| Author |
Comment |
| Lori Allen
|
Thanks Ernie, Vince and Kevin
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003
I enjoyed my time in Idaho, coming home a day early due to my son
being hospitalized after having a multiple seizures today (at work
and hitting his head hard enough in the fall to require medical
attention and then at the hospital until they finally got him settled
down). But he's home, a few stitches in his noggin and sleeping off
the affects of his medical misadventure. So I'm catching up while
doing an all-nighter on laundry.
Anyway, I really enjoyed reading all the King Mountain updates --
thanks guys!
Since I haven't flown as much as usual in the past couple of years, I
opted not to fly at King this year and decided to drive for my
sweety, Scot Huber. Although it was a struggle for him the first few
days of the King meet, the last day was certainly worth it -- 139.1
miles just short of Anaconda, Montana! Although it was a bummer that
the lift totally shut down before he could make the Anaconda airport,
it was still one helluva flight. Dave Beardslee was simply amazing --
multiple long distance flights (i.e. 70 milers) and not even using a
vario.
The King meet is the highlight of my year -- getting to see my "other
family", the Sonoma Wings club, who always has the biggest showing of
any group there, my Idaho buddies and probably a most spectacularly
beautiful and awe inspiring site.
Lisa, Terri, Donna and John did an awesome, bang-up job as well as
the task committee who sometimes makes difficult decisions. However,
my kudos go to the unsung heroes, like Alan and Gail Paylor and one
certain Boise pilot *winkwink* who helped Lisa with mailings and
such, who selflessly put a lot of work into the meet as well. Oh,
and we can't forget about Ernie -- he plugs in routes in everyone's
GPS and that's just one thing that comes to mind -- he pretty much
does tons for the meet every year.
Also a big hug to Greg Sugg who got a special award for being all
heart in giving up a flying day and helping Matt get his glider down
from a rather challenging spot on the mountain.
Anyway, I'm awfully doggone proud to be the Utah chapter of such a
wonderful club. Sonoma Wings rule! Vince and Leo, please make it
next year or I'm gonna have an attitude. :-)
Lori
|
| Kevin Frost
|
Re: [HG] Oz Report, v7, #175, King Mountain
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003
Richard Chamberlain writes:
>>>>
I flew during King Mt. meet as a free
flier. I have an older kingpost glider. Steve Rudy's statement that it is
safer for less experienced pilots to fly directly into the wind along the
mountains than go over the back with the wind is just not true.
<<<<<
Well Richard not that your first impression isn't of value, but your opinion
comes from only a brief taste of both King Mt flying, those on your route
comittee and JW. Are you willing to concede that after ten more years of both,
your opinions might change?
In my view, in the given conditions, both routes have their dangers and
pitfalls, a self-serving person would have no problem playing up either route's
particulars. Going over the back of King at the altitude most of us were those
first two days, probably ok, but shit can happen. I was getting worried about
all the stories I was hearing of experienced pilots getting low on top of the
Lemhi's and choosing to go over the back....that's Russian roulette, big out of
control rotor shit can happen. But when a guy works that light lift back onto
that range rolling the cylinder and pulling the trigger can become a better
option than staying out front and sinking out into canyons. Not good, but
happening to some pilots with the low altitudes sometimes light lift we were
dealing with back there.
Route one in the given winds of course came with it's own set of dangers that
can get you in trouble just as easily, you have to constantly be aware of what
you might be getting yourself into as you navigate each step in the route.
Following other pilots....bad idea, that is why you see three pilots back in
the deadly Ram's Horn Canyon or back in some venturi, one guy making bad
decisions and two guys following him. Make your own decisions or know who
you are following, just because someone can go buy a hot glider or happens to
be in front of you, doesn't say a thing about his piloting ability.
Route one was unanimously chosen on day three with safety, as always, the
number one priority. Did you see anyone taking the issue of safety lightly?
What was the main theme of every pilot's meeting? (But then to quote Ken
Cavanaugh "Just because we called that route, doesn't mean it's safe". That's
true every day, everywhere for anyone piloting the sky. The buck stops with
the pilot in command, in the end we each take ultimate responsibility.)
The route committee. Frank Gillette 75 years old, flying a Falcon that day,
King pioneer and HG-PG instructor, HG-PG iron man, very conservative and
safety conscious. Alan Paylor flying an old kingpost glider that day, a HG
instructor, lives at the base of King, conservative and safety conscious. We
had all flown many days on route 1 and route 3 with similar conditions to the
conditions given when we called for route 1 Friday. Lisa has final say, and
believe me or follow her around and see for yourself, she takes the safety of
this meet very personally.
We all take on the jobs with the goal to make the meet as safe and rewarding
for every pilot as possible, there is no pay, there are no real perks. It's
just a job that needs done and if you are a local pilot who gets hit up for it,
how do you say no and still think of yourself as a giver and not just a taker?
We also know that on days with multiple route possibilities, it is a no win
situation as far as the backbiting and second guessing, it's only that one
percent of usual suspects but it's gonna happen either way. Constructive
advice or good natured selfish lobbying of course no problem whatsoever, I
gladly invite it. That's why you have a junior varsity pilot like me on the
committee and why some local skygods avoid the meet, knowing they are gonna
spend part of the meet with the negitive vibes and getting hit with the
bullshit and knowing it's very hard to say no. And the job just keeps on
giving, here I am, forced to justify myself......Quit smiling Mark!! Hey damn
it, get up off the floor!
I could be wrong, but I don't think all these pilots came all the way to King
Mt to fly over a bunch of foothills and sagebrush and to fly only two days out
of five on the classic King Route over breathtakingly beautiful scenery may be
a bit disappointing, one day downright sad. And if I had gotten more lobbying
from pilots for route 1 on Saturday like I did on Friday I would have had zero
problem calling it again. Many pilots have all the sagebrush and foothills
and flatland flying they care to for at their home sites. Why would they come
all the way up here to get beat up flying gaggles up the face of King for more
of the same? But for free flying pilots, and big game hunters....there's
nothing stopping them from doing whatever route they choose, and for trophy
hunters, you are flying the same route as your competition and either class,
sport or open, you are a hot pilot who finds these conditions quite easily
manageable or you stand little chance for a trophy anyway.
>>>>And by the way, I set my personal best, 21.6 miles, over the back the next
day! What an awesome place to fly gliders!
Wow, Davis slipped and actually let something positive about the King meet fall
through the cracks. Thanks Richard, hope to see you next year, and I hope you
find the Rock-n-Roll a rewardingly acquired taste.
>>>>>(editor's note: Awesome is one word that one could use. Others are
dangerous, crazy, scary, and absurd. But, there are many varieties of hang
gliding, and for those who wish to experience pure terror, the best place I've
found is King Mountain, especially up the range on a windy day. If my feet
aren't in the sail, and the wires ain't slack, I might as well be back at the
office.)
Actually, depending on the wind, I would take a windy day over no
wind....smoothes out the bumps and makes for fewer F-16 downwind landings.
Davis is right though, some people live to ski the steepest moguls while the
vast majority are happy to dress up in fast looking thousand dollar ski suits
and put on this years 'super duper' skis and stay on the relatively gentle
groomed runs. A matter of taste and ability. King as most turbulent site in
the world? I don't buy it. Tumbles are relatively rare here. Any western big
air site is capable of just as much Rock-n-Roll. I think Davis needs to factor
in the whole mass hysteria-fear and loathing mood here during the unsafe big
money ushga meet the last time he flew here.
KF
|
| Lisa Tate
|
Meet Director's Response to John Woiwode
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003
I was disapointed but not suprised to read John Woiwode's bashing of this
year's King Meet in the OZ reoprt. I was disapointed because it was
untrue, which is also why I was not suprised.
John stated that on day 3 he complained at the Pilots Meeting about the
route call only to be told that "Once a route is called that's it". This
couldn't be further from the truth. First of all, John didn't say
anything at the pilots meeting, and in fact when Route 1 was called there
were cheers and clapping. As far as "Once a route is called that's it"
goes, we have changed the call NUMEROUS times in the past as conditions
warranted. As long as competitors have not launched we have always been
open to changing the task for the day.
John also stated that when he was talking to Kevin Frost about the task I
came over and told him that pilots were not allowed to talk to the task
committee. Again, total BS. What I did say was that pilots were not
allowed to harass the task committee, which is what John was doing. In the
past, several great pilots have served on the task committee only to tell
me they would never do it again because they were sick of being harassed
for their decisions.
As Meet Director I work hard to get a good task committee. This year's
task committee was made up of 3 hard core, veteran King pilots who are all
well respected. I asked them to be on the committee because they know
what they are doing and I know them to be fair, reasonable and honest
individuals who would pick a task based on meet criteria and not personal
preference.
I have found that it doesn't seem to matter how hard we try to have a
challenging, fun, fair, safe King Mountain Meet; nor does it matter how
good the staff or task committee are. John Woiwode is never happy. Every
year he has some sort of complaint. Last year he complained when we
called a day for safety concerns...he thought we were wrong. A couple of
years ago he complained and lobbied me (after the Meet was OVER) to change
the way the scoring was calculated which would have allowed him to win the
Meet. I explained that we scored the way we had for years and asked why,
if he had such a problem with it, he hadn't said something years ago. He
said he didn't realize that was the was the Meet was scored. I suggested
he read his rules a little more throughly. I would suggest that again
today, especially the section on unsportsmanlike conduct. John is
certainly entitled to his opinions, but to maliciously defame the staff
and task committee (all of whom are experienced and knowledgeable, not to
mention volunteers) over the internet is uncalled for.
I basically think that until we all bow before his presence, John Woiwode
will never be satisfied.
-Lisa Tate, Meet Director & Organizer, 2003 King Mountain Hang Gliding
Championships
|
| Davis Straub
|
Mr. Nasty
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003
Kevin wrote:
>>
Wow, Davis slipped and actually let something positive about the King meet
fall
through the cracks. Thanks Richard, hope to see you next year, and I hope
you
find the Rock-n-Roll a rewardingly acquired taste.
>>
I published every word that anyone sent to me about King Mountain. I also
put the King Mountain meet in the Oz Report calendars and promoted it in the
Oz Report. If he doesn't like what the local pilots (among others) think
about King, perhaps he should talk to them and not slime me.
>>
I think Davis needs to factor in the whole mass hysteria-fear and loathing
mood here during the unsafe big money ushga meet the last time he flew here.
>>
I've been to and flown at King on more than one occasion. I've seen pilots
die there and I've seen pilots die in Florida. Pilots who love the thrill of
playing Russian Roulette, as Kevin so calmly puts it, should be putting King
Mountain at the top of their list.
Personally, I prefer to fly like in my dreams, not like in my nightmares.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
Zapata, Texas, USA
|
| Jamie Stopforth
|
King Mt. question
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003
Being a newbie, not even flying yet, this question is probably way
premature.... Anyway... What makes King Mountain so risky? What makes one
location more risky than another? I've heard pilots talk about flying over
the back, but what really does that mean?
I dunno, I was just curious.
P.S. I'll be taking my first training flights this month!!! I can't
freaking wait!!!!
J
|
| Kevin Frost
|
RE: King Mt. question
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: Jamie Stopforth
>>>>
Being a newbie, not even flying yet, this question is
probably way
premature.... Anyway... What makes King Mountain so risky?
<<<<<
Great question. Everyone else must be off flying Lakeview or it would have
been answered five times by now.
King is only as risky as any other western big air mountian site. Which is as
risky as the pilot makes it. Lets hang with my skiing analogies. Like a ski
resort where the skier chooses which kind of run he is gonna ski and how safely
he is gonna ski it, at a mountian site you choose the weather conditions in
which you are willing to fly, and how you navigate the terrain further
determines your level of safety.
At a ski resort you can ski a nice gentle groomed run, at a mountian flying
site you can fly the morning or evening glass air, these conditions offer
little risk for those with solid basic skills. Or at a ski resort you can hike
up from the lift, put your skies on over a cliff face and let her rip over
avalanche country. At a mountian site you can similarly fly aggressively in
extremely windy and turbulent midday conditions or dance with thunderstorms.
On a ski hill you can look down on the run, gauge it's steepness, the texture
of the snow and level of skill needed to safely do the run. At any flying site
you can similarly determine the conditions and gauge the level of skill needed
to fly it at a relative level of safety.
>>>
What makes one
location more risky than another?
<<<<
Any site can become too risky to fly. Your training hill in a hurricane, above
my experience level. The Florida country clubs, known for extremely benign
flying, risky in a wind that would be considered very doable at most mountian
or ridge sites. So the short answer is, the weather.
>>>>
I've heard pilots talk about flying over
the back, but what really does that mean?
<<<<
Flying over the back of a mountian. We usually launch the side that is into
the wind, if we wanna fly XC downwind then we must go over the back. Ideally
that means we get high enough over the top of the mountian to avoid any
turbulence created by the wind flowing over the mountian.
>>>>
P.S. I'll be taking my first training flights this month!!! I can't
freaking wait!!!!
<<<<
Have fun and remember to enjoy all those firsts, that is the best part of the
sport, seeing your skill levels quickly rising in those initial months.
KF
|
| Bart Doets
|
RE: King Mt. question
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
I think Kevin forgot something when he answered this question:
>>>
What makes one
location more risky than another?
<<<<
Apart from weather, a launch or LZ can be difficult.
Cliff launches normally need wire assistants (especially as they are often
flown in high winds to be soarable) and good understanding of the
windpattern. On the other extreme, a launch with a shallow slope needs a
positive run and, moreover, good control of the glider during that run. It's
no problem if, at the end of the shallow slope, the ground drops off
steeply, but I've seen a launch where, after the launch slope, there was
more shallow slope with big boulders... even wheels would not help you
there.
LZ's can be tricky too... (and, on some sites, the distance from launch to
LZ can be prohibitive for newbie pilots). Some LZ's are known for variable
winds. Some are OK in one direction and technical in another. Some have
obstacles nearby. You will learn that it is useful to check out an LZ before
you go to launch. If you check an LZ, imagine how you would fly your
approach and note how high you should be in the different parts.
I remember flying a site in France (Millau, where they just finished the
Pre-European's) where the LZ was very crowded with PGs... I hated to have to
land there and had already experienced a near miss with a PG on final. So
when I hooked a real good thermal I decided to make a mini XC to the LZ of
an other Millau site on the other side of the city (I could radio my friends
at the car, otherwise I would not have done it!) (This was some years ago -
the PGs now use an other LZ at that site.)
Bart
|
| Kevin Frost
|
RE: King Mt. question
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
Yeah, we both left out alot. Then it got me thinking what makes one site
really suck over another.
Bad soar to drill ratio.
Nightmare bailout LZ.
Launch winds always undependable. Or bad fly to rock kick ratio.
Nightmare glide to bailout LZ.
Nightmare turnaround time for driver, launch to LZ.
House rotor.
A place where you can get great lift and altitude but no XC potential.
Idiots with guns.
Ugly scenery.
KF
|
| Dean Tiegs
|
RE: King Mt. question
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
I've known John for years. Grown to like him in spite of a few things. One
thing you can be sure of about john is, John "always" puts John's best
interests first. His desire to fly route 3 stems from the fact that he
probably has more time flying that route than any other pilot. John lives
in Wyoming and whenever he comes to King going over the back is the perfect
scenario because he is flying toward home. All the driver has to do is pick
him up and they are already part way there. For another pilot after a
flight over the back, you have to make it back to King and then start your
trip home. This was a significant advantage when he was racking up so many
flights in his many record attempts. I point this out to give you a little
extra insight as to why John would be so adamant that tasks be called over
the back. It gives him a distinct advantage over any other pilot. As I said
before, I like John, and I'll bet he feels he's in the right. (That's John)
The fact is though that there had already been two days called over the
back because of poor conditions for up the range. On the third day the task
committee felt they could call it for up the range. They weren't there to
necessarily call a task for the biggest miles. They definitely weren't
there to please John.They called it. There should have been nothing more
said other than to thank them for their time.
dctgs
At 10:05 AM 7/3/2003 , you wrote:
> >First of all, John didn't say
> > anything at the pilots meeting, and in fact when Route 1 was called there
> > were cheers and clapping.
>
>Right! Sure!
> I'm 2000 miles away and I can just "hear" the cheers and clapping that
>went on when a task committee calls an against-the-wind task over a huge,
>turbulent mountain range.
>
>You sure those weren't screams of protest?
>
>Deane Williams
|
| Gilbert Griffith
|
RE: King Mt. question
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
Hi Jamie,
> Being a newbie, not even flying yet, this question is probably way
> premature.... Anyway... What makes King Mountain so risky? What makes one
> location more risky than another? I've heard pilots talk about flying over
> the back, but what really does that mean?
Flying is risky. But when you get a bunch of hot shots in a
competition they sort of feed off each other's gung-ho-ness.
Add to that mountains bigger than anything you'd find here in poor old
Oz, as well as some of the more interesting weather systems in the
world. Sounds like a great site.
I'm a bit sorry I'll probably never get there.
Flying over the back is easy to explain, but I'll try anyway.
Picture a hill with the launch facing north, you launch into the wind,
find some lift if you're lucky, and climb up over the hilltop or
ridgetop. When you turn and fly south away from launch you are flying
over the back. Unfortunately over the back areas often include wind
rotors caused by the wind descending after it passes over the top of
the ridge, and especially around here where I fly there is nearly
always an unbroken stretch of forest where there is nowhere to land,
commonly called "tiger country".
So to fly over the back requires good lift and plenty of height to get
where you want to go safely.
Chainsaw
|
| Leo Jones
|
RE: King Mt. question
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003
Well I haven't tuned in here for a while, but I had to know what was
happening at King because I wasn't able to make it there this year.
It's nice to find everyone talking about hang gliding!
I've been reading all this facinating stuff about King. Though I
greatly respect all he has done for hang gliding, for the first time,
I feel sorry for Davis, that for him the terror of flying there
exceeds the joy. I've only flown King at the past 3 meets - about a
dozen flights there in all, but I found it the most awesome,
beautiful, and exhilarating place to fly I've ever been. It's
different from the Owens, in some ways much friendlier, but with
thermals at least as strong. It can be big, big air. We know
that. I just wish it was closer!
Scary? Sure! Whaddya want? All hang gliding can be scary. It
doesn't have to be. I have flown in scarier air on a 500ft high
grassy hill in Britain. I've seen pilots die on those too. Anywhere
can be scary, but what, afer all, is aviation without calculated
risk? Isn't all hang gliding risk vs reward? Or all pleasure for
that matter.
This is the Wild West. If you are a hang glider pilot, and you live
out here, these are the places you fly.
I hate "pure terror" myself, but of all the places I've ever flown -
"King" Rules!
I really missed everyone at King this year.
Leo Jones.
|
| Vince Endter
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003
> I've been to and flown at King on more than one occasion. I've seen
pilots die there and I've seen pilots die in Florida. Pilots who love
the thrill of
> playing Russian Roulette, as Kevin so calmly puts it,
should be putting King Mountain at the top of their list.
>
> Personally, I prefer to fly like in my dreams, not like in my
nightmares.
>
> Davis Straub
After my wife witnessed two fatalities at Quest (Florida), she has
nightmares about them and will not return to Quest in the future.
The Florida carnage (how many pilots went to the hospital?) bothered
her so much she has been trying to get me to quit hang gliding since
our return.
She enjoyed her two visits to the King meet very much.
Vince
|
| Kevin Frost
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vince Endter" >
> I believe that some pilots cut
there safety margins tighter than they would
> normally otherwise. i.e. they are low and see a small field surrounded by
> trees.
So most accidents were top competitors close to goal and to win that they
needed to forget safety margins and go for it. I guess that makes sense.
Like my buddy Kurt sez, most accidents are about take-offs or landings. The
numbers dwarfing in-the-air incidents. So a big air site with big, flat,
open LZs will probably get a persons attention, and those F16 landings are
not so fun, but for all of that, actually safer than a green circle sky with
LZs where getting rotored behind trees or hitting a objects on the ground is
more likely.
Maybe for safety reasons they should go back to having national comps in the
Owens.
KF
|
| Davis Straub
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
Carnage in Florida = pilot misjudgment in light, pleasant conditions.
Carnage at King Mountain = pilot misjudgment in strong, unpleasant
conditions.
Use your judgment to make this choice.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
Zapata, Texas, USA
|
| Stan
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
At 06:05 AM 7/7/03, you wrote:
>Carnage in Florida = pilot misjudgment in light, pleasant conditions.
>
>Carnage at King Mountain = pilot misjudgment in strong, unpleasant
>conditions.
>
>Use your judgment to make this choice.
I don't HAVE to have turbulence to have fun, but I DO like to have some
scenery go by. In the mountains you get sheer granite faces, wooded
valleys, stark spires of rock, etc. In Florida it's pond, field, road,
pond field road, ad nauseum. Flatter than shit. It's like flying Torrey
Pines. The first half hour is fun and then it gets to be the same ol',
same ol'. I fly local a lot, but I don't get bored with the pine forests
and granite outcroppings. Some degree of turbulence just comes with the
territory.
-Stan
Riverside, CA
|
| Kevin Frost
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
> Carnage in Florida (And lots of it) = pilot misjudgment in light, pleasant
conditions (Boring, unchallenging air)(hazy visibility)( ugly scenery)(low
altitudes).
>
> Carnage at King Mountain(exceedingly rare) = pilot misjudgment in strong,
unpleasant
> conditions(Fun, Challenging, White knuckle air)(Crystal clear
visibility)(Magnificent Scenery)(High Altitudes).
>
> Use your judgment to make this choice. (looks like pilots have voted with
their feet and chosen both. Which is great that the few meets left are
heavily attended. But I'm still amazed at all the carnage in 'light,
pleasant' conditions)
KF
|
| Lori Allen
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
I guess as much of a chickenshit that I am, I'll still choose the scenery of
King and deal with the turbulence than anything less scenic. I just got an
e-mail from a friend from South Africa who flew King on the Saturday of the
meet (I pretty much had him sold on the idea of going there at some point),
had his first XC over the back and landed at 30 miles. He is making plans
to attend the whole meet next year. He's still trying to wipe the smile off
his face from the experience and even over the back the scenery was
breathtaking to him. Gosh, I even land in the main bailout in midday
conditions which strikes fear in the hearts of most of the local pilots but
I still think it's more docile than LMFP's LZ on a strong W/N/NW day and
that's just north of green circle country.
Lori
|
| Frank Peel
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
You guys are funny; the tit-for-tat thing is cute. Unfortunately, I
don't do cute. Well, maybe if it comes in a female form...
Derivative analysis strongly suggests that the difference is not in
the site, scenery or even the conditions. It's more a matter of what
each individual believes is the more desireable challenge. For
instance, Davis is challenged by head-to-head competitions and
trying to out do others by setting and breaking records. Kevin gets
juiced up by challenging himself with strong conditions and high
altitudes. Neither is the lessor competitor, no more so than someone
who has to grit their teeth everytime they launch as they meet an
anxiety or fear face-to-face.
Fact is, the latter may well be the most challenged, courageous of
all these examples.
I have little doubt that if Kevin and Davis had similar means and
motivations that they would be worthy competitors. Alas, that
scenario is not likely to materialize, so we are instead stuck with
an online version of who can bang their drum the loudest. Sigh; at
least they both have rhythm.
Now where did I hide those earplugs...?
-fcp
|
| Lori Allen
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
Gee, I'm feeling awfully brave all of a sudden. I have to work through some
very real fear issues through every launch and landing -- not enough to lock
me up, just enough to keep me on my toes and constantly going back to the
basics although I know I have broken down on top more times than your
average pilot -- I guess the reward so far outweighs the risks which is why
I keep flying in spite of these fears. I'm just as terrified in aerotowing
out of a flat field in Florida in windier conditions as I am foot launching
at 8,000 in light, switchy winds.
Lori
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Peel"
Neither is the lessor competitor, no more so than someone
> who has to grit their teeth everytime they launch as they meet an
> anxiety or fear face-to-face.
>
> Fact is, the latter may well be the most challenged, courageous of
> all these examples.
|
| Davis Straub
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
Are we tourists or are we pilots?
From: "Kevin Frost"
> Carnage in Florida (And lots of it) = pilot misjudgment in light, pleasant
conditions (Boring, unchallenging air)(hazy visibility)( ugly scenery)(low
altitudes).
>
I have never found thermal cross country flying to be boring, no matter
where I am flying. The conditions in Florida can be quite challenging, but
rarely threatening.
Challenging can have different meanings. If by challenging Kevin means
conditions that are frightening, and that require that you spend
considerable effort dealing with your fear, then indeed Florida has alot
less of those than King Mountain on most days that you fly. Wisconsin and
east and south Texas seem to have a lot fewer of those also.
Having had hundreds if not thousands of opportunities to feel the fear when
hang gliding I prefer the challenges that test my skills not my courage. I
prefer the challenge of having to find lift when lift isn't so strong that
I'm holding on in order to keep the glider upside right. I prefer the
challenge of having to go on a very long glide low to get to the next lift.
I prefer the challenge of racing against other top pilots for the fastest
time around a course.
The hazy visibility is due to the water moisture in the air. Desert areas
have much drier air and therefore you can see further in them. Whether the
scenery is beautiful or ugly is a subjective opinion. I love flying over
green swamps, lakes, and pasture lands. I've flown in Idaho (my home state)
and in many other areas. All of them I find to be beautiful from the vantage
point of a pilot in a hang glider.
I love being low and the challenge of staying up. I love not having a
canulla in my nose. I love being warm and toasty.
Flying in places without "big air" is now a possibility due to our much more
efficient wings. Cross country hang gliding started out in "big air" places
because that was what was required in order to stay up long enough to have a
reasonably long flight. We have much better hang gliders now and with
skilled pilots we can stay up all day.
> Carnage at King Mountain(exceedingly rare) = pilot misjudgment in strong,
unpleasant
> conditions(Fun, Challenging, White knuckle air)(Crystal clear
visibility)(Magnificent Scenery)(High Altitudes).
>
I'm quite sure that it is often quite fun at King Mountain. I'm quite sure
that it can also be terrifying. As you say, white knuckle air. I prefer
blood running through my knuckles.
Dry air is clear air.
It is very beautiful in the mountains in central Idaho. Southern Idaho is
flat and full of sage brush.
You get high MSL in Idaho. I get high AGL in Texas. I get 8,000' -9,000'
over the ground. That seems to be plenty high. Of course, there is no need
to get high in order to stay up and go long.
>>
Use your judgment to make this choice. (looks like pilots have voted with
their feet and chosen both. Which is great that the few meets left are
heavily attended. But I'm still amazed at all the carnage in 'light,
pleasant' conditions)
>>
I'm happy that pilots have choices and the opportunities and that they take
advantage of them. I promoted the King Mountain meet and had it on the Oz
Report calendar. I think all pilots should go there for the ride at least
once.
My only issue is with any claim that flying there is any better or worse
than flying any where else. It is what it is and Kevin in his previous
statements has certainly described it well enough - rotors, Russian
roulette, etc.
Kevin has his preferences and I have mine. It's a big world after all.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
Zapata, Texas, USA
|
| Vince Endter
|
RE: Mr Nasty
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003
> Maybe for safety reasons they should go back to having national
comps in the
> Owens.
>
> KF
It would be nice if they could do a tow meet there, I can't see
launching 100 pilots from Walt's. After attending a foot launched
points meet (Chelan Worlds) and the Florida tow meets, there is no
comparison. For a race type of meet, towing is the way to go. There
is no other way to get everyone in the air quick enough to be fair to
everyone (no launch potatoes). I have seen 100 pilots launched in
1/2 hour without the sky getting too crowded in Florida. Open XC
meets get to be endurance contest, not just for the pilots ether, the
drivers get worn out as well. I had two good flights last weekend
(82 and 96 miles (site record)) and my driver had to spend 9 hours in
the truck for each flight. I hate to do that to anyone for 8 days.
I would guess that at most big points meets the chance of someone
getting injured goes up, just because of the desire for some to win
(or at least make goal). I don't think it really matters where the
contest is held. Though, I think most pilots at King are humbled by
the place and some pilots in Florida get too complacent.
Vince
|
| JAMES L. HARRISON
|
carnage in green circle land
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003
Unless I'm mistaken the dual fatality at Quest [the only fatality there
that I know of] was a tandem instructor/student with a very low altitude
lock out on tow. The only one I know of at Wallaby was a German pilot
who failed to properly assemble his glider. Neither accident to my
knowledge involved wheels; although I'm sure some will want to count the
Wallaby incident because failing to connect the corner bracket while
installing the wheels was the cause of the in-air collapse of the
airframe while on tow. [Again, what I've heard/read.]
James
|
| Kevin Frost
|
Re: carnage in green circle land
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003
Of course I would count that, one big reason I contend that wheels do more harm than good, one more step away from KISS. We are getting quite a long list of for sure wheel deaths, on the other side of the score card, the for sure wheels saves are a bit suspect.
But the wheel comment was just a joke, and a jab at complacency, which Vince hit on in his second post.
By the way, I'm counting the massive amount of incidents requiring medical attention that Vince mentioned, not 'just' deaths. None of that at King this year and traditionally rare.
KF
|
| Kevin Frost
|
Re: Mr. Nasty
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davis Straub"
> Are we tourists or are we pilots?
Great question. When I first started hanggliding I was all about
fantasizing about the coolest location to fly. The windward side of Oahu
and the Volcano Haleakala on Maui were the first places I flew and the
beauty of it from the air was at least half the reason to fly. Then
somewhere along the line alot of my flights became focused on my vario? But
a place like King forces you to put the terrain at the top of the priority
list, for both it's beauty and it's dangers. I like that. If I had the
money to go fly the world I would seek out flying sites that offer
spectacular beauty, I can get triple digit miles over flatland within an
hour of my front door.
> From: "Davis Straub"
> I have never found thermal
cross country flying to be boring, no matter
> where I am flying.
That time I flew over the back of King to West Yellowstone, I was taking
naps. I gotta admit, for some of the fight I was bored. Almost everything
down to muscle memory. Making my best decisions, throwing the dice and
working the given, all pretty automatic. If you bet on the wrong cloud and
don't get lucky along the way, you are on the ground. I would rather work a
range, have the beauty, dependable lift and a few lions and tigers to deal
with.
> Challenging can have different meanings. If by challenging Kevin means
> conditions that are frightening, and that require that you spend
> considerable effort dealing with your fear
Dealing with fear is what you do when you get up in the morning and on the
drive there. In the air it's living in the moment, when what you are doing
becomes so intense that there is room for no other thought. I like that.
> I prefer the challenge of racing against other top pilots for the fastest
> time around a course.
But if that race course is the HG equivalent of the bunny hill, 5.7 rock, 3'
surf, touch football, don't you guys risk looking like the special Olympics?
It's not like there isn't a range of pilots flying the more challenging air
on a regular basis.
> My only issue is with any claim that flying there is any better or worse
> than flying any where else. It is what it is and Kevin in his previous
> statements has certainly described it well enough - rotors, Russian
> roulette, etc.
>
> Kevin has his preferences and I have mine. It's a big world after all.
Fine and dandy that we each have our preferences, nothing in the world wrong
with that. But as far as competitions go, usually the best of the best add
credibility to their contests by having them in the most difficult arena's,
not the most benign.
KF
|
| Davis Straub
|
Re: Mr. Nasty
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003
From: "Kevin Frost"
>>
> Challenging can have different meanings. If by challenging Kevin means
> conditions that are frightening, and that require that you spend
> considerable effort dealing with your fear
Dealing with fear is what you do when you get up in the morning and on the
drive there. In the air it's living in the moment, when what you are doing
becomes so intense that there is room for no other thought. I like that.
>>
Well, maybe for Kevin.
In the air I like to focus on the air and my response to it. I like to think
about where the lift might be and explore where the core is. I like to
explore and feel the air and find out what it is saying to me if I could
only actively listen well.
I watch the clouds and see what they say. I try to find the lines of lift
and stay with them. I want to have a partnership with the air. I want us to
work together. I want it to sustain my flight and I want me to find the best
air to do that.
>>
But if that race course is the HG equivalent of the bunny hill, 5.7 rock, 3'
surf, touch football, don't you guys risk looking like the special Olympics?
It's not like there isn't a range of pilots flying the more challenging air
on a regular basis.
>>
Of course these are false analogies. They are the same false analogy that
Kevin uses for green circle and black diamond ski slopes.
Cross country hang gliding (racing or not) doesn't require death defying
deeds. It requires skill and experience.
I might suggest another analogy. Street drag racing and drag racing at the
local strip. The first can be dangerous and is made illegal because of that
danger to the participants and others. Drag racing at the strip is legal and
still has an element of danger, but not the same element that street drag
racing has.
Kevin may feel that legal drag racing just doesn't have that thrill, but I
think I'd prefer it given the choice.
If you want challenging air I suggest launching near Zapata before 10 AM.
You have to be very experienced if you are going to stay up in this air. It
requires a lot of skill refinement.
Again, I have nothing against pilots who wish to fly in "big air." I just
argue that it is not necessary for long, challenging, difficult, and
rewarding cross country flights. If pilots wish to do it just for the thrill
of being in the big air and surviving, fine by me.
I have done it an uncountable number of times, and have done it again
recently, but frankly, what's the point?
>>
Fine and dandy that we each have our preferences, nothing in the world wrong
with that. But as far as competitions go, usually the best of the best add
credibility to their contests by having them in the most difficult arena's,
not the most benign.
>>
Again. Kevin and I disagree on what should be the measure of a competition
pilot's skills. I say that having to deal with conditions that are basically
out of control (see pilot reports from King Mountain), while I'm sure a
thrill to some, is not my idea of a measure of skill.
I'm not putting down Kevin's preferences, and I suggest that those who share
them continue to organize fly-ins and competitions in the kind of conditions
that they prefer. If pilots show up, well that's just fine by me.
I also suggest that pilots who aren't interested in repeatedly testing their
mettle with every flight and who rather compete against some of the world's
best cross country racing pilots continue to organize the meets that they
prefer.
Like I said, its a big world, and Idaho has its place also.
I would hope that Kevin can get off this test your manhood thingy. Real men
and real women fly hang gliders cross country.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
Zapata, Texas, USA
|
| Leo Jones
|
What's the point?
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003
--- In HangGlide@yahoogroups.com, "Davis Straub" wrote:
>
Again, I have nothing against pilots who wish to fly in "big air." I
just
> argue that it is not necessary for long, challenging, difficult, and
> rewarding cross country flights. If pilots wish to do it just for
the thrill
> of being in the big air and surviving, fine by me.
>
> I have done it an uncountable number of times, and have done it
again
> recently, but frankly, what's the point?
>
I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Davis and all he has
done for hang gliding, but frankly he's missing the point here.
If the goal is to fly as far as possible XC, with the minimum of
risk, then flatland flying is the way to go.
But nothing in this compares with the breathtaking scenery of flying
at King, or the Owens, looking down in intimate closeness with places
known only to eagles, places you are sure no person has ever trodden,
the feeling of utter privilege and awe as you gaze from a perspective
experienced by no other humans except us fortunate few, the thrill,
perhaps tinged with fear, as you ride a thermal that takes you at
over 2000ft a minute to high above those snow capped peaks...
Why climb a mountain when you can climb the rock wall at the gym?
Why surf when it gets over 5ft, or when there might be sharks
present? Why ski black diamond runs when bunny hills are so much
easier? Why drive fast cars, explore remote and possibly hostile and
dangerous places, why go to the moon? What's the point?
Yes, I have been scared at King and in the Owens, and on little
grassy hills too. If hang gliding could be practised by everyone, in
complete safety, and no chance of being scared, by your mom or your
grandma, or by the obese person in the supermarket line in front of
you, then I don't think it would be much of a challenge, would it?
Comparing a 50 mile or a 100 mile flight in these places, with a 200
or 300 mile flight is Florida or Texas is pointless.
Every time you take off in a hang glider you take a chance, you
balance risk and reward. Flying at at King, or the Owens, or in
Florida, or at the beach, is as dangerous as you make it. The rewards
of any flight do not necessarily have anything to do with the amount
of miles flown, or indeed any particular parameter.
Leo Jones
|
| Peter Birren
|
Re: Mr. Nasty
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003
Davis wrote:
> Like I said, its a big world, and Idaho has its place also.
There are pilots who will never fly the Owens because of its reputation.
Doesn't make 'em less of a person or less of a pilot, just choosing their
levels of participation. Like wheels, viva la difference... to each....
- PeterB
|
| Richard Nikoley
|
2003 King Meet
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003
Got to relay to everyone that I just got back from the annual
Lakeview "Festival of Free Flight" held every year around the 4th of
July.
Talked to a number of pilots who had come from the meet at King.
The unanimous word was "It's the funnest meet ever!"
Richard
|
| Kevin Frost
|
Re: [HG] Mr. Nasty
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003 9:01 pm
Davis Davis Davis. Digging deep for an analogy that just isn't there.
Flying big air is like street drag racing? So green circle flyers are like
the 'legitimate' drag racers with corperate endorcement, nitro charged
million dollar dragsters and a pit crew, and those who fly big air are like
a pimple faced highschool kid who looses control of his 15 year old Chevy
nova racing his friend downtown and wipes out a family of four. Err, yeah.
The cool thing I enjoy about debating with you is I can depend on you to
always choose the unsound position and enter most any debate with maximum
handicap. Leaving me, a guy who barely made it through highschool, to sit
back and type the first thing that pops into my head, and still easily win.
Now that is mighty sporting of you and after all these years of easy wins
against an obvious really smart guy, I gotta salute you.
Face it, almost any other outdoorsman sport we can readily sit here and name
has its big comps under conditions that challenge the high level competitor
and add credibility to the event. Green circle HG comps = Special Olympics.
I guess if you guys are all having fun and it brings challenge and purpose
to your otherwise sad lot in life, then it's a good thing. Maybe I'll
volunteer to come help next year, so I can come home with that warm feeling
of having helped the less fortunate.
KF
|
| Davis Straub
|
Re: [HG] Mr. Nasty
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003
I'm sorry to see that you have been reduced to ad hominem arguments.
You feel that your analogies hold some water, I do not.
You think that mountain biking is the only true bicycle racing. I think that
the Tour de France is pretty cool, but grant you that mountain bike racing
is fine also.
You wish to denigrate what most of the hang gliding world agrees are the
premier competitions. I'm saying that both types are fine.
Why you need to defend your beloved King Mountain meet by denigrating others
I really don't understand.
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
Zapata, Texas, USA
|
| Wayne Hobbs
|
Re: What's the point?
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003
In this, I think Leo and I are kindred spirits. I don't think these
big air western sites appeal to me because of their big air, but
they appeal to me because of the scenic beauty and the majesty of
the vistas (I've never flown King or the Owens). I'd just as soon
find geen circle conditions at the sites on the day's I may one day
visit them.
Like Davis though, when flying my local sites, I'm not near as
pleased with my performance if I launch and immediately hook a
boomer and take it to the clouds and hang out there for several
hours as I am on a day when I have to struggle for every scrap of
lift and fight for every foot of gain while dodging the tree tops
and the cliff walls. On a day like that and I do well while others
flush to the field, I feel respect for the skills that I have gained
through the years and offer thanks to the wind gods for granting me
a good flight in honor of the dues I've paid in the past. I'm most
pleased when I do well in marginal or very challenging conditions.
Wayne Hobbs
> But nothing in this compares with the breathtaking scenery of flying
> at King, or the Owens, looking down in intimate closeness with places
> known only to eagles, places you are sure no person has ever trodden,
> the feeling of utter privilege and awe as you gaze from a perspective
> experienced by no other humans except us fortunate few, the thrill,
> perhaps tinged with fear, as you ride a thermal that takes you at
> over 2000ft a minute to high above those snow capped peaks... The rewards
> of any flight do not necessarily have anything to do with the amount
> of miles flown, or indeed any particular parameter.
>
> Leo Jones
|
| Frank Peel
|
Re: [HG] Mr. Nasty
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003 10:13 pm
--- In HangGlide@yahoogroups.com, "Davis Straub" wrote:
>
> You wish to denigrate what most of the hang gliding world agrees are the
> premier competitions.
My strong suspicion is that overall more pilots participate in meets
like Lakeview and King than in what I suspect you are
calling "premiere competitions". Given that my assumption is
correct, which are the premiere meets again? Be careful lest someone
feels the need to start tossing out words like "elitist"
and "arrogant!"
My strong suspicion is that it is mostly those interested in such
meets that consider them "premiere." To the rest of us they're
simply "comps."
> I'm saying that both types are fine.
Who can disagree with that? Matter of fact, maybe when I'm old and
decrepit I'll start flying competitions, too. ;-)
-fcp
PS - Regarding that last comment: probably not; I'm too much of an
anarchist to put up with someone dictating where, when and how I'm
going to fly.
|
| Kevin Frost
|
Re: [HG] Mr. Nasty
Date: Wed Jul 9, 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davis Straub"
> I'm sorry to see that you have been reduced to ad hominem arguments.
See what I mean about you being such a sporting guy. I have no idea what
'ad hominem' means. Which tells me if you ever did take the strong and true
position in a debate I better just agree with you having no mental
ammunition in these debates, just truth and common sense.
> You think that mountain biking is the only true bicycle racing. I think that
> the Tour de France is pretty cool, but grant you that mountain bike racing
> is fine also.
I'm no bike racing expert, but I'm pretty sure the Tour de France isn't held
on flat ground at sea level with two, three or four hour tasks. Seems to me
these guys bike their asses off with grueling tasks up and down mountian
ranges in whatever kind of weather is thrown at them. Thus bringing added
credibility to their event by having tough competition under conditions that
challenge the high level competitor. Like, so far, every other outdoorsy
sport.
See this is what I'm talking about. Being a man of the mind you have set
the bar for yourself at the most challenging level. Leaving yourself with
almost no parallel in which to draw an analogy. Good show!
> You wish to denigrate what most of the hang gliding world agrees are the
> premier competitions. I'm saying that both types are fine.
Well I would never try to speak for the rest of the HG world, but as just
another western guy who flys big air on and off all season and has a bug up
his butt about usgha's blatantly unfair comp system...I think these 'premier
comps' only seem premier to those they were built to suit, the time and
money folks.
I think blatant unfairness cries out for ridicule and denigration. I think
our collective resources as administered by ushga should be used for the
greater good of all members. I think a comp system that focuses only on
international competition and benefits a tiny percent of pilots doesn't fit
the bill.
I think those of you into international competition should start up your own
club and use that club, to finance and organize your built to suit comps and
international fees. In that case, while I could still denigrate them for
being a bit too special olympian, I would be unmotivated to do so.
> Why you need to defend your beloved King Mountain meet by denigrating others
> I really don't understand.
You started down this road way before I got back in town, but thanks agian
for always leaving me the easier position.....
KF
|
| Davis Straub
|
Re: [HG] Mr. Nasty
Date: Wed Jul 9, 2003
From: "Kevin Frost"
>>See what I mean about you being such a sporting guy.
The use of the term "sporting guy" does not address the arguments but rather
is a personal consideration.
>>I have no idea what 'ad hominem' means.
ad hominem (h•m'e-nŠm', -nem) adjective Appealing to personal considerations
rather than to logic or reason
A review of my article on Google as God would show Kevin that all he has to
do to find out something is type in the words "ad hominem."
>>
I'm no bike racing expert, but I'm pretty sure the Tour de France isn't held
on flat ground at sea level with two, three or four hour tasks.
>>
The last day of the 2002 Australian Nationals. Seven hours. 15 mph head wind
for 40 miles. Often completely shaded ground.
The last day of the 2003 Australian Nationals. Climbs to 12,000' AGL at
1,500 fpm. Ground speed over 60 mph.
First day of the 2003 Bogong Cup, climbs over 2,000 fpm to over 14,000' MSL,
13,000' AGL - makes Idaho look puny in comparison.
The 2002 US Open, Big Spring, Texas - strong turbulent conditions with high
winds almost every day. Cu-nimbs and thunderstorms on course and at goal.
Difficult conditions on every task.
The 2003 Rigid Wing Worlds, Chelan and the flats to the east - strong,
turbulent conditions leading to at least two deployments.
The Florida competitions - often strong and turbulent conditions. Rarely
life threatening.
>>Being a man of the mind you have set the bar for yourself at the most
challenging level.
ad hominem (h•m'e-nŠm', -nem) adjective Appealing to personal considerations
rather than to logic or reason
>>
but as just another western guy who flys big air on and off all season and
has a bug up
his butt about usgha's blatantly unfair comp system...
>>
I think this is an admission upon Kevin's part that he is not being
objective about comparing the two types of competition. He admits having an
axe to grind.
>>I think blatant unfairness cries out for ridicule and denigration.
At any price? Even the price of being unfair yourself?
Davis Straub
http://ozreport.com
Zapata, Texas, USA
|
| Greg Angsten
|
Re: [HG] Mr. Nasty
Date: Wed Jul 9, 2003
At 09:01 PM 7/8/2003, Kevin Frost wrote:
>Face it, almost any other outdoorsman sport we can readily sit here and name
>has its big comps under conditions that challenge the high level competitor
>and add credibility to the event. Green circle HG comps = Special Olympics.
You know, you can look at this stuff either way. Where I fly, there are
days with turbulent, strong thermals and days that are light and inverted.
It is the light days that really highlight the best pilots out there. While
the rest of us are in the LZ drinking beer and complaining about the crumby
conditions, the best guys are still in the air and even going up and down
the range. On big days, everyone is stoked and lands with a big grin but I
don't know that it's a better test of flying skill. Even though they are at
opposite extremes you can certainly call either a violent day in the Owens
or a light day with 50 fpm. thermals "difficult conditions." To say a
competition held in light conditions is not a valid test of pilot skills
makes no sense.
But it does make sense to say you are not interested in it. Leo's post
about Davis missing the point of flying at places like King and the Owens
Valley says it all. This is a very different experience. The first time I
covered the length of the high Sierras in the Owens there were times I had
tears in my eyes from the magnificence of the entire experience and it was
the most fun I ever had with hang glider. You walk around the setup area at
Walt's and see lots of the same old faces every year for whom that site is
the ultimate and others are hardly worth the bother. Then there are others
who have flown for 30 years, had there asses kicked enough up there and
don't like it. Their interest is in the subtleties of flying and they have
more fun flying a falcon down the range when most others can't even stay
up. So who's the better pilot? It's an impossible question and who cares
anyway. What tastes better, cheese or cherries?
|
|
