Letter to the FAA

The problem with a letter the FAA as already noted is that while you have an outcome of the letter in mind the outcome may be significantly different than you expect. But writing a letter is quick, cheap, and easy.
Bad Regulations are often the result of Good intentions.
Better plan, ….
Start Identifying operations that should upgrade their equipment to safer equipment. i.e. Tost Hooks, moving Releasing handles. Insure there actually are options to upgrade i.e. 337’s available or better yet STC’s for doing so for the aircraft they are using.
IF 337’s or STC’s are not available assist in developing them.
Award a Safety Rating/award to operations that have made these improvements..
Contact manufacturers such as American Champion that still sell Schweitzer releases and encourage them to offer Tost Releases and improve the location of these factory release handles.
Contact Cessna and encourage them to offer Tost Releases as a factory option with appropriate release handles.
Start a Fund to help subsidize operations upgrades or to develop STC’s.
Contact the SSA and Volunteer to become a SSF volunteer to educate and develop all the above.
Of course, this is a lot more work than just writing a letter that will likely have limited positive effect and had the potential for negative consequences. But then is saving one life only worth just a letter to the FAA, or is it worth you paying to upgrade one or more towplanes for an operation, or spending a few days a year evaluating and educating soaring operations, raising funds, and developing the actual paperwork to do the upgrades?
Brian
CFIIG

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:43:10 PM UTC-4, Walt Connelly wrote:
Before I send my letter to the FAA I'd like to ask if anyone has ever
attempted to get them to see the light and end the use of Schweizer
hooks on tow planes here in the land of the free and the home of the
brave. It is a well known fact and clearly stated in the SSA/SSF and
FAA circulars and literature that under certain conditions (the exact
condition that the tow pilot will need to release) that it can be near
impossible to release the glider. Tow planes have crashed, lives have
been lost and at the same time everyone knows that this is a dangerous
situation.

Along with the conversion to Tost hooks I'd like to see it made
mandatory that the release handles be up high, near the throttle and
quickly available to the tow pilot with adequate mechanical advantage. I
can assure you that one does not have the time to go ducking and
reaching and feeling for a handle down on the floor of a Pawnee while
the glider kites in back of you.

The idea of requiring nose hooks on all gliders does not seem to be
feasible although it has been brought up to me as something that needs
to be addressed. My understanding is that the CG hook is meant for
ground/winch launch operations, however I have probably done thousands
of CG hook aero tows with no problem. For the most part these are ships
being flown by the best and most aware pilots. I'd like more input from
experience pilots on this point.

I currently have a number of highly experienced pilots from all levels
of aviation in agreement with me and willing to help me in this cause.


If one life is saved as a result of this endeavor then it will be well
worth it.

Walt Connelly




--
Walt Connelly

Sounds to me as if Mr. Northcutt needs to find another job where he could be a bit more effective and concerned about the overall safety issues involved. Walt, go straight to OK, City, I can assure you that the response will be different.

Why should the SSA engage with a nonmember who seeks to increase government regulation of soaring? Keeping the government out of soaring is the SSA's job. Walt is no different than a farmer mcnastyneighbor trying to shut down a gliderport. I know the response, save your safety talk for your wives.. Walt ain't about safety. Walt is about bitterness and revenge via bureaucracy warfare.
Sounds to me as if Mr. Northcutt needs to find another job where he could be a bit more effective and concerned about the overall safety issues involved. Walt, go straight to OK, City, I can assure you that the response will be different.

Originally Posted by

Why should the SSA engage with a nonmember who seeks to increase government regulation of soaring? Keeping the government out of soaring is the SSA's job. Walt is no different than a farmer mcnastyneighbor trying to shut down a gliderport. I know the response, save your safety talk for your wives.. Walt ain't about safety. Walt is about bitterness and revenge via bureaucracy warfare.
Sounds to me as if Mr. Northcutt needs to find another job where he could be a bit more effective and concerned about the overall safety issues involved. Walt, go straight to OK, City, I can assure you that the response will be different.

For that VERY reason Mr Ballou. The SSA has very few teeth but it appears that what teeth it has is unconcerned with this condition. If the SSA was truly interested in keeping the FAA out of soaring then the SSA would be doing everything possible to correct conditions which would bring the SSA and Soaring to the attention of the FAA. Had the rope not broken, how much attention do you think the FAA would be giving to SLGP and the SSA.

You do not know me and I can assure you I was quite pleased at being terminated. I had decided to leave the first day I was back when the manager and VP showed up. I was appalled at their response and the push back I received. If bitterness and revenge was in the cards a simple phone call to the local FAA office would have done the trick. I saw an a--hole do that in the past, I have NO intention of acting like him.

I understand that by the time my facility ordered three Tost rings they were on a 3 week back order. Perhaps my comments on this board woke up more than one operator? I hope so.

Have a great day.

Walt

Walt

At 12:56 11 June 2017, Walt Connelly wrote:

[_1_ Wrote:
;948656']There are treatments for PTSD that don't involve the
FAA.

The odds of anything rational and positive coming from
involving .GOV is
really poor.

Please tell me what treatment is available to a dead tow pilot who
tried
to release a glider with a Schweizer hook and died as a result of a
well
documented flaw of that release?

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

From another thread it has been confirmed that in Australia low tow
is the standard position behind the tug.
Does using low tow offer a solution to the ring jam with a Schweizer
hook given that there is almost no chance of glider getting too high
behind the tug?
Tug upsets should be almost unknown in Australia, are they? If they
are it would seen that we could easily increase tug safety at no cost
whatsoever and do away with the need for expensive modification to
tugs.
Is there a cogent argument against using low tow? The only
difference that I can see, from a tuggies point of view is that he will
find it more difficult to see the glider. Is that important?
Of course the reverse applies, the glider can always see the tug.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:45:04 UTC+10, Don Johnstone wrote:

From another thread it has been confirmed that in Australia low tow
is the standard position behind the tug.

Definitely. All our training from the first tow is in low position for climb. We'll go high if doing a cross-country tow, and some clubs use high tow for the first couple of hundred feet of the launch, but low is our teaching here.

There is, however, a second factor: All gliders have been mandated to have nose hooks installed when brought into the country. This was instituted in mid 80's after a couple of upset accidents resulting in multiple deaths. It is rare to see a glider with only a belly release. Mandated nose releases as a local requirement were removed a couple of years ago as CS22 effectively mandated them for aerotow certification anyway. No need to duplicate the rules.

Also, I believe Schweizer tow hooks here are illegal. I've only ever seen TOSTs on tugs here. Don't quote me on that though. I've been doing a quick search while writing this up and can't find out either way.

Does using low tow offer a solution to the ring jam with a Schweizer
hook given that there is almost no chance of glider getting too high
behind the tug?
Tug upsets should be almost unknown in Australia, are they?

I haven't heard of one in the last 30 years or so (I started gliding in 1987). There's been a few ground loops from wing drops in paddocks on CG releases, but nothing resulting in a tug pilot looking at the ground due to kiting.

Right, one potential outcome could be an examination by FAA of towing gliders in general. The likelihood of unintended consequences from your personal crusade will quite probably do far more harm than good. I would agree with the advice of other contributors on this forum to pursue this (if you must) outside of government channels.

Ron Clark

Originally Posted by

Right, one potential outcome could be an examination by FAA of towing gliders in general. The likelihood of unintended consequences from your personal crusade will quite probably do far more harm than good. I would agree with the advice of other contributors on this forum to pursue this (if you must) outside of government channels.

Ron Clark

Mr Clark,

I did as requested make an attempt to pursue this outside government channels. I sent an email to a government liaison of the SSA who told me essentially that since I wasn't a member of the club they would not discuss the matter. So much for the SSA and their committment to safety. Other than acknowledging in bright red letters what might happen when a glider kites on a Schweitzer hook they appear disinterested.

Walt

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:43:08 PM UTC+3, Walt Connelly wrote:
Retting;949394 Wrote:
Step away from this Walter. Establish your own limitation, what you will
accept.
Allow others the same. Trust me on this.

Romeo

Romeo, Romeo....

I have already stepped further away than I have wanted to but trust
ME on this. If YOU had found yourself 300 feet in the air dangling from
a tow rope attached to a glider and unable to release while at full
power headed right to the dirt YOU WOULD BE ON MY SIDE IN SPADES.
PERIOD, END OF STORY.

We're on your side. And on the side of other tow pilots hauling our arses into the air.

If all tow pilots at an organisation refuse to tow with Schweizer hooks then they'll get replaced pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by Bruce Hoult

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:43:08 PM UTC+3, Walt Connelly wrote:
Retting;949394 Wrote:
Step away from this Walter. Establish your own limitation, what you will
accept.
Allow others the same. Trust me on this.

Romeo

Romeo, Romeo....

I have already stepped further away than I have wanted to but trust
ME on this. If YOU had found yourself 300 feet in the air dangling from
a tow rope attached to a glider and unable to release while at full
power headed right to the dirt YOU WOULD BE ON MY SIDE IN SPADES.
PERIOD, END OF STORY.

We're on your side. And on the side of other tow pilots hauling our arses into the air.

If all tow pilots at an organisation refuse to tow with Schweizer hooks then they'll get replaced pretty quickly.

I have received many responses both public and private from tow pilots who agree with my position. Unfortunately many of them say they need the few bucks they make flying tow to make ends meet. I understand and fortunately I did not need the money. Any tow pilot towing with a Schweizer hook AND a handle that is not immediately available for release is playing Russian roulette. Sure, the chances of it happening are low but tell that to the guy at Turf whose accident and death initiated the inverted hook long, long ago.

Walt