program?

I have pointed out previously that the USHPA doesn't put any money into their competition program, and that the competition pilots put all the money into it. I have also pointed out at the USHPA doesn't put any money into the National team.

Brad Hall has pointed out to me that in fact the USHPA does have a matching fund program for national team fees at the Worlds. When you turn in your membership renewal you can donate to the fund over at the Foundation for Free Flight and that donation is matched by the USHPA. I don't have any idea how much money the USHPA puts into this matching fund each year. So the USHPA does indeed support the national team at the Worlds, just not the USHPA Competition Program.

So when I see $7,000 going to fix up the competition program, it galls me a bit. The existing competition program didn't have to pay the expenses of the volunteers that created it to create it. They created it based on an obvious need coming from the competition pilots who were clamoring for a fix to the situation. It was a bottom up process.

This is a top down (and bureaucratic) process. There may be a demand from the pilots, but I don't see it. I see Dennis trying to deal with three or four aerobatic pilots who may have wanted to go to the 2009 World Air Games. I see pilots flying in "open distance" competitions enjoying themselves and not worrying about a national program. Maybe they are, but I don't see it. They didn't send in a petition to the board asking for a national program, for example.

I believe that things should be real. If there is a manifest need, then let's fill it. If we are making empty silos, what's the point?

I don't want our volunteers to waste their time. I want them to do constructive tasks. I want to help keep them from wasting their time. By pointing out constructive alternatives (which I have done time and time again) I hope to make better use of everyone's time. What could be more positive than that?

I agree with Matt that my article was unfair and unbalanced. That it dwelt just on the negative aspects of the proposal. That it only provided two alternatives and they were not fully thought out.

I hope that this follow up article (and the dozens of other articles that I have written on this subject) has addressed his concerns. While I believe that he has fairly characterized that particular article, he has been neither fair nor balanced when looking at the big picture. I'll assume that he just wanted to make me see how it feels to be the brunt of unstinting criticism.

I have been assiduous when it comes to making critiques of the proposals before the USHPA that I not just criticize but provide plausible alternative motions. I understand that these are the efforts of volunteers, so I am careful to volunteer my thinking and proposals and not just be negative. I'm sorry that Matt, who has read many of my emails on this issue, has neglected to remember that.

Fatality Report

Learning from an aerotowing accident from last year

Mike Haas

Tue, Aug 30 2005, 2:00:00 pm GMT

accident|aerotow|Angelo Mantas|bridle|cart|Dave Whedon|Dragonfly|equipment|fatality|foot launch|HG & PG Magazine|Matt Taber|Mike Haas|Moyes Litesport|Moyes Xtralite|safety|tail|tow|tug|ultralite|winch

Angelo Mantas «Angelomant» writes:

Analysis - Mike Haas Fatality

Scenario - Mike’s accident happened during midday thermal conditions. He was flying a Moyes 147 Litesport, aerotowing it off of a launch dolly. Several witnesses saw the accident, but I give Dave Whedon’s account the most weight, because a) He saw the entire event, from start to finish, and b) He was watching several tows intently to see what conditions were like, since he hadn’t towed in a while.

The tug was given the “go” signal. Dave said that almost as soon as Mike launched off the cart, he appeared to be having difficulty with both pitch and roll control. Then, at around 50' - 60’, the glider pitched up radically and started arcing to the left. Somewhere around this time the weak link broke, or the pilot released. The glider continued rotating left and dove into the ground, first hitting the left wing tip, then nose. The glider’s pitch was near vertical on impact, confirmed by the fact that the control bar, except for a bend in one downtube, was basically intact, whereas the keel and one leading edge snapped just behind the nose plate junction. This all happened fairly quickly. Based on witness and tug pilot accounts, the glider was never over 100’.

Despite help reaching him almost instantly, attempts to revive him proved futile. Mike suffered a broken spinal cord and was probably killed instantly.

Causes - In examining the circumstances surrounding the accident, it seems to me that several factors, which by themselves might not cause major problems, combined to lead to Mike's losing control of the glider.

1) New, high performance glider.

2) Larger size glider than what he was used to.

3) A fast flying tug (Kolb)

4) Flying through a thermal just after launching.

5) A rearward keel attachment point on the “V” bridle.

Mike had only one previous flight on his new Litesport, in laminar coastal ridge soaring conditions. Although he flew over two hours, he probably never flew the glider at the speeds encountered when aerotowing. Mike had many aerotows on a Moyes Xtralite, but according to Matt Taber, the Litesport doesn’t track as well at high speed. The Litesport was also bigger than his Xtralite, which would make it less responsive and harder to control.

The tug used was a Kolb ultralight. Although this tug had an increased wing span than normal Kolbs, it still tows at a higher speed than a Dragonfly. I can tell you from my own experience that it is harder to tow behind a faster tug.

Soon after launching, the glider and tug flew through a strong thermal. This is confirmed by witnesses watching the tug, and the tug pilot’s reporting a strong spike in climb rate.

Here is where some controversy might come in: on examining the wreckage, Arlan (tug pilot) saw where the upper “V” bridle was attached, and immediately felt that that was a possible cause of the accident. It was attached at the hang point, and in his opinion, was too far back for a stable tow. Since then, there has been debate on whether or not that was a safe attachment point. That positioning on the keel was recommended to him by the seller, and apparently many other pilots have towed a Litesport from the same position. Shortly after the accident, some pilots in Wisconsin did an aerotow of a Litesport from slightly behind the hang point, and reported it towed fine.

I agree with Arlan that the upper bridle attachment point contributed to the accident. The test done in Wisconsin was done early in the morning in stable conditions, and the pilot weighed 50 more pounds than Mike. Just because others have managed to tow with this upper bridle position, doesn’t mean it’s safe, especially for pilots on the light end of the weight range.

To sum up, Mike was flying a glider that was bigger than what he was used to, with less stability at the higher speeds needed to stay behind the Kolb. Even with Mike’s hang gliding experience, these factors would tax his abilities. These difficulties would be magnified by the de-stabilizing effect of the rearward keel bridle attachment and the faster speed of the Kolb tug. Already struggling (as witnesses state), when Mike hit the thermal, a difficult situation became impossible. Mike lost control, and either locked out or stalled, leading to his dive into the ground.

How can we prevent this from happening in the future?

A proper keel attachment would have made the glider fly faster without a lot of bar pressure. It also would have made the glider more stable in yaw, because the tow force would be farther in front of the CG. My own experience has been that since moving my keel attachment further forward, tows are much more stable.

Using a tail fin - Tail fins definitely help stabilize gliders on aerotow, especially high performance gliders that may be less stable in yaw. A too rearward keel bridle attachment can be overcome with a fin. Many aerotow parks use tail fins on their demo gliders. The downside to fins is that they can make thermaling difficult on many gliders, but they can still be a valuable tool to make your glider safer while you figure out where your keel bridle attachment should be.

First tows of new gliders in smooth conditions. It is much easier to aerotow a new glider when the air is smooth. Learn how the glider tows in calm air, make any equipment adjustments necessary, then later tow in midday, thermal air.

Practice flying your glider fast before aerotowing it. If you foot launch or static tow your glider, you can literally fly for years without ever flying at the speeds involved with aerotowing. Even platform/payout winch towing doesn't involve those speeds. Practice pulling in the bar and keep it there. Easy? Now try to make a small heading correction and keep it. Good chance you’ll be PIOing all over. This kind of practice definitely pays off.

Wind streamers along runway. It’s agreed that Mike hit a strong thermal shortly after launching. Placing streamers on both sides of the runway, at regular intervals, would help detect if a thermal is coming through the takeoff area. If all the streamers are pointing the same way, it’s safe to launch. If some of the streamers start moving other directions or reversing, it’s obvious some kind of turbulence is coming through. This is not a new idea, it’s not expensive (wood stakes and surveyor's tape) yet I’ve never seen anyone do this. Maybe it’s time we start.

Mike was a Hang IV pilot with over twenty years experience. He was not a “hot dog” and was very safety conscious. No one who knew Mike could believe that this happened to him. Although I feel I have a better understanding now of what happened, I can’t help feeling that if this could happen to him, none of us are safe.

(editor's noticed: There was an earlier, and different accident report published in June in HG/PG Magazine.)

Discuss "Fatality Report" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Lookout Mountain Tugs

Thu, Apr 24 2003, 5:00:05 pm EDT

Dragonfly|FAA|flight park|Matt Taber|sport|Sport Pilot|towing

Matt Taber <fly@hanglide.com> writes:

Thanks for your letter of support and thank you for posting our distress. It looks as though we will not be towing with the Dragonfly until the new exemption comes out. I do not know what the county commissioners are going to do, although I am hopeful.

Please post my heartfelt thanks to the many individuals that took the time to write letters of support for the flight park. We deeply appreciate the effort. I am sure that it will help. I will post a follow up when I know what is going on.

Discuss the FAA, Sport Pilot, and flight parks at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Lookout Mountain Tugs" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Quest Demo Daze

Mon, Mar 24 2003, 8:00:07 pm GMT

beer|flight park|Matt Taber|Quest Air|Robert "Bob" Lane|XC

Bob Lane at Quest Air <questair@mpinet.com> writes:

Here is a list of the gliders we currently have on hand for demo.

Aeros has supplied us with a Combat 2, a Discus, Stalker and a Target 180.

Matt Taber from Lookout Mountain (the US Airborne distributor) personally delivered a Climax 13 and a Sting XC 154.

Icaro Master 14 and 12, Laminar MR 14 and 13, two full race MR 14s, and the single surface Relax.

Moyes confirmed that our brand new Litesport should be arriving today or tomorrow and we also now have a Litespeed 4.

We owe many thanks to all the wonderful people for helping us provide to the hang gliding public the opportunity fly the hottest machines available.

The Big Party Friday Night (April 28)!

Now you can enjoy 2 great parties in one weekend! Quest Air has arranged for live entertainment like no flight park has never seen, WESZT a Cell records recording artist will be performing around 8:00 on Friday evening. Their CD goes out for nationwide distribution in less than one week, now starting to get airplay all over the US and there is a hang glider pilot in the band, to hear a sample from WESZT go to www.weszt.com, there will also be FREE BEER AND BURGERS (and veggie burgers).

Discuss "Quest Demo Daze" at the Oz Report forum   link»

US Speed Gliding Nationals »

Mon, Sep 16 2002, 9:00:00 am GMT

Bo Hagewood|Bob Lane|Chris "Hawkeye" Giardina|Dean Funk|Henry Bittner|Jen Richards|Jim Prahl|John Borton|Kendrick "Ken/Kenny" Brown|Mark Bolt|Matt Taber|Rob Kells|Robert "Bob" Lane|Russell "Russ" Brown|Scot Huber|Scot Trueblood|Scott Angel|Scott Trueblood|speed gliding|Steve Kroop|US Speed Gliding Nationals 2002

Scot Trueblood <Hang4av8r@aol.com> writes:

The U.S. National Speedgliding Championships, at beautiful Lookout Mountain,GA came to a conclusion Sunday with a bang rather than the expected weather-induced whimper.

Name Glider Total
Scott Angel Talon 143 5946
Bo Hagewood Combat 145 5907
Ken Brown Litespeed4 5833
Henry Bittner Litespeed4 5625
Chris Giardina Laminar 13 5204
Jim Prahl Litespeed4 5165
Bob Lane Laminar 14 5050
Gauthier De Levizac Climax 14 4761
Dean Funk Talon 150 4444
Luiz Neubauer Laminar 13 4183
Pete Welch Talon 143 4149
Mike Thieke Talon 143 3289
Thad Miller Litespeed 5 3019
Mark Bolt Stealth 151 1692

After good practice flying Wednesday and 3 very good valid rounds Thursday, the weather closed in for the next 2 days due to the effects of hurricane Hanna moving inland. Winds over the back and considerable rainfall squelched even the possibility of aerotowing, and Sunday started out looking much the same. However, patience proved to be a virtue as we kept the pilots and volunteer course officials on hold, hoping for even a brief window and the possibility of one more round. What happened was beyond our wildest expectations.

Winds were calm in the LZ and the ceiling was lifting, so I decided to check conditions from the top. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the rain had stopped, the winds over the back were very light, and the visibility was improving. We mobilized the forces and in less than an hour were ready to begin.

As winds were still persisting over the back, we elected to run the alternate course, which involves a start above the normal low-fly start gate and sends the fliers away from the ridge to a turnpoint over the flag in the Lookout LZ, thereby avoiding any potential rotor encounters. The pilots already had some practice on this course as well as 2 timed runs on it, so the round went off without a hitch. This course is not as technically demanding as the "A" course, but allows safe speedgliding in slightly textured air. It is not quite as steep either, and presents a whole new set of challenges as speed management and efficiency become paramount. The final turn into finish is quite exciting with proper turnpoint and gate clearance being essential to getting a good score. To nobody's surprise, Scott Angel won the round, followed by Ken Brown, Chris Giardina, and Bo Hagewood.

After a brief intermission, the conditions had improved even more and it was decided to fly the "A" course for the next round. This is what we all came for, and the excitement level was starting to build as the fliers prepared to sink their teeth into a big filet of perfect racing air. The round was again taken by Scott Angel with a time of 1:07.6, which translates into an average speed of 65.6 mph. This was Scott's fourth run in a row with a time of1:07, once again displaying the type of robotic consistency he is known for. He was closely followed by Ken Brown at 1:08.2 and a hard-charging Bo Hagewood at 1:09.5.

The next round saw identical conditions but Bo pulled a rabbit out of his hat and turned the tables on Scott by occupying the 1:07.4 time slot with Scott slipping up to a time of 1:08.3 and Kenny missing his start gate. This left the number 3 slot open to Henry Bittner and his now world famous start-gate dives, resulting in a time of 1:10.6. Henry amazed everybody watching at launch with his 70° dives from 300 feet above, definitely even a notch better than John Borton's screaming launch dives which helped win him the Championship last year. The idea of the low-fly start gate is to get everybody into the course at the same altitude and position, and a high speed dive puts you there with a lot of energy stored. Chris "Halkeye" Giardina had a slightly faster raw time of 1:09.7, but a partial miss of the turn 2 pylon cost him a 5 second penalty and put him in a respectable 4th place for the round.

The conditions kept improving and I decided to keep them racing until they begged me to stop, which proved to be the case. Round 4 saw some interesting developments with the fast time being torn off by the fangs of Kenny "Wolfdog" Brown at 1:07.3. It was a squeaker with Bo also wanting a taste of the glory at 1:07.7. Henry was getting more than just his launch dives working right and nailed it at 1:08.2, his fastest run of the contest. Scott had a relatively poor run of 1:09.4, his worst of the meet which was still considerably faster than 10 other fliers’ best. After this round, they had all started to become crybabies about the fact that everybody's arms had turned to rubber and they were hungry, so it was decided to take a one hour break for everybody to refuel and hit the restroom. The course officials needed it just as bad as the pilots.

The overcast had worked in our favor all day by keeping a lid on any thermal development, and when the tugs fired up again at about3:15 the flying conditions were still smooth and calm. Amazingly, this turned out to be the fastest round of the entire meet. This was Bo's turn to howl as he rocketed through the course with a 1:05.4, with Kenny nipping at his heels at 1:05.9. Scott's Talon was ripping up the leftovers with a 1:06.8, and Henry wasn't exactly dragging his feet at 1:08.3.

By this time it was late and we knew it was time to start scoring the day or the awards ceremony would be atmidnight, and the pilots were on strike, this time parking their gliders at their respective camps rather than staging at the tow paddock. It had been a long & very successful day of speedgliding and everybody involved was pretty well whupped but deliriously happy for the unexpected extra rounds.

When the dust settled there were 8 rounds of speedgliding on the books, allowing us to drop the low score and high score for each flier. The suspense for your dutiful meet director and his assistant Jen Richards was almost unbearable. When the scores were finalized, it was Scott Angel once again being the victor along with the spoils, which included a beautiful traveling trophy already engraved with the name of last year's champion, John Borton. We didn't want him to travel home with a light load, so we also heaped on a very niceFirst Place plaque and a fairly hefty paycheck in the amount of $1000.00 due to the generosity of Matt Taber. Mike Theeke, a fellow competitor, had also donated a very nice stained glass biplane which is actually a kaleidoscope and I'm sure will occupy a very special place in Scott's growing collection of prize booty. He has flying in his blood, being the third generation of the Angel clan to take to the skies, the first being his grandfather for whomAngelFalls is named.

The second place trophy and check for $500 went to Bo Hagewood who was trailing by a mere 39 points out of almost 6000. I knew going in that Bo would be a serious contender but frankly a little shocked by his audacious display of speed & finesse.

Third place also included a plaque and a $300 paycheck for Ken Brown, seeing Kenny flying fast and winning rounds doesn't surprise anybody. Only 74 points behind Bo, one more round of flying could have easily altered these top 3 standings in anybody's favor.

4th place was well deserved by Henry Bittner and won him a Flytec Windwatch handheld weather station, courtesy of our friend Steve Kroop of Flytec USA, as was the Altimeter Swiss Army Knife won by Chris Giardina for his 5th place showing. Thanks again to Steve & Flytec for his continued support of Speedgliding in theUS.

Lots of good swag was also donated by Rob Kells and crew from Wills Wing, Kenny Brown of MoyesAmerica, and numerous other contributors in the local community in the form of gift certificates and such. Much of it was given away in drawings which included pilots as well as the hard-working volunteers. There was something for just about everyone, and in the end, we all had a very fun time. Many thanks go to the tug pilots for keeping gliders in the air and on course with almost military precision. Eric Graper, Joel Finley, and Jim Richardson drove the LMFP Dragonflies, and a very generous Russell Brown donated his tug and services, which really kept the action moving.

In typicalLookoutMountain style, the camaraderie was great, the cookouts delicious, and the parties almost excessively fun. I can hardly wait for next year…!!!

Discuss "US Speed Gliding Nationals" at the Oz Report forum   link»