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 Previous  1, 2
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
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 14
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:13 pm    Post subject: Tandem Pre-Flight Safety Protocol Reply with quote

Hi John,

in response to the following quote:

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

For liability reasons, we modified a lot of HPAC language to move away from words like ''requirement'' simply because this word implies that we have the authority to police and enforce which we do not. The only place we really do have that power is in the ratings where we can grant one or not. So in the realm of ratings it is appropriate.
For the tandem safety protocol, the word recommendation could allow for some leeway, and there should be some even if it were only to acknowledge that the pilot in command has ultimate and last say in matters of safety. A recommendation from the national organization that ''oversees'' the sport still carries'' enough weight (or so I believe) that a tandem instructor would still have a lot of explaining to do if he didn't follow the protocol after an accident happened.

In short the word ''recommendation'' was recommended by our legal advisor.

Domagoj Juretic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Serge Lamarche
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 37
Location: Golden
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 08:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are three comments posted in french earlier, translated into english (by yours truly) from Jacques Blanchet, From Claude LeBel Dec.18, and From Scott Watwood (Dec.20)

1) From Jacques Blanchet
"First, thanks to the committee, to Martin Henry and other people around them for the time they volunteered to arrive at these propositions.
I agree overall with the recommendations, here are however some comments
I would add to the explanations to the passenger how to undo the loops and the location of the radio or telephone (in case of emergency when the pilot would be incapable to free his passenger or himself or to communicate the emergency) .
Regarding the reserve parachute, simply inform et show the passenger/student that a reserve parachute is on board and available, and the pilot will deply it in emergency.
My experience on this subject, passengers are reassured to know there is a reserve on board the same way a passenger is reassured by the floating vest.
I am against explaining and informing him/her of his/her possible responsilbility of throwing the parachute, this would only increase their stress and harm the essential which must be the actions to take for he safety of the launch.
Managing the visual tag adds manipulation, this tag could be lost, forgotten on the launch, at home or elsewhere, an adequate prelaunch checklist would cover the important points before launching, for example amongst others, insure that the attachments between pilot and passenger are actually closed.
The prelaunch checklist should be adapted for each sport, paraglider and hang glider, it could be laminated or of the sticker type on the passenger helmet or on the back of the passenger to be well in sight of the pilot.
My experience doing prelaunch checks out loud with the passenger was positive, passengers feel involved and reassured, it is a count down before launching, one last check point as a team pilot/passenger before committing the launch.
The content of the prelaunch checklist should include all the safety elements, written and approved by Tandem 2. (Pilots and passengers attach points, spreaders, trims, helmets, radio, reserve, wind, trafic, etc.. ) I find the one proposed detailed enough.
I am not supporting the addition of a video but rather take the time to explain and have the waiver signed in front of witnesses with witness signature.
The ground support person can effectively add some safety but its presence must not be mandatory. It can be very useful to have an assistant in some strong or low wind conditions, he/she would serve the pilot. Its rôle is well described in the proposal.
The pilot alone is responsible of the flight on the whole, including its preparation.
The prelaunch briefing should be reviewed with each passenger before the actual flight even in the case of a group and that a briefing was done in group, the instructor must insure that each passenger understands well its rôle, for the safety of each launch." 

2) From Claude LeBel Dec.18
"Good day,
the HPAC has chosen to improve our tandem checklists to answer the authorities and prevent other drama like the one in the west of the kind client not attached.
The checklist itself is debatable (procedure, reserve, video, groupons...)
Would this new checklist 2.0 have or prevent forgetfulness, inattention, drama?
Wouldn't there be other options to explore rather than force the checklist at this point?
I don't mean to not review and adopt a new universal checklist for the future tandem instructors at least.


Claude LeBel

3) From Scott Watwood (Dec.20)
"Good day,
In response to the previous post …... of course, a checklist is a good idea. But it can easily be forgotten or ignored. Having a physical element that you can detach and place on the carabiners or leg straps must not be missed or forgotten.
Here, forgive me for my french translation : (my apologies for the possible inacurracies or translation errors, I am an ignorant English)

Good day all,
overall, this document seems perfect to me. But I have some comments : give group "information" is not a good idea, neither is following the intent of the memo in general. My briefing with the passenger is to make eye contact to really evaluate their capability to understand and follow instructions. Not to mention the minor physical contacts regarding the joining parts and rehearsal of the inflation process.
The proposal to "show the passenger how to deploy the reserve" is a bad idea. What if the pilot encounter a minor collapse or is effectively pulling big ears and the passenger reacts to the urgency by pulling it. After that, things get interesting. I will not do it.
It must be determined what is 'enough' information to give to the passenger and what is «too much ». The most critical phase is the launch and it's the info I want my passenger to focus on.
I am glad to see the safety straps on the brakes topple and hang glider keel were included. This will allow to save one life.

Scott Watwood
PG Tandem 1
Golden, in British-Columbia"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Margit Nance
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 07:10 pm    Post subject: From Dion Vuk Reply with quote

From Dion Vuk

Here is my feedback on Draft Tandem Protocol.

1. It is unclear how “visual control tag” would be setup for paragliding. (OR attached to the brake handles of a paraglider and to be transferred to the passenger/student’s
legstraps prior to launch?) Some photos along with protocol would help. Also if recommended or mandatory.

2. Ground support person. Unclear if suggested or mandatory. There will be times where it won’t be viable to have a ground support person, for example hike and fly with just pilot and passenger. I believe the concept is good in principle, especially if bulk tandem flights are done on a day where the operator could be rushed and the support of a driver and second set of eyes to check things may help.

3. Should add bullet to “Preflight Safety” section to cover possibility of tandem pilot becoming incapacitated after take-off. See this video.

explain emergency procedure if pilot becomes incapacitated: use of controls and body positions to turn; do not exceed limits on brakes or control bar; flight plan path directly to upwind side of LZ; LZ wind direction assessment; staying inside the perimeter of the LZ at all times by boxing the field; setting up a standard aircraft approach or figure 8 landing; flaring and landing body posture; PLF for hard lading; radio/cell call to confirm safe landing and update pilot status and/or request emergency personnel support.

Also Preflight Safety should add bullet to access conditions prior to launch and set DO NOT EXCEED LIMITS for commercial tandem passenger safety:

Conditions assessment to include: morning internet check for anticipated winds at sea level and aloft; lapse rate assessment; absence of low pressure, warm & cold front, and jet stream.
Site Launch and LZ terrain to not exceed P3 Intermediate level.
Actual conditions to be verified on launch during pre-flight: mountain not in lee side of upper winds; base windspeed less than 20 km/hr; peak gusts less than 5 km/hr; Lapse rate less than - 2.7C/1000 ft; absence of towering cumulous clouds, virga or other signs of impending front or atmospheric instability.

Blue skies,

Dion Vuk, P.Eng.
HPAC/USHPA Senior Instructor
Back to top
Robert Clarkson
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 1
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 03:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems most of my concerns have been addressed already here. It would seem a ground support person is more of a hang gliding issue. You must do a hang check when foot launching and it's pretty much impossible with out a support person. So for hang gliding foot launching you need ground support. Any towing already has ground support any way.

I don't see the flag as any real added value to safety but just another step to do. It is already covered with doing a hang check. The problem was not with the procedure but that the procedure was not followed. Nearly all accidents that I have heard of pilot and/or passenger not being hooked in was due to some distraction or variant in the pilots normal routine. I think its important to very aware of this and not to think it will never happen to me because I have a great system I always follow. It's when some thing unusual distracts you from that procedure that accidents happen.

Instructing the passenger on the use of the reserve is just a very bad idea.

I also don't like the idea of telling me to scare the crap out my students with potential risks. I have been told by many passengers that I made them feel calm and comfortable. To me this is important. Confidence is the key to success in launching, landing, flying and life in general. Making your passenger fearful is counter productive and adds risk. If you want to outline the risks in a standard waiver I would be fine with that.

Rob Clarkson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Margit Nance
PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 04:35 pm    Post subject: From Michael Fuller Reply with quote

From Michael Fuller

This important document has many good points but there are a few troublesome areas

It’s highly improbable to expect waiver signing to be videoed. I notice that is recommended but optional. It is a good option for those dealing with group bookings where ground crew assistance is in place. Impractical and unnecessary in others.

Ground crew assistance should be mandatory where launch and top landing operations are carried out with more than one or two student/passenger(s) involved. Hook in flights (where the pilot stays hooked in and the passenger is just clipped in for a quick turn around) should not be allowed.

Ground crew assistance should also be mandatory on ridge/coastal tandem flights where winds are in excess of 25+ kph.. Newbies just don’t know the forces involved and ground crew needs to be used to stabilize. Groundcrew in this instance need to be experienced.

Equipment - When flying over water quick release carabiners are highly recommended.. maybe mandatory… This needs to be added to the CPC..

I’m not a fan of showing a student/passenger how to deploy the reserve.. panic onset might be the result of a falsely perceived danger and a panic stricken passenger might accelerate the danger through an irrational action. The chances of this happening outweigh the chances of the pilot having a cardio moment.. In my opinion.

Involving the student in the CPC is a good thing. Placing the seal check list on the back of the students harness is good

I’m in favour of the Red Ribbon of Safety… to be removed from a caribiner once hook in and checks are completed.

my two cents
Back to top
Serge Lamarche
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 37
Location: Golden
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 02:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

translation of text from René Marion 18 january

Good day all,

Is there so much accidents in Canada that ropes must be tensionnent to linch all who will make a mistake?

Aren't we all instructors supposedly with high levels of practice ?

You're not serious? Do we need a « cardboard » to not forget that we must consult weather forecasts and do an aerologic assessment before each launch ?
Personally, I do not need help on launch to know if I must or must not launch. I do not need either a «weird system » to know if I and my passenger are well secured, I have harnesses equiped with systems approved by official organizations and the preflight exists.

Seriously, the procedures talked about are the ABC that all instructor must apply in his every day practice. If the HPAC comes to this, isn't it more relevant to review the real level instructors achieve in Canada and the training on the whole ?

It has been debated again and again and it is not with these measures that are masking only on paper the real issue that you will change anything on the ground. However, you increase more again the juridical weight that hangs on each tandem instructor while the HPAC offer no insurance to defend its instructors in case of prosecution.

Paragliding is not all that popular and you count making it more attractive with rules that the HPAC is not even able to apply on the ground.

There is my view point..

René Marion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Margit Nance
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 01:25 pm    Post subject: From Eric Olivier Reply with quote

Éric Olivier
Jan 18 (3 days ago)

Hi folks,
I believe we should haves little more time to go forward with this type of guideline.
I'm all for safety measures but I do think we will create something not applicable/ applied if we go with the following points:
1-Safety tag on harness
2- ground crew
3- video of signing passenger for waiver and so on.

Lastly, specifying the group-on thing seems to little and way too much at the same time.

The rest makes perfect sense about briefing and informing the student passenger about function of gear, glider, and pre-launch explanation and checks.
Please add my three points to the evaluation of our comments.
Back to top
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 Previous  1, 2
Page 2 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