The rudder waggle signal does not work

On Jul 22, 1:56*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:41*am, T8 wrote:

On Jul 22, 1:33*pm, Bill D wrote:

On Jul 22, 11:14*am, Ramy wrote:

Folks, the problem is not just lack of knowledge or practice,

Sorry, that's EXACTLY what it is. *Blaming human psychology is a cop
out.

Learning to fly is overcoming panic reactions and misguided natural
instincts.

Thread winner, right there.

-T8

No one argue against practice, but against a signal which does not
work in most cases and kills people. Yes, part of the solution is to
practice everything over and over again, perhaps every flight instead
of doing actual soaring, but why not use better methods to adress this
situation, such as radios? Every tow plane and every glider should
have an operating radio.
And if a radio call is not solving the problem, continue towing to a
safe altitude before giving a signal. In most situations a tow plane
can continue climbing slowly even with open spoilers. If this is not
the case, it is probably a real emergency and there may not be enough
time even for a signal.

Ramy

The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

I can't understand Japanese. That doesn't mean Japanese is an
unworkable language, it just means I can't understand it.
Fortunately, so far, my life hasn't depended on understanding
Japanese. My life certainly can depend on understanding the rudder
wag so I damn well understand it.

The real mystery, in fact the only mystery, is why anyone would pilot
a glider when they don't understand a life saving signal.

On Jul 22, 1:36*pm, Bill D wrote:
On Jul 22, 1:56*pm, Ramy wrote:





On Jul 22, 10:41*am, T8 wrote:

On Jul 22, 1:33*pm, Bill D wrote:

On Jul 22, 11:14*am, Ramy wrote:

Folks, the problem is not just lack of knowledge or practice,

Sorry, that's EXACTLY what it is. *Blaming human psychology is a cop
out.

Learning to fly is overcoming panic reactions and misguided natural
instincts.

Thread winner, right there.

-T8

No one argue against practice, but against a signal which does not
work in most cases and kills people. Yes, part of the solution is to
practice everything over and over again, perhaps every flight instead
of doing actual soaring, but why not use better methods to adress this
situation, such as radios? Every tow plane and every glider should
have an operating radio.
And if a radio call is not solving the problem, continue towing to a
safe altitude before giving a signal. In most situations a tow plane
can continue climbing slowly even with open spoilers. If this is not
the case, it is probably a real emergency and there may not be enough
time even for a signal.

Ramy

The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

I can't understand Japanese. *That doesn't mean Japanese is an
unworkable language, it just means I can't understand it.
Fortunately, so far, my life hasn't depended on understanding
Japanese. *My life certainly can depend on understanding the rudder
wag so I damn well understand it.

The real mystery, in fact the only mystery, *is why anyone would pilot
a glider when they don't understand a life saving signal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.
Following your example, we don't use Japanese when talking on the
radio (in the US), although there is nothing wrong with Japanese,
right?
IMHO, those who believe that they are safe since they practice and
never make mistakes are at the highest risk of accidents.

Ramy

The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?



Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.



Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

On Jul 22, 3:34*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.

Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

Yes, and the pragmatists know the moralists are wrong. :-)

Darryl

On Jul 22, 4:42*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:34*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:

The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.

Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

Yes, and the pragmatists know the moralists are wrong. :-)

Darryl

Right on Darryl
And as the following post demonstrates, moralists don't realize they
are wrong even when you show them the facts and explain over and
over..
I am happy to be a pragmatist, I think pragmatists are safer since
they know their limitations

On Jul 22, 4:34*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Perhaps you are perfect, but most of us are human, and human makes
mistakes with confusing signals under a stressfull situation.
The statistics confirms that.

Ah, the eternal argument between the Moralists ("Damn it, people
shouldn't make mistakes, so we should design our systems on the
assumption that people do not make mistakes"), and the Pragmatists
("People make mistakes all the time, so our systems must be designed to
minimize mistakes and their effects").

Nothing to do with morals or pragmatism but just people not learning
what they need to know to stay alive - which is very frustrating.

Radios are fine and I advocate them - but they can fail for a lot of
reasons. We will always need a backup visual signal and we have a
good one. Instructors need to do their job so pilots recognize it
when they see it. From now on it's the first question on a Flight
Review - if the pilot doesn't know the right answer, my signature
isn't going in their logbook.

No, I'm not perfect, I just read the manual - but that may be unusual.

The signal works perfectly - it can always be given and seen. *If the
human receiving the signal doesn't understand it, that's not the
signal's fault. *If the human can't understand a simple visual signal,
why would anyone suppose they could operate a radio correctly?

Over the years the rudder wag has been used to relay many things.I
once tried to steer a tow plane and got a rudder wag (meaning NO, I
will deliver you where I know the best lift can be found). For many
years, the rudder wag was used to indicate "Get off now dummy, you're
in a thermal". These little memories never go away, they are always
there hiding in little dusty corners of our minds. If you have left
the spoilers unlocked, the tow won't be going well. You know something
is wrong...................when you see a rudder wag, your memory can
pump out a bad snap reaction. This is exactly what happened to Joe at
Minden. The tow wasn't going well, he knew something was wrong and
probably suspected the tow planes engine wasn't putting out enough
power. Joe had a radio, but I suspect the battery had gone dead
sometime during the morning pattern tows. After repeatedly calling for
Joe to close his spoilers and just after clearing the wires at the end
of 30, the tow pilot gave the rudder wag. A CFI with thousands of
hours instructing, pulled the plug, turned 180 left and flew into the
wires. This accident should never have happened, but the point is, IT
DID!
How can we prevent it reaccurring?
+ Always do a com-check before every takeoff.
+ Never give the rudder wag below 1000 feet
+ Learn and use the proper signals.
My club is religious about com-checks and the tow pilot won't start
the tow until he gets a Canopy & Spoilers Closed & Locked, slack out,
JJ's ready for takeoff.