Racing airspace "violation" question

[kirk.stant]

A question for you racing rules makers out there:

Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
(legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
recovery back at the home base?

The question really boils down to: Are you still "on task" after you
make a decision to abandon the declared task for reasons of safety -
say weather blocking other routes - or to avoid a landout, or both,
then legally overfly airspace on the way home? Since the task scoring
ends where you abandon the task and assuming you abort outside closed
airspace, one could argue that the return flight is the same as an
aero retrieve, where the penalty wouldn't apply, since it's perfectly
legal and easy to overfly lots of airspace out here in the west.

As currently interpreted, this rule makes you potentially fly a
riskier and/or longer route when you are probably trying to get home
late in the day, which seems counter productive and potentially
unsafe. And there is precedent in the airfield landout bonus for
rewarding a safer decision over "pushing on regardless".

I have no objection to the closed airspace rule while still on task,
although the 500 ft minor and 100 ft major violation vertical
distances seem a bit draconian and encourage "clock watching" a bit
too much - not a good idea if everyone is blasting along under a
cloudstreet at 17499'. Perhaps we should look at the FAI rules and
see how they handle it?

Anyway, enough sniveling...

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 7, 10:22*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> A question for you racing rules makers out there:
>
> Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
> apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
> task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
> (legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
> recovery back at the home base?


I really don't understand why US has to have a different set of
contest rules from the rest of the world. The FAI rules seem far more
sensible when it comes to handling airspace.

Andy

[Larry Goddard]

"Andy" > wrote in message
:

> On Sep 7, 10:22*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > A question for you racing rules makers out there:
> >
> > Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
> > apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
> > task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
> > (legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
> > recovery back at the home base?
>
>
> I really don't understand why US has to have a different set of
> contest rules from the rest of the world. The FAI rules seem far more
> sensible when it comes to handling airspace.
>
> Andy

OTOH, I don't know why the FAI has to use a different set of contest
rules from the US... But that's just me I guess...

Larry
"01" USA

[Mike the Strike]

On Sep 7, 11:28*am, "Larry Goddard" > wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in message
>
> :
>
> > On Sep 7, 10:22*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > > A question for you racing rules makers out there:
>
> > > Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
> > > apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
> > > task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
> > > (legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
> > > recovery back at the home base?
>
> > I really don't understand why US has to have a different set of
> > contest rules from the rest of the world. The FAI rules seem far more
> > sensible when it comes to handling airspace.
>
> > Andy
>
> OTOH, I don't know why the FAI has to use a different set of contest
> rules from the US... *But that's just me I guess...
>
> Larry
> "01" USA

The CD and scorer's interpretation of the rules was that if a
contestant had taken a legal start and flown on course, the whole
flight must be conducted under contest rules, even after you have
abandoned the task.

I agree with Kirk, flying legally above closed airspace should not be
penalized after the task is abandoned.

Mike

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 7, 11:28*am, "Larry Goddard" > wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in message
>
> :
>
> > On Sep 7, 10:22*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > > A question for you racing rules makers out there:
>
> > > Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
> > > apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
> > > task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
> > > (legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
> > > recovery back at the home base?
>
> > I really don't understand why US has to have a different set of
> > contest rules from the rest of the world. The FAI rules seem far more
> > sensible when it comes to handling airspace.
>
> > Andy
>
> OTOH, I don't know why the FAI has to use a different set of contest
> rules from the US... *But that's just me I guess...
>
> Larry
> "01" USA

Perhaps looking at the number of participant in each area would give
you a clue? Perhaps looking a what rules are applied when a World
Championship is held in USA would provide another?

Andy

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sep 7, 2:58*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 11:28*am, "Larry Goddard" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Andy" > wrote in message
>
> :
>
> > > On Sep 7, 10:22*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > > > A question for you racing rules makers out there:
>
> > > > Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
> > > > apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
> > > > task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
> > > > (legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
> > > > recovery back at the home base?
>
> > > I really don't understand why US has to have a different set of
> > > contest rules from the rest of the world. The FAI rules seem far more
> > > sensible when it comes to handling airspace.
>
> > > Andy
>
> > OTOH, I don't know why the FAI has to use a different set of contest
> > rules from the US... *But that's just me I guess...
>
> > Larry
> > "01" USA
>
> The CD and scorer's interpretation of the rules was that if a
> contestant had taken a legal start and flown on course, the whole
> flight must be conducted under contest rules, even after you have
> abandoned the task.
>
> I agree with Kirk, flying legally above closed airspace should not be
> penalized after the task is abandoned.
>
> Mike

For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
you may not enter closed airspace. You can violate closed airspace
and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
canceled or not.

The SSA rationale is simple - great emphasis is placed on avoiding any
(even inadvertent) B, C, P, R violations within the context of a
sanctioned SSA contest. Although this was implemented before I was
elected to the Rules Committee, I understand that the thinking was to
avoid drawing FAA actions as a result of SSA sanctioned activities.
Others before me can provide additional background.

Another consideration here is that scorers already have enough work to
do without arbitrating "was the task clearly abandoned and when."

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:

> For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
> from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
> you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
> and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
> canceled or not.

No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
with FAI.

In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.

The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, and
then turned in his log.

I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
week.

Andy (the scorer in this instance)

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

I think QT is right, though it took some puzzling over the rules for
me to see it.

Actually, I think that having a mysterious flight log failure will not
get you out of trouble. A valid log has to show takeoff, path of
flight and landing (see below), and if there are any gaps, the cd is
supposed to assume you went real fast right to the prohibited space.
That says "path of flight and landing" not just "task."

Now should we change it? The event -- you abandon the task, want to
fly home, and the only way to do it safely is go over a class C, and
you have a radio and transponder -- seems pretty remote. Was it
really unsafe to go around, or was it just extra gas for a
motorglider?

10.5.2 Flight Log requirements
10.5.2.1 A valid Flight Log is one that:
• Was produced by a Flight Recorder that meets the provisions of Rule
6.7.4
• Shows the takeoff, the path of the flight, and the landing.
• Has a typical interval between fixes of 15 seconds or less.
• Between takeoff and landing, shows no interval between fixes
exceeding 15 minutes (See Rule 6.3.3.2 for motorized sailplanes
constraint).

10.12.5 Gaps in a Flight Log longer than one minute shall be
interpreted unfavorably to the pilot. During each such gap:
• the closest horizontal approach to or from the nearest closed
airspace shall be calculated assuming a speed of 100 mph
• if in the judgment of the CD there was any realistic possibility of
a vertical airspace violation, the closest vertical approach to the
nearest closed airspace shall be calculated based on a climb rate of
1000 feet per minute


John Cochrane

[Frank[_12_]]

On Sep 7, 10:29*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
> > from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
> > you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
> > and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
> > canceled or not.
>
> No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
> a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
> with FAI.
>
> In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
> of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.
>
> The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
> off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
> abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
> then turned in his log.
>
> I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
> week.
>
> Andy (the scorer in this instance)

Even more stupidly, if a contestant turns in a log with an inadvertent
airspace violation, and elects to withdraw his flight log for the day,
he/she STILL gets a zero for the day plus a 100 pt penalty the next
day. How bizarre is that?! The rule that says a contestant must be
offered the opportunity to withdraw his/her flight log was intended to
avoid having a record of an airspace violation hanging around where
someone from our friendly government might see it (can you say
"airline pilot career-ending"?). However, with the present rule
interpretation, a zero on day X combined with a 100pt penalty on day X
+1 is no less incriminating than the original flight log, especially
when the score becomes 'official'.

Ya gotta love the guys who think these things up - going one way and
then the other on the same issue. We now have the best scoring system
in the world. It is so good that you have to consult with two
lawyers, three accountants, and a convicted felon (only the felon
really understands the system) before turning in the day's flight log

TA

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sep 7, 11:02*pm, Frank > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 10:29*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > > For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
> > > from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
> > > you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
> > > and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
> > > canceled or not.
>
> > No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
> > a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
> > with FAI.
>
> > In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
> > of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.
>
> > The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
> > off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
> > abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
> > then turned in his log.
>
> > I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
> > week.
>
> > Andy (the scorer in this instance)
>
> Even more stupidly, if a contestant turns in a log with an inadvertent
> airspace violation, and elects to withdraw his flight log for the day,
> he/she STILL gets a zero for the day plus a 100 pt penalty the next
> day. *How bizarre is that?! *The rule that says a contestant must be
> offered the opportunity to withdraw his/her flight log was intended to
> avoid having a record of an airspace violation hanging around where
> someone from our friendly government might see it (can you say
> "airline pilot career-ending"?). *However, with the present rule
> interpretation, a zero on day X combined with a 100pt penalty on day X
> +1 is no less incriminating than the original flight log, especially
> when the score becomes 'official'.
>
> Ya gotta love the guys who think these things up - going one way and
> then the other on the same issue. *We now have the best scoring system
> in the world. *It is so good that you have to consult with two
> lawyers, three accountants, and a convicted felon (only the felon
> really understands the system) before turning in the day's flight log
>
> TA

Frank,

That is exactly the intent. It allows a log to be withdrawn to avoid
documenting the infraction, but intentionally you get no relief on the
penalty in that case. The option to withdraw the log is a courtesy to
the affected pilot.

Why make the rules more complicated? It is a simple, easy to
understand rule (never go there., -100 points for the day if you do).
The "turn in a log" is also simple and requires no arbitration -
always turn one in.

The only reason you need the two lawyers, three accountants and the
felon (me? have you been in the post office recently?) it to try and
find some wiggle room around a simple, clearly stated (and explained
in the rules appendix) rule.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 7, 11:02*pm, Frank > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 10:29*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > > For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
> > > from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
> > > you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
> > > and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
> > > canceled or not.
>
> > No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
> > a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
> > with FAI.
>
> > In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
> > of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.
>
> > The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
> > off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
> > abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
> > then turned in his log.
>
> > I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
> > week.
>
> > Andy (the scorer in this instance)
>
> Even more stupidly, if a contestant turns in a log with an inadvertent
> airspace violation, and elects to withdraw his flight log for the day,
> he/she STILL gets a zero for the day plus a 100 pt penalty the next
> day. *How bizarre is that?! *The rule that says a contestant must be
> offered the opportunity to withdraw his/her flight log was intended to
> avoid having a record of an airspace violation hanging around where
> someone from our friendly government might see it (can you say
> "airline pilot career-ending"?). *However, with the present rule
> interpretation, a zero on day X combined with a 100pt penalty on day X
> +1 is no less incriminating than the original flight log, especially
> when the score becomes 'official'.
>
> Ya gotta love the guys who think these things up - going one way and
> then the other on the same issue. *We now have the best scoring system
> in the world. *It is so good that you have to consult with two
> lawyers, three accountants, and a convicted felon (only the felon
> really understands the system) before turning in the day's flight log
>
> TA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is not complicated.
Stay out of forbidden airspace- don't get penalty.
The contest board, and by extension the rules committee, has a clear
directive from the SSA board to have a zero tolerance policy with
respect top airspace violations. The rules reflect this directive.
If you can make a case for being lenient on violations, please try to
do so.
The decision not to permit overflight is based primarily on 2
considerations:
1) Transponders are required for overflight of some of these pieces of
airspace. To not be at a competitive disadvantage, pilots would have
to add another expensive piece of equipment(understood that some folks
would think this is a good idea) which can have an adverse affect on
participation. Don't make the mistake of making the case that they are
not required. The order of precidence in the FAR's, which was
carefully parsed, will show otherwise.
2)) There is no assurance that the pilot can positively stay out of
the airspace as he may descend into it. 40 guys all asking for OK to
fly through Class C would result in a huge mess.
"Simple" solution- stay out.
As to withdrawal of log- or non submission. Your violation is between
you and the FAA and the contest operation etc. intends to stay out of
that.
The policies here are, in part, the result of one of the most
difficult exchanges between the contest committee and the BOD and will
not be subject to change.
FWIW
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcomittee Chair

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 7, 8:01*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I think QT is right, though it took some puzzling over the rules for
> me to see it.
>
> Actually, I think that having a mysterious flight log failure will not
> get you out of trouble. A valid log has to show takeoff, path of
> flight and landing (see below), and if there are any gaps, the cd is
> supposed to assume you went real fast right to the prohibited space.
> That says "path of flight and landing" not just "task."
>
> Now should we change it? The event -- you abandon the task, want to
> fly home, and the only way to do it safely is go over a class C, and
> you have a radio and transponder -- seems pretty remote. *Was it
> really unsafe to go around, or was it just extra gas for a
> motorglider?
>
> 10.5.2 Flight Log requirements
> 10.5.2.1 A valid Flight Log is one that:
> • Was produced by a Flight Recorder that meets the provisions of Rule
> 6.7.4
> • Shows the takeoff, the path of the flight, and the landing.
> • Has a typical interval between fixes of 15 seconds or less.
> • Between takeoff and landing, shows no interval between fixes
> exceeding 15 minutes (See Rule 6.3.3.2 for motorized sailplanes
> constraint).
>
> 10.12.5 Gaps in a Flight Log longer than one minute shall be
> interpreted unfavorably to the pilot. During each such gap:
> • the closest horizontal approach to or from the nearest closed
> airspace shall be calculated assuming a speed of 100 mph
> • if in the judgment of the CD there was any realistic possibility of
> a vertical airspace violation, the closest vertical approach to the
> nearest closed airspace shall be calculated based on a climb rate of
> 1000 feet per minute
>
> John Cochrane

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 8, 5:53*am, wrote:
> On Sep 7, 11:02*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 10:29*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > > > For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
> > > > from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
> > > > you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
> > > > and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
> > > > canceled or not.
>
> > > No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
> > > a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
> > > with FAI.
>
> > > In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
> > > of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.
>
> > > The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
> > > off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
> > > abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
> > > then turned in his log.
>
> > > I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
> > > week.
>
> > > Andy (the scorer in this instance)
>
> > Even more stupidly, if a contestant turns in a log with an inadvertent
> > airspace violation, and elects to withdraw his flight log for the day,
> > he/she STILL gets a zero for the day plus a 100 pt penalty the next
> > day. *How bizarre is that?! *The rule that says a contestant must be
> > offered the opportunity to withdraw his/her flight log was intended to
> > avoid having a record of an airspace violation hanging around where
> > someone from our friendly government might see it (can you say
> > "airline pilot career-ending"?). *However, with the present rule
> > interpretation, a zero on day X combined with a 100pt penalty on day X
> > +1 is no less incriminating than the original flight log, especially
> > when the score becomes 'official'.
>
> > Ya gotta love the guys who think these things up - going one way and
> > then the other on the same issue. *We now have the best scoring system
> > in the world. *It is so good that you have to consult with two
> > lawyers, three accountants, and a convicted felon (only the felon
> > really understands the system) before turning in the day's flight log
>
> > TA- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It is not complicated.
> Stay out of forbidden airspace- don't get penalty.
> The contest board, and by extension the rules committee, has a clear
> directive from the SSA board to have a zero tolerance policy with
> respect top airspace violations. The rules reflect this directive.
> If you can make a case for being lenient on violations, please try to
> do so.
> The decision not to permit overflight is based primarily on 2
> considerations:
> 1) Transponders are required for overflight of some of these pieces of
> airspace. To not be at a competitive disadvantage, pilots would have
> to add another expensive piece of equipment(understood that some folks
> would think this is a good idea) which can have an adverse affect on
> participation. Don't make the mistake of making the case that they are
> not required. The order of precidence in the FAR's, which was
> carefully parsed, will show otherwise.
> 2)) There is no assurance that the pilot can positively stay out of
> the airspace as he may descend into it. 40 guys all asking for OK to
> fly through Class C would result in a huge mess.
> "Simple" solution- stay out.
> As to withdrawal of log- or non submission. Your violation is between
> you and the FAA and the contest operation etc. intends to stay out of
> that.
> The policies here are, in part, the result of one of the most
> difficult exchanges between the contest committee and the BOD and will
> not be subject to change.
> FWIW
> UH
> SSA Competition Rules Subcomittee Chair

Ahh, OK, I'll just deal with it, for the better of the SSA, it's
image, and the sport in general.

And no, I didn't protest the penalty, I'm the one who made the
decision to go home via the safest route as the day was ending. Could
I have gone around the Class C instead of over it? Maybe, but it
would have been close.

Anyway, I learned more about the sport, had a fun flight with good
friends, and made it home safely for a cold one; what more can one ask
for?

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 7, 7:29*pm, Andy > wrote:

> The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
> off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
> abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
> then turned in his log.

I have to correct that - the score would have been the same since
failure to turn in a log would get zero for the day and the additional
100 point penalty.

Andy

[LOV2AV8]

As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
the day. Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
conflict with getting home.

Randy

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
> As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> conflict with getting home.
>
> Randy

What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
practical circumstance.

John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > conflict with getting home.
>
> > Randy
>
> What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> practical circumstance.
>
> John Cochrane

This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
from Tucson Soaring Club. The CD set a long and challenging task that
proved too long, mostly because of a late start. Only one contestant
completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
abandoned.

We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
safest way home from tiger country.

Mike

[Marc Ramsey[_3_]]

At 17:36 08 September 2010, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
>from Tucson Soaring Club. The CD set a long and challenging task that
>proved too long, mostly because of a late start. Only one contestant
>completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
>abandoned.
>
>We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
>safest way home from tiger country.
>

And since no one is mentioned it yet, it is perfectly legal to overfly a
Class C without a transponder and without being in radio contact with the
tower, as long as you are above 10000 ft MSL. This is a fairly common
move in the western half of the US...

Marc

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 8, 12:08*pm, Marc Ramsey >
wrote:
> At 17:36 08 September 2010, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>
>
> >This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> >from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> >proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> >completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> >abandoned.
>
> >We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> >safest way home from tiger country.
>
> And since no one is mentioned it yet, it is perfectly legal to overfly a
> Class C without a transponder and without being in radio contact with the
> tower, as long as you are above 10000 ft MSL. *This is a fairly common
> move in the western half of the US...
>
> Marc

Marc beat me to that. And before anybody challenges him please
carefully read 14 CFR 91.215. This seems to be a common point of
confusion. But it would be much better if people actually have
transponders near Class C or B airspace to begin with.

I am not commenting on whether what the contest rules should or should
not allow overflight. I can see a reason for now wanting contestants
to try to overfly the top of class C or 10,000 MSL and fall into it.

And personally (since John stirred the pot there) I would hope that if
the SSA is going to run contests near Class C airspace then maybe they
ought to consider the need to require transponders in gliders (ouch I
can hear keyboards being pounded out there...).


Darryl

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

I absolutely agree with the SSA Board's zero-tolerance attitude
towards rules violations.

On the other hand, there are controlled, restricted, and/or prohibited
areas in every contest envelope I've flown in and we routinely assign
tasks that require us to exercise our piloting abilities to remain
clear of this closed airspace. Thanks to GPS loggers, enforcement is
easy, as evidenced by Rule 10.12.1 "Tasks should be set to avoid
flight through closed airspace or areas of high-density traffic." This
somewhat nebulous guidance gives the CD the flexibility to set tasks
even when a straight line between two specific points within turn area
cylinders passes through such airspace. An airspace infraction is easy
to spot on the trace and the consequences for busting this rule are
straightforward and dire. The expansion of closed airspace to include
all airspace above it is, as our Rules Committee reps have said, a
simple way to deal with attempts to cross closed airspace that fail
due to sink or miscalculated glides.

However, I have to take issue with the reasoning that anyone
questioning whether this rule ought to be changed for flights
involving a return from an abandoned task is championing leniency for
violations. As far as I'm concerned, an FAA airspace violation during
a flight that originates from a contest launch should be penalized the
same whether it's outbound on the scorable portion or inbound on the
non-scorable return portion. What's different is the pilot's incentive
to shave the margin a little more closely in the pursuit of speed
points on the scorable portion. Yeah, one could argue that a pilot
might push a little farther before turning around and then be
compelled to fly just as aggressively to return before legal sunset
(or a storm) and thereby be incentivized to take chances with airspace
but, in the words of one of our Rules Committee guys, that seems
pretty remote.

I think we should explore allowing a pilot to overfly Class C and
other closed airspace on the way home after abandoning a task if it's
legal without a transponder or radio contact. I realize this opens the
door to "well, if it's legal for him to go over, why not let me go
through 'cause I've got the required equipment and expertise and it
doesn't give me any extra contest points." But so be it.

Let me ask a different question: would an aero retrieve be permitted
to overfly a Class C on the way back to the contest site without
penalty? I hope so. Yet that flight is also clearly in the scope of an
SSA sanctioned contest. How about a motorglider that lands part way
around, then launches again and motors back, overflying a Class C in
the process?

As long as I'm making trouble, let me offer the notion that
practically speaking, there may be a solution on days such as the one
described here in Rule 5.6.2.4 "Closed airspace is considered closed
at all times, except as specifically announced by the CD." As I read
this, a CD could announce on a questionable day that it was OK to
overfly closed airspace returning from an abandoned task.

Speaking of CDs, I'm reminded of the one a few years ago who decided
to go the extra mile, so to speak, and declared (as per Rule 5.6.2.3)
that all the airspace UNDER the overlying layers of Class C airspace
would also be closed. When queried about the fact that this excluded a
few small airports as potential landing sites, the CD breezily
informed the assembled pilots that there were plenty of fields
available in that area if they had to land out. That this CD was
related to the owner of a local fiberglass repair shop was not thought
to be a factor in this ruling. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Sep 8, 12:36*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > > conflict with getting home.
>
> > > Randy
>
> > What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> > around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> > impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> > hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> > the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> > practical circumstance.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> abandoned.
>
> We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> safest way home from tiger country.
>
> Mike

I'm still trying to get a sense of whether "this was a real problem"
or whether this is some hypothetical question.

The SSA contest report says this was an area task from El Tiro to
Amado, southwest of Tucson, with a 25 mile circle around Amado. The
direct courseline to Amado doesn't intersect the Tucson class C,
though it does come close; the Tucson class C is east of courseline.
Looking at the chart, I would have flown the line of high ground even
further west of courseline, ending up at Keystone peak or thereabouts.
My options would have been the line of airports, Ruby Star, Flying
Diamond, Ryan, Taylor, all again a bit west of courseline and heading
right back to El Tiro and the second turnpoint. I just don't see how
anyone could have gotten stuck behind the Tucson class C. And it looks
like the CD did a good job of setting a course that really didn't
cause a problem.

So, tell the story. Where were you guys that you really felt this was
the only safe option? How did you get there? Or is this all
hypothetical?

There is a lot of complaining around here about rules being too
complicated. Carving out an exception for class C overflights in
abandoned tasks is certainly going to be complicated. So it matters
whether this is a real problem, or just the beginning of winter what-
ifs.

John Cochrane

[Andy[_10_]]

On Sep 8, 5:45*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Sep 8, 12:36*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > > > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > > > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > > > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > > > conflict with getting home.
>
> > > > Randy
>
> > > What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> > > around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> > > impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> > > hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> > > the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> > > practical circumstance.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> > from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> > proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> > completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> > abandoned.
>
> > We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> > safest way home from tiger country.
>
> > Mike
>
> I'm still trying to get a sense of whether "this was a real problem"
> or whether this is some hypothetical question.
>
> The SSA contest report says this was an area task from El Tiro to
> Amado, southwest of Tucson, with a 25 mile circle around Amado. The
> direct courseline to Amado doesn't intersect the Tucson class C,
> though it does come close; the Tucson class C is east of courseline.
> Looking at the chart, I would have flown the line of high ground even
> further west of courseline, ending up at Keystone peak or thereabouts.
> My options would have been the line of airports, Ruby Star, Flying
> Diamond, Ryan, Taylor, all again a bit west of courseline and heading
> right back to El Tiro and the second turnpoint. I just don't see how
> anyone could have gotten stuck behind the Tucson class C. And it looks
> like the CD did *a good job of setting a course that really didn't
> cause a problem.
>
> So, tell the story. Where were you guys that you really felt this was
> the only safe option? How did you get there? Or is this all
> hypothetical?
>
> There is a lot of complaining around here about rules being too
> complicated. Carving out an exception for class C overflights in
> abandoned tasks is certainly going to be complicated. So it matters
> whether this is a real problem, or just the beginning of winter what-
> ifs.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I think you've mistaken the Southwest Soaring Championships (a non-
sanctioned local contest) with the Region 9 that was also held at El
Tiro. The task in question was:

ID Name Distance (Miles) Radius
106 106 Waterman 0.00 5.0
62 062 MtWshngt 77.13
12 012 Benson 126.93
13 013 Biospher 176.85
1 001 EL TIRO 209.27 1.0

I have a few recollections of making long final glides to El Tiro from
the east. Given the distances involved a long, flat glide would
occasionally get you close to the top of the Class C and in that
instance going around could run you out of glide distance.
Disclaimer: My recollection is decades old and based on the old ARSA
configuration at Tucson IIRC.

9B

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Sep 8, 9:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 5:45*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 12:36*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > > > > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > > > > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > > > > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > > > > conflict with getting home.
>
> > > > > Randy
>
> > > > What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> > > > around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> > > > impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> > > > hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> > > > the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> > > > practical circumstance.
>
> > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> > > from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> > > proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> > > completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> > > abandoned.
>
> > > We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> > > safest way home from tiger country.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > I'm still trying to get a sense of whether "this was a real problem"
> > or whether this is some hypothetical question.
>
> > The SSA contest report says this was an area task from El Tiro to
> > Amado, southwest of Tucson, with a 25 mile circle around Amado. The
> > direct courseline to Amado doesn't intersect the Tucson class C,
> > though it does come close; the Tucson class C is east of courseline.
> > Looking at the chart, I would have flown the line of high ground even
> > further west of courseline, ending up at Keystone peak or thereabouts.
> > My options would have been the line of airports, Ruby Star, Flying
> > Diamond, Ryan, Taylor, all again a bit west of courseline and heading
> > right back to El Tiro and the second turnpoint. I just don't see how
> > anyone could have gotten stuck behind the Tucson class C. And it looks
> > like the CD did *a good job of setting a course that really didn't
> > cause a problem.
>
> > So, tell the story. Where were you guys that you really felt this was
> > the only safe option? How did you get there? Or is this all
> > hypothetical?
>
> > There is a lot of complaining around here about rules being too
> > complicated. Carving out an exception for class C overflights in
> > abandoned tasks is certainly going to be complicated. So it matters
> > whether this is a real problem, or just the beginning of winter what-
> > ifs.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> John,
>
> I think you've mistaken the Southwest Soaring Championships (a non-
> sanctioned local contest) with the Region 9 that was also held at El
> Tiro. The task in question was:
>
> * ID * Name * * * * * * * * Distance (Miles) * Radius
> * *106 * 106 Waterman * * * * * 0.00 * * * * * * *5.0
> * * 62 * 062 MtWshngt * * * * *77.13
> * * 12 * 012 Benson * * * * * 126.93
> * * 13 * 013 Biospher * * * * 176.85
> * * *1 * 001 EL TIRO * * * * *209.27 * * * * * * *1.0
>
> I have a few recollections of making long final glides to El Tiro from
> the east. Given the distances involved a long, flat glide would
> occasionally get you close to the top of the Class C and in that
> instance going around could run you out of glide distance.
> Disclaimer: My recollection is decades old and based on the old ARSA
> configuration at Tucson IIRC.
>
> 9B

Well, if it's non-sanctioned, go ahead and make your own rules, or
exceptions!

John Cochrane

[kirk.stant]

On Sep 9, 6:47*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 5:45*pm, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 12:36*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > > > > > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > > > > > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > > > > > conflict with getting home.
>
> > > > > > Randy
>
> > > > > What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> > > > > around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> > > > > impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> > > > > hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> > > > > the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> > > > > practical circumstance.
>
> > > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > > This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> > > > from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> > > > proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> > > > completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> > > > abandoned.
>
> > > > We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> > > > safest way home from tiger country.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > I'm still trying to get a sense of whether "this was a real problem"
> > > or whether this is some hypothetical question.
>
> > > The SSA contest report says this was an area task from El Tiro to
> > > Amado, southwest of Tucson, with a 25 mile circle around Amado. The
> > > direct courseline to Amado doesn't intersect the Tucson class C,
> > > though it does come close; the Tucson class C is east of courseline.
> > > Looking at the chart, I would have flown the line of high ground even
> > > further west of courseline, ending up at Keystone peak or thereabouts..
> > > My options would have been the line of airports, Ruby Star, Flying
> > > Diamond, Ryan, Taylor, all again a bit west of courseline and heading
> > > right back to El Tiro and the second turnpoint. I just don't see how
> > > anyone could have gotten stuck behind the Tucson class C. And it looks
> > > like the CD did *a good job of setting a course that really didn't
> > > cause a problem.
>
> > > So, tell the story. Where were you guys that you really felt this was
> > > the only safe option? How did you get there? Or is this all
> > > hypothetical?
>
> > > There is a lot of complaining around here about rules being too
> > > complicated. Carving out an exception for class C overflights in
> > > abandoned tasks is certainly going to be complicated. So it matters
> > > whether this is a real problem, or just the beginning of winter what-
> > > ifs.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > John,
>
> > I think you've mistaken the Southwest Soaring Championships (a non-
> > sanctioned local contest) with the Region 9 that was also held at El
> > Tiro. The task in question was:
>
> > * ID * Name * * * * * * * * Distance (Miles) * Radius
> > * *106 * 106 Waterman * * * * * 0.00 * * * * * * *5.0
> > * * 62 * 062 MtWshngt * * * * *77.13
> > * * 12 * 012 Benson * * * * * 126.93
> > * * 13 * 013 Biospher * * * * 176.85
> > * * *1 * 001 EL TIRO * * * * *209.27 * * * * * * *1.0
>
> > I have a few recollections of making long final glides to El Tiro from
> > the east. Given the distances involved a long, flat glide would
> > occasionally get you close to the top of the Class C and in that
> > instance going around could run you out of glide distance.
> > Disclaimer: My recollection is decades old and based on the old ARSA
> > configuration at Tucson IIRC.
>
> > 9B
>
> Well, if it's non-sanctioned, go ahead and make your own rules, or
> exceptions!
>
> John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok, just to makes things clear:

The task was a speed task, first turnpoint way south of Tucson (Mt
Washington, I think, near Nogales), second turnpont Benson (east of
Tucson, directly across the Class C from El Tiro), then Biosphere
(north of Tucson), then El Tiro. By the time I got near Benson, the
day was dying and I decided to abort the task rather than head up into
a possible landout. At that point, I found a climb that allowed me to
get well above the Class C and gave me final glide back to El Tiro. I
contacted approach, overflew the "closed airspace", and landed back at
El Tiro.

I understand (and agree with completely) the rule about no overflying
closed airspace WHEN ON TASK. And I have no problem with losing my
score and getting penalized for this flight, because I misinterpreted
the rule that is clear as currently written and decided to take what I
considered a safe and legal route home. My question was about whether
the rule should be amended IN THE FUTURE to allow legal overflight (or
even, with clearance, flight through) controlled airspace during part
of a contest flight that is no longer "on task" i.e. an aborted return
from a task as there is no competitive benefit for doing so (unless
one considers avoiding a long retrieve a competitive advantage ;^).

Up side? Safety, convenience, full use of the airspace we are allowed
to use, etc. Downside? Scoring complication, rule complication, more
chances for airspace violation.

My opinion is that it's ultimately the pilot's, not the SSA's, job to
comply with the FARs - since it's the pilot that gets hammered if he
gets a violation, no the SSA. And scoring complication is a software
issue, nowadays - we already score to the point of a task abort, so
"added complication" seems a bit of a stretch. I totally support the
SSA requirement to stay out of closed airspace when on task, since a
pilot should not be tasked through airspace that he may not be able to
legally fly through, or require equipment he may not have.

Anyway, I just thought this situation was interesting enough to
warrant some discussion - especially since it is a bit of a regional
problem (I can't see this being a problem back East!).

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Andy[_10_]]

On Sep 9, 4:47*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 5:45*pm, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 12:36*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > > > > > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > > > > > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > > > > > conflict with getting home.
>
> > > > > > Randy
>
> > > > > What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> > > > > around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> > > > > impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> > > > > hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> > > > > the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> > > > > practical circumstance.
>
> > > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > > This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> > > > from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> > > > proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> > > > completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> > > > abandoned.
>
> > > > We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> > > > safest way home from tiger country.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > I'm still trying to get a sense of whether "this was a real problem"
> > > or whether this is some hypothetical question.
>
> > > The SSA contest report says this was an area task from El Tiro to
> > > Amado, southwest of Tucson, with a 25 mile circle around Amado. The
> > > direct courseline to Amado doesn't intersect the Tucson class C,
> > > though it does come close; the Tucson class C is east of courseline.
> > > Looking at the chart, I would have flown the line of high ground even
> > > further west of courseline, ending up at Keystone peak or thereabouts..
> > > My options would have been the line of airports, Ruby Star, Flying
> > > Diamond, Ryan, Taylor, all again a bit west of courseline and heading
> > > right back to El Tiro and the second turnpoint. I just don't see how
> > > anyone could have gotten stuck behind the Tucson class C. And it looks
> > > like the CD did *a good job of setting a course that really didn't
> > > cause a problem.
>
> > > So, tell the story. Where were you guys that you really felt this was
> > > the only safe option? How did you get there? Or is this all
> > > hypothetical?
>
> > > There is a lot of complaining around here about rules being too
> > > complicated. Carving out an exception for class C overflights in
> > > abandoned tasks is certainly going to be complicated. So it matters
> > > whether this is a real problem, or just the beginning of winter what-
> > > ifs.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > John,
>
> > I think you've mistaken the Southwest Soaring Championships (a non-
> > sanctioned local contest) with the Region 9 that was also held at El
> > Tiro. The task in question was:
>
> > * ID * Name * * * * * * * * Distance (Miles) * Radius
> > * *106 * 106 Waterman * * * * * 0.00 * * * * * * *5.0
> > * * 62 * 062 MtWshngt * * * * *77.13
> > * * 12 * 012 Benson * * * * * 126.93
> > * * 13 * 013 Biospher * * * * 176.85
> > * * *1 * 001 EL TIRO * * * * *209.27 * * * * * * *1.0
>
> > I have a few recollections of making long final glides to El Tiro from
> > the east. Given the distances involved a long, flat glide would
> > occasionally get you close to the top of the Class C and in that
> > instance going around could run you out of glide distance.
> > Disclaimer: My recollection is decades old and based on the old ARSA
> > configuration at Tucson IIRC.
>
> > 9B
>
> Well, if it's non-sanctioned, go ahead and make your own rules, or
> exceptions!
>
> John Cochrane

:-)

They use the Regional Sports Class rules AFAIK.

This situation could just as easily have come up at Region 9, and
Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing have a similar geometry in relation to
Reno. No other western site comes to mind where this is an issue, but
I don't know them all. I think this situation comes up once in a blue
moon. The tasking has to be basically "around" the Class C and the day
has to "end" with pilots on the far side with enough altitude to get
home but not around the Class C. It can create a conundrum regarding
getting home versus preserving points.

If overflight were allowed post abandoning the task I could imagine
situations where a pilot hugs the far boundary of the airspace trying
to make headway towards the next turnpoint with the knowledge that at
any point s/he could abandon and scoot across the restricted airspace
to get home. Depending on the configuration of the task the scorer
might be hard pressed to determine at what point the task was
abandoned since the pilot might still be making progress towards the
next turnpoint while over the restricted airspace. In that case,
depending on how the rule was written, the pilot might have to turn
partly away from home back across the restricted airspace for a number
of miles in order to create a clear "abandon point" that is closest to
the next turn while still outside the restricted area. IMO that's too
much rule and pilot decision complexity for a situation that comes up
rarely. An alternate solution is to advise CD's not to task in ways
that might create these sorts of conflicts.

I know in the past CD's have declared airspace above restricted areas
"open" (a TFR in my direct experience). I don't know if that's within
the rules or not.

9B

[Andy[_10_]]

On Sep 7, 8:01*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:

> • if in the judgment of the CD there was any realistic possibility of
> a vertical airspace violation, the closest vertical approach to the
> nearest closed airspace shall be calculated based on a climb rate of
> 1000 feet per minute

I missed this one.

Does that mean that you could get a penalty if you get within
1,000*(sample interval in seconds)/60 of 17,500', and if you drop
fixes you are at risk for a penalty if you are within (# dropped
fixes)*1,000*(sample interval in seconds)/60 of 17,500'. Is there also
a decent rate calculation to get you back down to your next fix?

There must be some threshold that determines "realistic possibility".

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 9, 6:09*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> I understand (and agree with completely) the rule about no overflying
> closed airspace WHEN ON TASK. *And I have no problem with losing my
> score and getting penalized for this flight, because I misinterpreted
> the rule that is clear as currently written and decided to take what I
> considered a safe and legal route home. *My question was about whether
> the rule should be amended IN THE FUTURE to allow legal overflight (or
> even, with clearance, flight through) controlled airspace during part
> of a contest flight that is no longer "on task" i.e. an aborted return
> from a task as there is no competitive benefit for doing so (unless
> one considers avoiding a long retrieve a competitive advantage ;^).

But it's not that simple. How does the scorer know where you declared
your intention to abort? The person that won the day was also
thinking of aborting at the first turn and followed a similar route
back to yours. Conditions then improved and he made a large detour to
get back toward the second turnpoint. Maybe you would have done the
same thing. How would you have cancelled your intention to abort?

I think the FAI rules would have handled this situation just fine.
You would have been scores as landing out at the class C boundary and
the distance on that leg would have been scored as progress toward the
second turnpoint.

Andy

[kirk.stant]

> But it's not that simple. *How does the scorer know where you declared
> your intention to abort? *The person that won the day was also
> thinking of aborting at the first turn and followed a similar route
> back to yours. Conditions then improved and he made a large detour to
> get back toward the second turnpoint. *Maybe you would have done the
> same thing. How would you have cancelled your intention to abort?
>
> I think the FAI rules would have handled this situation just fine.
> You would have been scores as landing out at the class C boundary and
> the distance on that leg would have been scored as progress toward the
> second turnpoint.
>
> Andy

How does the scorer know where to score to if someone aborts
normally? Doesn't the scoring program look for the farthest logger
point in the direction of the next turnpoint (that isn't actually
reached) to determine how to score distance, after it determines that
the task wasn't completed? Then it would seem easy to not assess a
violation for any airspace incursion after that point is determined.
The scorer shouldn't have to do anything.

But I admit I'm assuming a lot about Winscore, so may very well be
completely wrong about this.

Kirk

[SoaringMaps Team]

On Sep 9, 2:02*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > But it's not that simple. *How does the scorer know where you declared
> > your intention to abort? *The person that won the day was also
> > thinking of aborting at the first turn and followed a similar route
> > back to yours. Conditions then improved and he made a large detour to
> > get back toward the second turnpoint. *Maybe you would have done the
> > same thing. How would you have cancelled your intention to abort?
>
> > I think the FAI rules would have handled this situation just fine.
> > You would have been scores as landing out at the class C boundary and
> > the distance on that leg would have been scored as progress toward the
> > second turnpoint.
>
> > Andy
>
> How does the scorer know where to score to if someone aborts
> normally? *Doesn't the scoring program look for the farthest logger
> point in the direction of the next turnpoint (that isn't actually
> reached) to determine how to score distance, after it determines that
> the task wasn't completed? *Then it would seem easy to not assess a
> violation for any airspace incursion after that point is determined.
> The scorer shouldn't have to do anything.
>
> But I admit I'm assuming a lot about Winscore, so may very well be
> completely wrong about this.
>
> Kirk

I can definitely lay out some tasks in relation to restricted areas
(like Class C's) where the pilot would be required to backtrack away
from the next turnpoint (and home) to avoid the -100 point outcome if
s/he abandoned the task and elected to traverse the restricted area.
This would require careful piloting to ensure that your greatest
progress towards the next turnpoint was outside the restricted area.
To make this really obvious imagine that the second to last turn is
across a Class C from home and the last turn is a steering turn just
20 miles abeam of the finish. You'd have to do some clever
trigonometry to figure out how to cross the Class C after making the
second to last turn in order to get home without making progress
towards the final turn within the restricted area.

9B

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sep 9, 12:48*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 4:47*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 9:25*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 5:45*pm, John Cochrane >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 8, 12:36*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
> > > > > > > the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
> > > > > > > rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
> > > > > > > conflict with getting home.
>
> > > > > > > Randy
>
> > > > > > What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
> > > > > > around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
> > > > > > impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
> > > > > > hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
> > > > > > the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
> > > > > > practical circumstance.
>
> > > > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > > > This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
> > > > > from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
> > > > > proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
> > > > > completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
> > > > > abandoned.
>
> > > > > We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
> > > > > safest way home from tiger country.
>
> > > > > Mike
>
> > > > I'm still trying to get a sense of whether "this was a real problem"
> > > > or whether this is some hypothetical question.
>
> > > > The SSA contest report says this was an area task from El Tiro to
> > > > Amado, southwest of Tucson, with a 25 mile circle around Amado. The
> > > > direct courseline to Amado doesn't intersect the Tucson class C,
> > > > though it does come close; the Tucson class C is east of courseline..
> > > > Looking at the chart, I would have flown the line of high ground even
> > > > further west of courseline, ending up at Keystone peak or thereabouts.
> > > > My options would have been the line of airports, Ruby Star, Flying
> > > > Diamond, Ryan, Taylor, all again a bit west of courseline and heading
> > > > right back to El Tiro and the second turnpoint. I just don't see how
> > > > anyone could have gotten stuck behind the Tucson class C. And it looks
> > > > like the CD did *a good job of setting a course that really didn't
> > > > cause a problem.
>
> > > > So, tell the story. Where were you guys that you really felt this was
> > > > the only safe option? How did you get there? Or is this all
> > > > hypothetical?
>
> > > > There is a lot of complaining around here about rules being too
> > > > complicated. Carving out an exception for class C overflights in
> > > > abandoned tasks is certainly going to be complicated. So it matters
> > > > whether this is a real problem, or just the beginning of winter what-
> > > > ifs.
>
> > > > John Cochrane
>
> > > John,
>
> > > I think you've mistaken the Southwest Soaring Championships (a non-
> > > sanctioned local contest) with the Region 9 that was also held at El
> > > Tiro. The task in question was:
>
> > > * ID * Name * * * * * * * * Distance (Miles) * Radius
> > > * *106 * 106 Waterman * * * * * 0.00 * * * * * * *5.0
> > > * * 62 * 062 MtWshngt * * * * *77.13
> > > * * 12 * 012 Benson * * * * * 126.93
> > > * * 13 * 013 Biospher * * * * 176.85
> > > * * *1 * 001 EL TIRO * * * * *209.27 * * * * * * *1.0
>
> > > I have a few recollections of making long final glides to El Tiro from
> > > the east. Given the distances involved a long, flat glide would
> > > occasionally get you close to the top of the Class C and in that
> > > instance going around could run you out of glide distance.
> > > Disclaimer: My recollection is decades old and based on the old ARSA
> > > configuration at Tucson IIRC.
>
> > > 9B
>
> > Well, if it's non-sanctioned, go ahead and make your own rules, or
> > exceptions!
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> :-)
>
> They use the Regional Sports Class rules AFAIK.
>
> This situation could just as easily have come up at Region 9, and
> Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing have a similar geometry in relation to
> Reno. No other western site comes to mind where this is an issue, but
> I don't know them all. *I think this situation comes up once in a blue
> moon. The tasking has to be basically "around" the Class C and the day
> has to "end" with pilots on the far side with enough altitude to get
> home but not around the Class C. *It can create a conundrum regarding
> getting home versus preserving points.
>
> If overflight were allowed post abandoning the task I could imagine
> situations where a pilot hugs the far boundary of the airspace trying
> to make headway towards the next turnpoint with the knowledge that at
> any point s/he could abandon and scoot across the restricted airspace
> to get home. Depending on the configuration *of the task the scorer
> might be hard pressed to determine at what point the task was
> abandoned since the pilot might still be making progress towards the
> next turnpoint while over the restricted airspace. In that case,
> depending on how the rule was written, the pilot might have to turn
> partly away from home back across the restricted airspace for a number
> of miles in order to create a clear "abandon point" that is closest to
> the next turn while still outside the restricted area. IMO that's too
> much rule and pilot decision complexity for a situation that comes up
> rarely. An alternate solution is to advise CD's not to task in ways
> that might create these sorts of conflicts.
>
> I know in the past CD's have declared airspace above restricted areas
> "open" (a TFR in my direct experience). I don't know if that's within
> the rules or not.
>
> 9B

The SSA directive is clear - no flying above any closed airspace. The
rules seem to provide wiggle room for a CD to "open" closed airspace
but that is not the intent. Is is intended to deal with for example
restricted areas that may or may not be active.

The more important question for me is why is the CD setting a task
that sets this situation up?

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Sep 10, 1:11*am, SoaringMaps Team > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2:02*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > But it's not that simple. *How does the scorer know where you declared
> > > your intention to abort? *The person that won the day was also
> > > thinking of aborting at the first turn and followed a similar route
> > > back to yours. Conditions then improved and he made a large detour to
> > > get back toward the second turnpoint. *Maybe you would have done the
> > > same thing. How would you have cancelled your intention to abort?
>
> > > I think the FAI rules would have handled this situation just fine.
> > > You would have been scores as landing out at the class C boundary and
> > > the distance on that leg would have been scored as progress toward the
> > > second turnpoint.
>
> > > Andy
>
> > How does the scorer know where to score to if someone aborts
> > normally? *Doesn't the scoring program look for the farthest logger
> > point in the direction of the next turnpoint (that isn't actually
> > reached) to determine how to score distance, after it determines that
> > the task wasn't completed? *Then it would seem easy to not assess a
> > violation for any airspace incursion after that point is determined.
> > The scorer shouldn't have to do anything.
>
> > But I admit I'm assuming a lot about Winscore, so may very well be
> > completely wrong about this.
>
> > Kirk
>
> I can definitely lay out some tasks in relation to restricted areas
> (like Class C's) where the pilot would be required to backtrack away
> from the next turnpoint (and home) to avoid the -100 point outcome if
> s/he abandoned the task and elected to traverse the restricted area.
> This would require careful piloting to ensure that your greatest
> progress towards the next turnpoint was outside the restricted area.
> To make this really obvious imagine that the second to last turn is
> across a Class C from home and the last turn is a steering turn just
> 20 miles abeam of the finish. *You'd have to do some clever
> trigonometry to figure out how to cross the Class C after making the
> second to last turn in order to get home without making progress
> towards the final turn within the restricted area.
>
> 9B

But this answer displays some of the wisdom of current policy. We
don't allow flight in or over class C because it would give a
competitive advantage to those having a transponder. Originally, it
seemed like "but the race is over, so there's no competitive
advantage" was a good argument. But in this and a previous example,
it's clear that being able to press on while keeping the option alive
to glide home over the class C is a definite competitive advantage.

Bottom line, though: Given the amount of complaining from many people
about complex rules, carving out an airspace exception to fly over
class C as "self retrieve" doesn't seem like a good idea.

For a non-sanctioned contest, make up your own rules and do whatever
you want.

If a sanctioned contest really wants to do this, they should apply for
a rules waiver. It might make sense at El Tiro given the very odd
geometry of the Tucson class C relative to El Tiro and the soaring
area. That lets you adapt rules to local conditions without us having
to write some nightmare into the rules that apply to everyone.

John Cochrane

[kirk.stant]

>
> > I can definitely lay out some tasks in relation to restricted areas
> > (like Class C's) where the pilot would be required to backtrack away
> > from the next turnpoint (and home) to avoid the -100 point outcome if
> > s/he abandoned the task and elected to traverse the restricted area.
> > This would require careful piloting to ensure that your greatest
> > progress towards the next turnpoint was outside the restricted area.
> > To make this really obvious imagine that the second to last turn is
> > across a Class C from home and the last turn is a steering turn just
> > 20 miles abeam of the finish. *You'd have to do some clever
> > trigonometry to figure out how to cross the Class C after making the
> > second to last turn in order to get home without making progress
> > towards the final turn within the restricted area.
>
> > 9B
>
> But this answer displays some of the wisdom of current policy. We
> don't allow flight in or over class C because it would give a
> competitive advantage to those having a transponder. Originally, it
> seemed like "but the race is over, so there's no competitive
> advantage" was a good argument. But in this and a previous example,
> it's clear that being able to press on while keeping the option alive
> to glide home over the class C is a definite competitive advantage.
>
> Bottom line, though: Given the amount of complaining from many people
> about complex rules, carving out an airspace exception to fly over
> class C as "self retrieve" doesn't seem like a good idea.

Ok I can see the logic in that.

Bottom line, know the rules, but do what is safe.

Fun discussion, I learned a lot (only slightly painfully!).

But we are racing again at El Tiro this weekend, so this time I'll be
more careful!

Cheers,

Kirk

[Andy[_10_]]

On Sep 10, 6:45*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Sep 10, 1:11*am, SoaringMaps Team > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 2:02*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > > > But it's not that simple. *How does the scorer know where you declared
> > > > your intention to abort? *The person that won the day was also
> > > > thinking of aborting at the first turn and followed a similar route
> > > > back to yours. Conditions then improved and he made a large detour to
> > > > get back toward the second turnpoint. *Maybe you would have done the
> > > > same thing. How would you have cancelled your intention to abort?
>
> > > > I think the FAI rules would have handled this situation just fine.
> > > > You would have been scores as landing out at the class C boundary and
> > > > the distance on that leg would have been scored as progress toward the
> > > > second turnpoint.
>
> > > > Andy
>
> > > How does the scorer know where to score to if someone aborts
> > > normally? *Doesn't the scoring program look for the farthest logger
> > > point in the direction of the next turnpoint (that isn't actually
> > > reached) to determine how to score distance, after it determines that
> > > the task wasn't completed? *Then it would seem easy to not assess a
> > > violation for any airspace incursion after that point is determined.
> > > The scorer shouldn't have to do anything.
>
> > > But I admit I'm assuming a lot about Winscore, so may very well be
> > > completely wrong about this.
>
> > > Kirk
>
> > I can definitely lay out some tasks in relation to restricted areas
> > (like Class C's) where the pilot would be required to backtrack away
> > from the next turnpoint (and home) to avoid the -100 point outcome if
> > s/he abandoned the task and elected to traverse the restricted area.
> > This would require careful piloting to ensure that your greatest
> > progress towards the next turnpoint was outside the restricted area.
> > To make this really obvious imagine that the second to last turn is
> > across a Class C from home and the last turn is a steering turn just
> > 20 miles abeam of the finish. *You'd have to do some clever
> > trigonometry to figure out how to cross the Class C after making the
> > second to last turn in order to get home without making progress
> > towards the final turn within the restricted area.
>
> > 9B
>
> But this answer displays some of the wisdom of current policy. We
> don't allow flight in or over class C because it would give a
> competitive advantage to those having a transponder. Originally, it
> seemed like "but the race is over, so there's no competitive
> advantage" was a good argument. But in this and a previous example,
> it's clear that being able to press on while keeping the option alive
> to glide home over the class C is a definite competitive advantage.
>
> Bottom line, though: Given the amount of complaining from many people
> about complex rules, carving out an airspace exception to fly over
> class C as "self retrieve" doesn't seem like a good idea.
>
> For a non-sanctioned contest, make up your own rules and do whatever
> you want.
>
> If a sanctioned contest really wants to do this, they should apply for
> a rules waiver. It might make sense at El Tiro given the very odd
> geometry of the Tucson class C relative to El Tiro and the soaring
> area. That lets you adapt rules to local conditions without us having
> to write some nightmare into the rules that apply to everyone.
>
> John Cochrane

Agreed. Adding an exception to the rule would create a fair amount of
complexity in rule language, pilot decision-making AND scoring -
that's a triple negative. The case I was illustrating to make the
point was of a pilot who heads for home across restricted airspace
thinking he's okay because he abandoned the task but accidentally
makes some additional progress towards the next turn and gets minus
100 points anyway. The case of pilots who can head out over tiger
country on the far side of restricted airspace because they have an
"out" that another pilot without a transponder doesn't have is another
issue that speaks to fairness.

There is an analogous situation in the current rules. At the Sports
Nationals this year there was one task where a courseline choice that
took you out over a lot of unlandable terrain got you to much better
conditions and higher overall speeds. Most (but not all) of the guys
who went there had motors. I spoke to one pilot about how he thought
about the landout options out there and he said "I didn't".

Despite lots of rules to try to level the playing field the thought of
a dicey outlanding 100 miles from home in the middle of the desert
does affect decision-making. I'm not convinced there's anything to be
done about it - just pointing it out. You could imagine use of the
motor requiring that you be marked back some of the distance made on
course to that point so as to compensate for the additional distance
made into questionable areas that a motor affords you. Of course the
problem with that is that it creates a disincentive for pilots with
motors to use them.

9B

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 10, 9:06*am, Andy > wrote:
> There is an analogous situation in the current rules. At the Sports
> Nationals this year there was one task where a courseline choice that
> took you out over a lot of unlandable terrain got you to much better
> conditions and higher overall speeds. Most (but not all) of the guys
> who went there had motors. I spoke to one pilot about how he thought
> about the landout options out there and he said "I didn't".

There is no doubt in my mind that having a motor offers a huge
advantage in some contest situations. But don't change the rules, I'm
thinking of going over to the dark side.

Andy (GY)

[SoaringXCellence]

On Sep 10, 9:39Â*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:06Â*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > There is an analogous situation in the current rules. At the Sports
> > Nationals this year there was one task where a courseline choice that
> > took you out over a lot of unlandable terrain got you to much better
> > conditions and higher overall speeds. Most (but not all) of the guys
> > who went there had motors. I spoke to one pilot about how he thought
> > about the landout options out there and he said "I didn't".
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that having a motor offers a huge
> advantage in some contest situations. Â*But don't change the rules, I'm
> thinking of going over to the dark side.
>
> Andy (GY)

The advantage of the motor is supposed to be offset with the handicap
value, at least for Sports Classâ™*. In the other classes the price you
pay for a motor is it's own handicap!

Mike "Would like to experience the Dark side!" Bamberg

[Andy[_10_]]

On Sep 10, 3:02Â*pm, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 9:39Â*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 9:06Â*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > There is an analogous situation in the current rules. At the Sports
> > > Nationals this year there was one task where a courseline choice that
> > > took you out over a lot of unlandable terrain got you to much better
> > > conditions and higher overall speeds. Most (but not all) of the guys
> > > who went there had motors. I spoke to one pilot about how he thought
> > > about the landout options out there and he said "I didn't".
>
> > There is no doubt in my mind that having a motor offers a huge
> > advantage in some contest situations. Â*But don't change the rules, I'm
> > thinking of going over to the dark side.
>
> > Andy (GY)
>
> The advantage of the motor is supposed to be offset with the handicap
> value, at least for Sports Classâ™*. Â*In the other classes the price you
> pay for a motor is it's own handicap!
>
> Mike "Would like to experience the Dark side!" Bamberg

I'd have to check, but I think the only adjustment is for the
additional wing loading from the weight of the engine.

9B

[SoaringXCellence]

On Sep 10, 3:28Â*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 3:02Â*pm, SoaringXCellence > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 9:39Â*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 10, 9:06Â*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > There is an analogous situation in the current rules. At the Sports
> > > > Nationals this year there was one task where a courseline choice that
> > > > took you out over a lot of unlandable terrain got you to much better
> > > > conditions and higher overall speeds. Most (but not all) of the guys
> > > > who went there had motors. I spoke to one pilot about how he thought
> > > > about the landout options out there and he said "I didn't".
>
> > > There is no doubt in my mind that having a motor offers a huge
> > > advantage in some contest situations. Â*But don't change the rules, I'm
> > > thinking of going over to the dark side.
>
> > > Andy (GY)
>
> > The advantage of the motor is supposed to be offset with the handicap
> > value, at least for Sports Classâ™*. Â*In the other classes the price you
> > pay for a motor is it's own handicap!
>
> > Mike "Would like to experience the Dark side!" Bamberg
>
> I'd have to check, but I think the only adjustment is for the
> additional wing loading from the weight of the engine.
>
> 9B

Andy,

You're right, I just looked at the handicap list and didn't see any
difference for the model with or without the motor. Maybe we need a
proposal!

Mike