Cliff Hilty wrote [snip] "This happened with a Nose hook and student
pilot. I believe that the most
important factor in this disscussion is the lack of experience not
wether or not it is a nose or belly
or cg hook!"
- - - - -

As Bill Dean wrote much earlier in this thread, the BGA recommendations
after a series of these accidents and the Chris Rollings etc. tests
included:

"The operators' attention is drawn to the following factors which may
cumulatively contribute to a hazardous situation:

(a) Low experience of glider and/or tug pilot
(b) Gliders fitted with C of G hook only
(c) Glider's C of G towards the aft limit
(d) Turbulent air in the take-off area
(e) Rough ground in the take-off area
(f) Significant cross-wind component."

Note, 6 factors, in addition to rope length, not just the hook position
issue. At the same time, there was a poster produced which no-one now
seems to have a copy of. My recollection of it was that it listed these
6 factors and said that if more than one or two were present, it would
be wise not to undertake such a flight. To think that there is just one
factor and any of the others can be any which way is asking for trouble.

I have no idea why people are still arguing about it. We have almost
eliminated tug upset accidents in the UK since this and the "Low
High-tow" standardisation, yet some people think the BGA should have
done nothing except change rope lengths and maybe not even that, some
people think it can't happen to them, and some people think we did no
more than mandate nose hooks when it was not in fact mandated in the UK,
just encouraged where possible.

Seems to me that if people want to go on risking lives in other
countries, feel free - and tell the tug pilots' families you don't mind
being sued, having read about and ignored the entire series of
recommendations that seem to have largely eliminated this type of
fatality where it was researched.

Chris N.