HPAC/ACVL
Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association of Canada
Association Canadienne de Vol Libre
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Forum SubscriptionsForum Subscriptions   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

President's Welcome
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    HPAC/ACVL Forum Index -> Tandem Pre-Flight Safety Protocol
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Domagoj Juretic
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 14
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:23 am    Post subject: President's Welcome Reply with quote

Hello instructors and friends,

you should have received by now our proposal for a new tandem pre-flight safety protocol. As in many sectors of industry, we felt that the time has come to formalize safety in our sport.
Following recommendations from past president Martin Henry and our safety committee, we are presenting this new pre-flight protocol which we hope will become our new standard across the country. We realize that this can't happen without you! We need your input and eventually your support to make this happen.

Please realize that the leeway we have in deciding the fate of this protocol, isn't in the whether or not, it is in the how. The idea is for us to do good housekeeping in our sport before somebody else decides that we are doing such a crummy job of it, that they might feel forced to do it for us (like we see happening in many other industries).

Also please avoid referring to specific past incidents as this effort really is all about the future of safety in our sport, particularly the safety of the ''brandnewbees'' which we want to care of like they were one of our own kids!

The floor is open to support and constructive ideas!


Domagoj Juretic
HPAC President
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 06:07 pm    Post subject: From David Llewellyn Reply with quote

From David Llewellyn

Greetings from Ecuador. I am having problems with Internet. So i will send my comments regarding safety protocol for the intro tandems via email.

1, You cannot take off flying winch tow tandem(On Wheels) not hooked in. You would be lying on the ground if you were not hooked in.

2, I use a cacoon harness for passengers, which is hooked into the glider when assembled and is removed at the end of the day. Using a knee hanger harness would not make any difference when it came to winch tow tandems either.

3, The tandem instructor doing Foot launch or winch tow tandems should always have an assistant who is familiar with doing a thorough hang check of pilot and passenger before moving into position for launch.

4, Having a harness that is hooked into the glider when glider is assembled would greatly reduce any problems with not being hooked in. However, that being said....a pod harness (High energy) would be the best harness as you have to step through the leg loops when getting into the harness. A wills wing harness "Z5" is a lot more difficult to put legs through the leg loops and could be a problem when the harness is attached to the glider. Trying to get a passenger into a knee hanger while attached to the glider would also be difficult.

5, As in all commercial aviation, a checklist is used as part of the pre flight protocol. Having the assistant read out a checklist and checking each item on the list prior to launch would/should eliminate any pilot or passenger launching not hooked in.

Regards,

David Llewellyn
Fly Gravity Sports
Tandem Instructor
david@gohangglide.com / (647) 694 9794


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scott Watwood
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 15 Dec 2014
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 09:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello All,

Overall, this document looks fine to me. But I do have few comments:

Giving a 'group briefing' isn't a good idea nor does it follow the intention of the memo in general. My briefing with the passenger has to have direct eye contact to truly evaluate their ability to understand and follow directions. Not to mention some minor physical contact in regards to attachments and simulated feeling of the inflation process.

The proposal to 'show the passenger how to deploy the reserve' is a bad idea. What if the pilot is dealing with a minor collapse or is actually pulling big ears and the passenger overreacts to the urgency of the situation and gives that handle a pull. Then things get interesting. I won't do it.

There has to be a determination of what is 'enough' information to be given to the passenger and what is 'too much'. The most critical phase is the launch phase and that is the info that I want my passenger concentrating on.

I'm glad to see that the safety straps on the brake toggles and HG keel has been included. That will save a life.

Scott Watwood
Tandem 1
Golden, B.C.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Berkley
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 03:49 pm    Post subject: Comments Reply with quote

Great work on putting together a tandem safety protocol!

I have a few comments, only geared toward tandem paraglider procedure. First, who I am: I'm a low volume generally non-commercial paraglider tandem pilot --- I mostly fly tandems to show my friends what I do and to introduce them to the sport, I also take people tandem for charity, and sometimes to help beginner/intermediate pilots fly better.

I completely support having a CPC as part of the protocol and feel if this were all that the new protocol work resulted in that it would be an immense improvement to general tandem safety. I also would appreciate it if HPAC makes me one.

I have tried the visual control tag method but found I would forget to reattach it after flight and then it would get lost in the bag, which wasn't helping. I currently do not use it, and my reasoning is that it's another step in an already complex procedure. I'd rather have a simpler procedure, with just a CPC to focus on (and in my case I will for next season have one mounted on my passenger harness in a way that requires me to explain to the passenger that they are part of the pre-flight safety procedure, which I already do).

I completely disagree with including the section about a video waiver. I don't understand how it improves safety, nor do I think it will improve liability concerns. Thus I think the increased complexity and stress both for the student and the pilot is counter-productive. Having it in the procedure as an optional step seems like it increases my liability if I do not do it, so I think it should be removed from the protocol.

I only briefly mention the reserve handle to my passenger and only if they ask about the chance of structural failure, etc. In the conditions I fly tandems in the probability of needing it is extremely low and I would not trust the passenger to make the decision properly and the chance of panicking passenger pulling the reserve because I told them they might need to seems like a more likely scenario. I don't think talking about the reserve handle should be mandated as part of the tandem paragliding protocol.

I have mixed feelings about the section about a ground support person. If you use one, it seems to me that they should be specifically trained as mentioned and a required part of the procedure... adding another person to the mix is not something to be done lightly. I feel that if you use a GSP then you should always use one, and if you don't, then you shouldn't ever use one as part of your main protocol. This goes to the simplicity of the preparation routines: having two routines, one involving a GSP, one not, seems complex. That being said, I like the wording that implies that other pilots on launch should endeavor to keep the tandem pre-launch time interruption free. I think the same could be said about non-tandem pilot pre-launch time too.

The section about bulk discount stuff seems a bit strange --- one can overbook tandems without bulk discount programs, so I think the section should not mention bulk discount programs, it's a red herring and the real issue I think that is trying to be addressed is trying to stuff too many tandems into one day. This can occur with a single pilot or in large groups at a single launch. I also do not think a group briefing should be mentioned or supported.

Thanks again for the work putting this together and for allowing us all enough time during the holidays to comment ---

Andrew Berkley
Vancouver BC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martina Lang
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 08:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, thank you HPAC for seeking our input on improving tandem safety.

The CPC is a great idea. If HPAC provides a laminated copy to all tandem pilots then there is no excuse for someone to show up on launch claiming they didn't know about the changes.

The VCT's would make it easier for us to spot and approach tandem pilots on launch who aren't using them and therefore may not be rated or current. The placement of them through harness biners just doesn't seem like the right solution for PG pilots. However if HPAC has a design & process in mind (and will provide us with the tags) then I'm open to trying them out. There were a few local PG tandem pilots who used them after Jon's accident and that lasted less than a month. The idea is good, just not sold on the implementation.

A GSP is great if you can find one, but what about midweek scenarios where it is only the pilot and passenger on launch? Would we be expected to cancel the lesson/tandem then? Most tandem pilots I know work for & by themselves and can't afford to pay an extra person (especially not enough to make a GSP miss a day of work if the tandem is during work hours). It's great to think there are hundreds of pilots who would volunteer to be a GSP but unfortunately that's not the case. Also, are they covered by a standard HPAC waiver if they are an official GSP making safety calls? I do prefer having a buddy along when flying tandems but would prefer not to have to cancel a flight if no one is around to help.

I agree 100% that it be mandatory for all accidents to be reported and equipment be airworthy & checked on a regular basis. How is this going to be checked and who will set the standards? We'll need a way to show our reserves have been repacked, harness stitching & wing porosity checked, etc.

I do hope when HPAC decides to publish these "recommendations" as official rules, all pilots will be notified and encouraged to approach any tandem pilots they see without a CPC, VCT, etc. Without enforcement or repercussions there will continue to be tandem pilots who will show up on launch without valid ratings or airworthy equipment. As much as some of these new procedures would be an inconvenience, the overall intent is improved safety and if need be we could find solutions to implement the changes (raising our rates for tandems & lessons, upgrading gear, spending time at the kiting field reviewing our new checklists, etc).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter MacLaren
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will comment from a Tandem Paragliding point of view.

With regard to risk disclosure I know my waiver discloses all the potential risks. I think if we are to verbally disclose more information on risk there should be some form of context applied. ie. Paragliding has about the same risks as horseback riding or riding a motorcycle in rush hour traffic at night. When it is presented in such a manner it is far easier for the public to make an informed decision on participation. If no frame of context is used all we do is create fear.

The risk I spend the most time disclosing involves the launch procedure. I think it is my greatest risk for potential injury. Over the years I have changed my launch procedure and removed tasks previously performed by the student/passenger. I know by me now taking on these tasks I have reduced risk and thereby increased safety. Compared to Tandem Paragliding there is no other form of aviation where a student member of a "flight crew" has as much responsibility in performing a task. If they don't perform their task correctly safety of takeoff is jeopardized. It is for this reason I think we have to be very careful in making changes that require the s/p to perform more tasks.

I hope we will be allowed some leeway as where non-safety based information gets presented. Things like aerodynamics and glider design can easily be discussed on the drive up the mountain.

I think a C.P.C is necessary. I would like to see separate checklists for Tandem Paragliding and. Tandem Hangliding. I would like to see a numerical and simple to understand list that is performed once the passenger is connected to the spreader bar. Something like:


1. Leg Straps Connected-Passenger ? Pilot?
2. 6 Carabiners Locked? Connected properly?
3. Riser Connected properly?
4. -----
5.-----
6 etc.

How these checks get accomplished is up to the pilot. So for say 1. above a pilot could choose to use a V.C.T. or actively reach around and pull on the passengers leg straps(my preference).

I find that to make the checklist an active process I say the check out load then whenever possible push, pull or squeeze.

I think a ground support person should be optional. I would prefer not to use one in my C.P.C. I know in B.C. we have heli-accessed and hike to sites being used where it may be logistically difficult to have a G.S.P. present.

It will be interesting to see what changes we choose to make.


Peter Maclaren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 05:47 pm    Post subject: From Edmond Rivere Reply with quote

From Edmond Rivere

I have read both documents and I agree with their content.
With one exception: "showing the passenger/student the reserve location should THEY need to deploy". Such an action could be triggered by a panicking passenger and result in an unwanted reserve deployment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 06:37 pm    Post subject: From Hugo Tschurtschenthaler Reply with quote

From Hugo Tschurtschenthaler

I am coming at this from the perspective of 25 years’ worth of tandem experience.
I am in agreement that the industry needs a safety standard that will mitigate any incidents.
It is extremely important that this procedure is simple and straightforward. The more complicated you make it, the more shortcuts will be taken and important steps skipped. This is human nature and has been proven time and again especially as the start position may sometimes be changed multiple times.
Firstly: I would say…keep the passengers out of it. Most passengers are first timers. They are scared, nervous and excited. It is hard for them to concentrate on anything at all including the simple instruction to run when told. They want total trust and faith in the instructor, his procedures and his experience. When we distract their focus away from the one most important thing they have to do, namely run, they forget even that.
I strongly believe that if we have ribbons that attach to each connection point, and we call out check on each one, that will give the passengers a sense of security that is enough to reassure and calm them. Once they are in the air, they calm right down and then they are able to talk, concentrate, and take in instructions, but not before takeoff…that is a fact.
Secondly: ground support person. This for Tandem Paragliders is just not reasonable or practical. First off, it immediately bestows upon a separate person responsibility and liability for any failure I may make. Often there is not a third person around, and unless you have someone willing to take on that responsibility, and be on call at any moment as tandems can happen at all times on extremely short notice, I believe that would be the first thing pilots would forgo. It just makes no sense; to me at least.
Thirdly: Disclosure of risk. Each person reads and signs a waiver where it is clearly stated that they can die or sustain serious injury. As with all people determined to do something this is never a deterrent. If they have decided to paraglide with me I must also assume they understand what they want to do and have researched it accordingly, thus they already know the risks. The waiver underscores what they are doing. If they specifically ask how dangerous it is, I do not hide the fact that accidents can happen, but I can also point out that the drive to the launch area is no doubt every bit as risky. This is not sugar-coating it. I can tell them that it is a horrifically dangerous sport that they should never partake in, but then the sport would die out… lol.
Safe flying,
Hugo Tschurtschenthaler
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Berkley
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 5
PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 09:16 pm    Post subject: Equipment Reply with quote

A non-active tandem pilot reminded me of the following:

The document should be somewhat explicit about appropriate equipment. For tandem paragliding that includes a proper passenger harness with some sort of protection (airbag or foam) for the passenger in case of a hard landing. To be clear, I do not think it is safe to fly a passenger with a re-purposed hiking harness.

Cheers,

Andrew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 04:41 pm    Post subject: From Glenn Derouin Reply with quote

From Glenn Derouin

I have been doing tandems full time for 25 yrs without problems , probably more than anyone in Canada now . Most of these things should have been taught to tandem pilots when they were getting their ratings for tandem , to begin with ! If they were not it is the fault of the senior instructors by not including this in the training . But we do not have a training syllabus for this in our system now .
, Tell me how to do a PLF with a tandem passenger because I do not even know to do this ? Tell me if the passenger can reach the reserve handle on the tandem pilot ?
I do not use ground support crew , many times I do the tandem buy myself without anyone on launch other than me and the passenger ?
We do not have a checking facility in Canada capable of doing certified glider inspections ? Are these tags , for just tandem hangliders , or both , how will they work , if it is for paragliding then do we need 2 ?

Why do we need to video passengers agreeing they signed the waiver, when they have signed it and read it .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Claudio Mota
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi There,

My remarks are related to paragliding tandem only and based on my experience as a tandem pilot and managing a tandem operation during winter in Nepal where our team performs an average of 800 flights a month.

There are great things in Martin’s document (thank you for putting it together) so I only have a few observations. Most of the things here are good for tandem courses but there are a couple things very valuable to implement for our tandem flights.

The CPC idea is great. Have HPAC made a generic one for everybody even better. Then each pilot could decide to adapt the CPC to their needs or use the generic one but at least this way we all have one.
-Change second point to something like “Spreader bar carabiners connected and in locked position to riser, rescue lanyard and harnesses”

The VCT in my opinion is unnecessary for paragliding. We don’t need a VCT if we use the CPC. The passenger cannot takeoff with the pilot if is not hooked in.

The GSP should be recommended for big operations that do several flights a day but just as a helper. The responsibility is 100% of the pilot and not of anybody else. We shouldn't fly tandem when there is nobody around the same way we shouldn't go fly solo by ourselves. Maybe in this case we should at least inform somebody over the phone about the flight and potential duration. Then report after we land just in case.

I don’t see an issue with the bulk participation discount fees but more with the way the operator deal with the groups. Briefings should be performed between pilot and passenger and not as a group. As a pilot you get a lot of useful feedback from your passenger while doing the briefing.

I don’t think we should show the passengers how to deploy the rescue and I’m having a hard time thinking how we could do a coordinated PLF Smile

There is a small “note” in the document about cameras but doesn't mention what to check or how so it doesn't hinder the safety gear. One of the most common accidents I had seen in the past couple of years is related to the monopod camera stocked into the glider lines. Suggestions:
- Put it away in the passenger harness pocket for takeoff
- Attach the lanyard to the harness with a lock carabiner or a loop knot

Recommend passenger and pilot harness with safety system so you don’t forget the leg buckles. Carry a hook knife that you could use in flight.

Claudio Mota
Fly Victoria Paragliding School
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 01:04 pm    Post subject: From Patric Stettler Reply with quote

From Patric Stettler

here is my thought instead of adding all the safeguards to the tandem flight why not make the process of getting you tandem license harder? that way you weed out the people that are not good pilots and that are not serious about the undertaking of flying passengers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:55 am    Post subject: From Jim Reich Reply with quote

From Jim Reich:

I reviewed the tandem protocol and it seems solid but maybe a bit complicated but it gets the points across well.

The hardest part might be videoing the waiver signing but a good idea that some indoor skydiving places do as a group signing that is videoing an entire room full of people.
--
Jim Reich


www.flybc.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 02:58 pm    Post subject: From Michael Fuller Reply with quote

From Michael Fuller

Generally I agree with the initiative to have a CPC and GSP.
WRT Martin’s recommendations we find that while it is important to accept the risk and read/understand the waiver too much of a focus on the ‘danger’ can make your ‘flight crew’ (they are NOT passengersJ) nervous which makes them a less reliable person to have on board, especially on a foot launch. We usually say something like – this is a potentially dangerous undertaking AND we have 40,000 tandems without an injury, so your odds are good. We are continually trying to get our tandem folks to relax and enjoy the experience. I like the idea of videoing the signing/accepting ritual. We have difficulty making sure they’ve signed sometimes so we’ll see how that goes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jacques Blanchet
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 4
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 09:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Je ne peux m’empêcher de cité Gleen .

I have been doing tandems full time for 25 yrs without problems , probably more than anyone in Canada now . Most of these things should have been taught to tandem pilots when they were getting their ratings for tandem , to begin with ! If they were not it is the fault of the senior instructors by not including this in the training . But we do not have a training syllabus for this in our system now .


Je suis entièrement d'accord avec lui lorsqu'il dit que les instructeurs senior devrait avoir un syllabus commun pour la formation des instructeurs, c'est pourquoi nous avions disuté de partager les syllabus de la formation instructeur lors de la rencontre des instructeur senior a Vancouver.
Un instructeur de 25 ans d'expérience a surement des informations importante a partager avec ses confrères, j’espère que nous réussirons a avoir un partage de ton syllabus afin que nous puissions profiter de cet incroyable expérience.

Jacques Blanchet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Antonina Roumiantseva
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for putting the document together.
I do agree with most points raised and discussed here.

- a passenger harness must have a protector in any form - air bag or a foam
- a passenger is a member of a flight crew and it is important to deliver him/her information in a short form which has the most important steps to make a take-off successful and safe. So a passenger can concentrate on it and there is more chances he ll get it right and remembers. Keeping the information to the minimum also unloads pressure and eliminates unnecessary distraction from a pilot who in his/her turn also has to focus on his/her preparation routine
- [I d like to add that] it is also important to make sure a passenger gets the information right - just showing and asking if a passenger got it - doesn't guarantee that he/she got it. I find performing a dry run helps a passenger to understand what to do, calms him down and helps a pilot to see if a passenger understands everything required from him
- explaining basics of a paraglider or flying or where a reserve is is optional but definitely not mandatory - it will only concern most passengers, takes away their focus from the most important tasks - running/pulling/not-sitting/not-jumping/not-stumping, and might bring fear
- definitely no PLF explaining
- having a GSP is optional but having an anchoring person might be mandatory in high wind with a light pilot (like me)
- as to landing I find that giving instructions before landing works best so it is fresh and doesn't mix with launch instructions
- [I d like to add/remind that] a tandem pilot must be an active pilot with spotless launching skills in various conditions

Thank you
Tonya
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 06:49 pm    Post subject: From Jacques Blanchet - Response to Glenn Derouin Reply with quote

From Jacques Blanchet: Response to Glenn Derouin (English version)

I agree completely with him when he says that the senior instructors
should have a common syllabus for teaching instructors, it's why we had
discussed sharing our syllabus to train instructors during our senior
instructor meeting in Vancouver.
An instructor with 25 years experience surely has important
information to share with his colleagues, I hope we will succeed to
share your syllabus so that we'd be able to benefit from this
incredible experience.

Jacques Blanchet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 06:51 pm    Post subject: From Barry Morwick Reply with quote

From Barry Morwick:


I agree that the SOP for tandems is very thorough and also Martin Henry's input even more important because it addresses tandem pilot and passenger fitness, and safety related distractions.

The only point I can add is that our dual over/under harness system is perm=
anently attached and locked by dual carabiners to the wing for an entire se=
ason. The only time it isn't attached is when re-packing the chutes or making repairs about once per year. So although we look at the compete harness and carabiner system before each and every flight during the hang check, our operation doesn't require a Hookin Flag to alert us that
the carabiners aren't attached because they always are. Perhaps this can
be added as an alternate procedure to the hookin flag?

I approve the current document and the possible addition of a permanently
attached harness system option to the hookin flag.

Sincerely,
Barry Morwick

Adventure At Altitude
www.altitude.ca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jacques Blanchet
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 4
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 08:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martina wrote

I agree 100% that it be mandatory for all accidents to be reported and equipment be airworthy & checked on a regular basis. How is this going to be checked and who will set the standards? We'll need a way to show our reserves have been repacked, harness stitching & wing porosity checked, etc.


That's a good point Martina wrote about airworthy and checked equipment.
Since last year we have in Quebec a Skydiver shop, the owner is a master riger now certified DHV by Nova Glider to provide for North America repairs and all inspection based on manufacturer standards (glider porosity, lines test etc) ,, Next summer he should obtain Skywalk certification for all services in north america.
That's the only one he can do this for the moment and only for Nova a this time.


It is not easy to do those certified tests in Canada,, we are so far from all Europe manufacturers, i will have the chance to have a maintenance shop here but it still far from west coast.

Jacques
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 26
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:59 am    Post subject: From Keith McCullough and John Janssen Reply with quote

From Keith McCullough and John Janssen


The following is Keith's and mine feedback for the current tandem preflight safety protocol proposal:

- If the protocol is to address both HG and PG then in must written as such. The current draft is inconsistent. If requirements are too different it should be split into two separate documents.

- The protocol should not make recommendations. Either make a requirement or not.

- The amount and content of "instruction" given should be determined by the pilot as long as basic safety and launch aspects are covered.

- The CPC should be designed by the tandem pilot using it. HPAC can approve or disallow the design/content of the CPC but launch methods are too varied to be accommodated with one common CPC.

- While we support the use of VCTs the design/method should be up to the pilot. Hooking additional items into the carabiner or on to the keel (HG) may complicate procedures and potentially interfere with tow systems.

- We support the requirement of a GSP, j trained by the tandem pilot for the particular launch method being used.

- The section on equipment readiness must list specific time intervals, manufacture recommendations, test criteria etc. The current draft is written too vaguely to be of any real benefit.

- accident reporting and compliance reporting needs to be developed.

Regarding Minors as passengers:
The U of C runs an extensive outdoor youth program involving minors in many outdoor activities like; hang gliding, paragliding, white water rafting, rock climbing, etc. While waivers are used for adult programs, specifically developed "informed consent" forms are used for minors programs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    HPAC/ACVL Forum Index -> Tandem Pre-Flight Safety Protocol All times are GMT-6 hours: CST/MDT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group