High Speed Passes & the FAA

[JJ Sinclair]

Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair

[Vaughn Simon]

91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within 500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
> people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
> was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located
on a
> permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
> line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
> JJ Sinclair

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 14:42 01 October 2003, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested
>areas or within 500'
>of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse
>area or over open
>water.

And then there's 91.303, which defines 'aerobatics'
as ' an intentional flight maneuver involving an abrupt
change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude,
or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal
flight.' Unless waived per procedures outlined 91.903
(eg: for an airshow or aerobatic competition), 91.303
Paragraphs (a) thru (f) prohibit such manueuvering
below 1500' AGL and in certain areas irrespective of
altitude.


Judy

[John Morgan]

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119? When flying an instrument approach and breaking out, it
is also common for aircraft to "circle to land" at a runway other than that
flown on the approach. This circling is often lower to the ground than 500
feet.

I have asked for and received clearance from the tower at Napa, CA, for low
passes in both power and glider. Approval for overhead break approaches, etc
are also routinely given.
--
bumper >
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
> 91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within
500'
> of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
> water.
>
>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if
over
> > people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
> question
> > was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was
located
> on a
> > permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
> finish
> > line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do
you?
> > JJ Sinclair
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

[JJ Sinclair]

Scenario

LOCATION, Montague, Ca.

EVENT, SSA National Championships

SCENE, Finish line (50 foot min) 5:00 PM

ACTION, Two sailplanes approach the finish line that is located on the closed
runway, that intersects the active runway. The edge of the runway has 20
motorhomes and sailplane tie-downs for all 30 contestants. The two finishing
sailplanes are now about 100 feet high and both doing red-line. They approach
the finish line from slightly different directions, with an angle to each other
of about 30 degrees. The pilots have both hands on the stick and their full
attention is focused on the finish line.

You know where I'm going with this, but let me say, It's not just the figment
of old JJ's imagination. We had a fatal accident that happened just this way.
The two sailplanes were at altitude, but both pilots had their full attention
focused on Bridgeport Turn Point. THEY NEVER SAW EACH OTHER. One landed with 3
foot of his right wing tip missing. The other pilot got a wing tip in the
cockpit.

Back to Montague, You know what happens, they hit at 50 feet, doing 145 knots.
Two pilots will get Tagged & Bagged, later that night, but the incident isn't
over yet. What's the debris vector of the wreckage? It's right into a line of
motorhomes with wives, children and innocent bystanders.

QUESTIONS
Does the FAA allow this?
Does the SSA allow this?
Should the SSA allow this?

JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with graduated penalty.
JJ Sinclair

[Andy Blackburn]

Wow - I didn't know that actually happened at Montague.
What year was that? Anyone on the ground hurt?

At 21:12 01 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
> Scenario
>
>LOCATION, Montague, Ca.
>
>EVENT, SSA National Championships
>
>SCENE, Finish line (50 foot min) 5:00 PM
>
>ACTION, Two sailplanes approach the finish line that
>is located on the closed
>runway, that intersects the active runway. The edge
>of the runway has 20
>motorhomes and sailplane tie-downs for all 30 contestants.
>The two finishing
>sailplanes are now about 100 feet high and both doing
>red-line. They approach
>the finish line from slightly different directions,
>with an angle to each other
>of about 30 degrees. The pilots have both hands on
>the stick and their full
>attention is focused on the finish line.
>
>You know where I'm going with this, but let me say,
>It's not just the figment
>of old JJ's imagination. We had a fatal accident that
>happened just this way.
>The two sailplanes were at altitude, but both pilots
>had their full attention
>focused on Bridgeport Turn Point. THEY NEVER SAW EACH
>OTHER. One landed with 3
>foot of his right wing tip missing. The other pilot
>got a wing tip in the
>cockpit.
>
>Back to Montague, You know what happens, they hit at
>50 feet, doing 145 knots.
>Two pilots will get Tagged & Bagged, later that night,
>but the incident isn't
>over yet. What's the debris vector of the wreckage?
>It's right into a line of
>motorhomes with wives, children and innocent bystanders.
>
>QUESTIONS
> Does the FAA allow this?
> Does the SSA allow this?
> Should the SSA allow this?
>
>JJ's SOLUTION,
> Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with
>graduated penalty.
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Jim Culp]

Gentlefolk,

Since when wuz 120-155 mph fast
at an airport?

Not for a long long time, and it wasnt against any
airport speedin rule was it?

In fack, it aint fast at all.

Ok, agreed. 120-150mph is not fast, at an airport
for airplanes, or is it fast for gliders?

If so, so what? Ain't broke no gliderplane speed limit.
Aint none there.

Approaching an airport at a speed of 120-150mph mol
in a heavier than air craft,
and pulling up and going around or turnin back for
landing downwind or into wind depending on which direction
approach was made is known in
FAA parlance
as 'Missed Approach.' Thas whutcha do at airports.


You dont do that low over yo neighbors subdivision.


If folks iz out on airfield standin' round or parkin'
or sittin' on non-aviatin' quipments
or motorinhomes
or campin' tents
or trailers
and etseteruh,


remember where they is ....

Shonuff, it's an airport designed and put there shonuff
for aviatin' uses

and specially takin off and landin
and missin approaches
and comin by fast
or comin by slow,
an' landin' this way
and that way,
and all that.

They be aviatin' ,
and sorry to break trains of thought
at the bridge party
at the motorinhome.

Well, now.
We shall not take aim at a motorhome
wherever it may be with sojourners.
Shonuff, No.

But have some good aviatin'
and have fun.

Summary: 150mph is not fast at an airport. Not landin
at first approach is Missed Approach. Do 'em at airports.


Dancin on clouds
Keep it up!

Jim Culp USA
GatorCity Florida

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan" >
wrote:

>In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
>an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
>violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around... ;)


Bye
Andreas

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan" >
> wrote:
>
> >In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
> >an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
> >violation of 91.119?
>
> Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
> pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around... ;)

You don't have to have an actual intention to land in order to do a
"missed approach". See the helicopter example in my other message.

Also, I recall seeing at the same airport (Wellington Intl, NZ) an RAAF
tanker (707 or 767 or something) execute a missed approach to maybe two
hundred feet ft with three or four A4 SkyHawk and F/A-18 Hornet jets
hanging off hoses from the wings and another couple in formation beside
the wingtips.

No way did *they* ever have an intention to actually land there.

-- Bruce

[Kilo Charlie]

You've gone too far with this JJ. You proved the absurd nature of your
point by giving us a great example of what happens when we don't see another
glider....and that was at a high altitude. I would argue that the reason
that there are few finish line near misses is that folks are heads up and
expecting to see other gliders at close quarters unlike out on course. The
likelyhood of glider parts killing you at a contest finish would be less
than that of a lightening. Care to look at the stats? It will be hard for
you to beat zero percent.

If some of you want a sport that has no risk then by all means go find one
but good luck since I cannot think of a single racing sport that would
qualify. And PLEASE leave the rest of us alone!!!!!!!!!

Finally I want to add that you should be ashamed for basically ensuring that
the FAA will be out at some contests next season doing ramp checks. Let
those living in glass houses cast the first stone.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[BTIZ]

doing low passes down the closed runway does not constitute a "missed appch"
as described by other responses.

My "guess" would be that the altitude limit would be 500ft AGL..

BT

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
> people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
> was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located
on a
> permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
> line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
> JJ Sinclair

[Owain Walters]

>JJ's SOLUTION,
> Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with
>graduated penalty.
>JJ Sinclair

Or move the finish point.

[Owain Walters]

JJ,

I dont believe your only concern is with a possible
breach of FAR's. If it were you would sit back happy
in the knowledge that you are not breaking the law
and allow everyone else to make up their own mind.

Why do people feel they have to legislate for things
that may never happen? Whats next? Why not ban variometers?
I certainly look at my variometer much more around
the flight than I do when executing a very safe, thought-out
competition finish.

Let people make their own decision.

Owain

A self-confessed fun-a-holic.

At 16:30 02 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Hi Casey,
>How's that LS-8, I sold you? Your not doing low passes
>with it, are you?
>
>Just because we havent had a disastrous accident near
>the finish-line, doesn't
>mean we never will. I look at the threat it poses.
>Many sailplanes headed for
>what I call a *scheduled mid-air collision*. What the
>hell is that, you ask?
>Its the same place (finish-line), Same altitude (50feet),
>the only thing
>that's not scheduled is the time. We have narrowed
>that down by telling
>everyone to be back in 3 hours (ups, 3:15 now with
>the +15 thing) So now we
>have most of the guys coming in low and fast, all headed
>for the same spot and
>shooting for the same altitude and close to the same
>time. The guys are good
>aviators and the guys in the nationals are REAL good
>aviators, but they are all
>focused on the finish line and quite busy; Don't go
>below 50 feet, Don't go
>above red-line, Dump the water, Don't forget to dump
>the tail tank, Don't lose
>sight of the guy in front of you, Ups, didn't page
>up on the GPS, to get
>altitude & distance together. What was that altitude
>correction factor? WHOA,
>we almost hit the ground, STOP playing with the GPS.
>Which way are they
>landing? No wind sock out here. Haven't heard anything
>on the radio, am I on
>the right frequency? There's an AWOS tower out here
>somewhere? What's that
>shadow moving over me?......................................Crunch
>>!
>
>I see the collision at Bridgeport as a scheduled mid-air
>also. Only in this
>case, the last variable was altitude. Both started
>at the same time, so
>approaching Bridgeport at about the same time isn't
>out of the question. The
>point was the same, Bridgeport. Chance, or the altitude
>gained in the last
>thermal (shared?) was the final parameter that was
>met on that tragic day.
>
>My real point in the post was, I think we are breaking
>FAR's and I think we
>should do something about it. Now before all the guard
>house lawyers jump me,
>allow me some more outlandish statements;
>
>1. The situation I described could be called an Air
>Show. The FAA has very
>specific rules about what is allowed and where it is
>done in an air show. Who
>wants to argue (in court) that its not an air show,
>its just our way to let our
>macho-crocho's display their stuff.
>
>2. Some have said to simply move the finish line. Well,
>it must be fairly close
>to the runway or we won't be able to get back there
>after our low altitude air
>show. Besides, the macho-crocho's need an audiance.
>Who's going to see them way
>out there in the weeds?
>
>3.Some pull-ups I have seen, meet the FAA definition
>of aerobatics, and that
>opens up a whole new can of whip-ass the Federallies
>may bring to bear on our
>little contest.
>
>4. If we make the 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder, MANDATORY,
>all issues with the
>FAR's will be dealt with.
>JJ Sinclair
>

[JJ Sinclair]

>
>
>I dont believe your only concern is with a possible
>breach of FAR's. If it were you would sit back happy
>in the knowledge that you are not breaking the law
>and allow everyone else to make up their own mind.

That was a-hell-of-a-thing to say, Owain. Didn't we learn anything from
Tonapah? I think all the Directors did, time for the rest of us to get on
board. Don't you know that one more serious accident could shut everything
down? I'm not just talking about contests, but the SSA as well.

I know one thing, I won't work in any contest that uses the macho-crotcho
finish gate, just for personal liability reasons.
JJ Sinclair

[goneill]

We call our location and speed eg:10k 120 the mill, 5k 130 bombay gardens,
1k vne stevees quarry, this works on airfields we know ,
simply institute a location/reporting point that everyone knows or has been
designated which gives an immediate heads up response by the pilot
"someone is near me" where is he?
"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Casey,
> How's that LS-8, I sold you? Your not doing low passes with it, are you?
>
> Just because we havent had a disastrous accident near the finish-line,
doesn't
> mean we never will. I look at the threat it poses. Many sailplanes headed
for
> what I call a *scheduled mid-air collision*. What the hell is that, you
ask?
> Its the same place (finish-line), Same altitude (50feet), the only thing
> that's not scheduled is the time. We have narrowed that down by telling
> everyone to be back in 3 hours (ups, 3:15 now with the +15 thing) So now
we
> have most of the guys coming in low and fast, all headed for the same spot
and
> shooting for the same altitude and close to the same time. The guys are
good
> aviators and the guys in the nationals are REAL good aviators, but they
are all
> focused on the finish line and quite busy; Don't go below 50 feet, Don't
go
> above red-line, Dump the water, Don't forget to dump the tail tank, Don't
lose
> sight of the guy in front of you, Ups, didn't page up on the GPS, to get
> altitude & distance together. What was that altitude correction factor?
WHOA,
> we almost hit the ground, STOP playing with the GPS. Which way are they
> landing? No wind sock out here. Haven't heard anything on the radio, am I
on
> the right frequency? There's an AWOS tower out here somewhere? What's that
> shadow moving over me?......................................Crunch!
>
> I see the collision at Bridgeport as a scheduled mid-air also. Only in
this
> case, the last variable was altitude. Both started at the same time, so
> approaching Bridgeport at about the same time isn't out of the question.
The
> point was the same, Bridgeport. Chance, or the altitude gained in the last
> thermal (shared?) was the final parameter that was met on that tragic day.
>
> My real point in the post was, I think we are breaking FAR's and I think
we
> should do something about it. Now before all the guard house lawyers jump
me,
> allow me some more outlandish statements;
>
> 1. The situation I described could be called an Air Show. The FAA has very
> specific rules about what is allowed and where it is done in an air show.
Who
> wants to argue (in court) that its not an air show, its just our way to
let our
> macho-crocho's display their stuff.
>
> 2. Some have said to simply move the finish line. Well, it must be fairly
close
> to the runway or we won't be able to get back there after our low altitude
air
> show. Besides, the macho-crocho's need an audiance. Who's going to see
them way
> out there in the weeds?
>
> 3.Some pull-ups I have seen, meet the FAA definition of aerobatics, and
that
> opens up a whole new can of whip-ass the Federallies may bring to bear on
our
> little contest.
>
> 4. If we make the 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder, MANDATORY, all issues
with the
> FAR's will be dealt with.
> JJ Sinclair

[Deputy Dog]

Jimbob:

Have you been flying high in Arial without proper oxygen? Fried 'dat
brain again?

A missed approach only applies to instrument flying. You been doin
dat also??

It's a LOW APPROACH. - Get out dem readin glasses and reads dat AIM
sometime so you can gets some edumacation.

Keep actin dat way an folks gonna think you bees a dumb ol surveyer!

-Deputy Dog

> >at first approach is Missed Approach. > >Dancin on clouds
> >Keep it up!
> >
> >Jim Culp USA
> >GatorCity Florida
> >
> >
> >

[Kilo Charlie]

Why thanks for asking JJ....the LS-8 is just fine....probably wouldn't have
sold it to me had you known that I'd be breaking all them thar FAR's with it
eh? Youdamnright I'm-a doin' them thar high speed, belly scratchin', water
dumpin', crowd pleasin', worm burnin' passes! We country folk down here in
ol' Arizony think that if ya can't knock over your empty beer can with your
belly then you're way too damn high!

And boy howdy do ya'll up thar know all them high falutin words like
"safety" and " liability" that make my old pumpkin head spin but they must
be mighty important since they scare so many people when ya'll say 'em!
Sure does make folks sit up and listen eh?

Well ya'll take care up there and if ya ever wanna fly with us heathens that
like to have fun down here in ol' Arizony then ya'll come on down!!!

KC

[JJ Sinclair]

Casey,
What do you do when you find a practice or procedure that could be dangerous
(fatal) to a patient in the ER?

Do you just say, That won't happen again?

I like things as they are.

I'm not going to say anything to anybody
about this.
JJ Sinclair

[Brian Case]

Did I miss something? When did finish gates become so dangerous?

I pretty sure JJ has used many finish gates I am surprised that they
are now so dangerous he wouldn't consider using one.

Brian, never finished below 800' even with a gate.




(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> >I dont believe your only concern is with a possible
> >breach of FAR's. If it were you would sit back happy
> >in the knowledge that you are not breaking the law
> >and allow everyone else to make up their own mind.
>
> That was a-hell-of-a-thing to say, Owain. Didn't we learn anything from
> Tonapah? I think all the Directors did, time for the rest of us to get on
> board. Don't you know that one more serious accident could shut everything
> down? I'm not just talking about contests, but the SSA as well.
>
> I know one thing, I won't work in any contest that uses the macho-crotcho
> finish gate, just for personal liability reasons.
> JJ Sinclair

[Kilo Charlie]

My patients in the OR receive the best care that anyone can provide JJ. I
have gone to huge lengths both personally and professionally to assure this.
They trust me to be the best and I owe them that. I am board certified in
three separate American Board specialties. Now what does doing high speed
passes have to do with that?!

You once again have proven the point that there are differences between what
you are expected to provide as a service both legally and professionally and
what responsibility you have to assure your own personal well being. The
final line is that the government has pretty much decided that what you do
to yourself is OK even if it means harm. So why is that so difficult for
you to let happen in the soaring community? And don't give me that nonsense
again about the RV at the end of the runway....it's no safer than standing
by the side of the highway waiting for your ride.

By all means go slow and stay high. Please don't rain on my parade though.

KC

[JJ Sinclair]

That's good Owain,
You question my wanting to run a safe operation by following the FAR's and then
suggest there are 3 reasons for my actions, none of which has anything to do
with safety.

I assume one of the 3 would be that I'm just too scared to do a low pass. Let
me just say, I probably have more time *on the deck* than 99 % of ras readers.
I'm talking about low level terrain following radar missions in the B-52H,
RF-4C and F-111F (8000TT)

Maybe old JJ got chicken in his old age (reason no.2 ?) I have done my share of
worm-burners, I once approached the gate from an odd angle that had me coming
in at 5 feet (old rules) and 140 knots. I spotted a contest worker walking back
from the window (remember the gate window ?) Anyway, the guy DUCKED. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ. Then there was the formation low
pass we did at Williams (my last) I was no.2 and told lead that I had my long
tips on, so don't go over my red-line of 120 knots. I had my eyes glued to
lead, only to find we are doing 145 knots as I pull from 5 feet. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ.

OK, Owain, I assume I got 2 of them, but what's my 3rd reason for not wanting
to follow the FAR's and run a SAFE operation?

Wondering in Placerville,
JJ Sinclair

[John Cochrane]

There have been two recent fatalities in the US involving high speed
passes. In both cases, the pilot seems to have become distracted,
overloaded, etc. by the high speed pass, so the resulting crash was a
stall/spin while making the following low turn to land. (Gliders have
also fluttered apart in high speed passes in the past.)

I'm sure we'll hear soon from other posters to this thread something
like "Well those pahluts wuz just bozos. Any reehl pahlut kin handl
that there kahnd of streuhs," "Yeh kint trah to legislate commin
sinse," and so forth. (Sorry, I can't do justice to the inventive
spelling in this thread!) And it is true that everything in aviation
has limits, which pilots must respect. The limits on low passes are a
little tighter than many pilots realize. The limits are often about
traffic and what to do after the pass rather than the pass itself. But
nothing is inherently dangerous if the limits are known and observed.
OTOH, when the limits are tight, there will be an unavoidably higher
error rate of pilots who for one reason or another bust the limits.

So let's just leave the undeniable fact that there are occasional
accidents on the table. Make up your own mind whether the low passes
are worth the suffering of the "other pilot's" family and friends (of
course it will never happen to you), and whether next time the FAA or
NTSB or insurance company will start asking questions about landing
patterns and procedures.

NYC01FA071

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010212X00437&key=1

FTW01LA179

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010815X01694&key=1


John Cochrane

[Owain Walters]

JJ,

I am sorry for starting this fight with you but I will
proceed with what we have started.

I dont mind how experinced you are in Fast Jets I dont
see why you want to regulate against things that might
happen. You will not stop someone hell-bent on killing
themselves by enforcing a 500' min finish height. Lets
be reminded that the guy who started this says that
the racing finish is still allowed.

You can not regulate against peoples stupidity. If
this rule goes through people will get their kicks
somewhere else and almost certainly in a more dangerous,
less regulated situation. Better the devil you know.

As I said before you can speculate to the reasons.


Owain

PS. Where did you fly your F111's. Chances are we may
have been in the same place at some point.



At 14:06 03 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>That's good Owain,
>You question my wanting to run a safe operation by
>following the FAR's and then
>suggest there are 3 reasons for my actions, none of
>which has anything to do
>with safety.
>
>I assume one of the 3 would be that I'm just too scared
>to do a low pass. Let
>me just say, I probably have more time *on the deck*
>than 99 % of ras readers.
>I'm talking about low level terrain following radar
>missions in the B-52H,
>RF-4C and F-111F (8000TT)
>
>Maybe old JJ got chicken in his old age (reason no.2
>?) I have done my share of
>worm-burners, I once approached the gate from an odd
>angle that had me coming
>in at 5 feet (old rules) and 140 knots. I spotted a
>contest worker walking back
>from the window (remember the gate window ?) Anyway,
>the guy DUCKED. I thought
>later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ. Then
>there was the formation low
>pass we did at Williams (my last) I was no.2 and told
>lead that I had my long
>tips on, so don't go over my red-line of 120 knots.
>I had my eyes glued to
>lead, only to find we are doing 145 knots as I pull
>from 5 feet. I thought
>later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ.
>
>OK, Owain, I assume I got 2 of them, but what's my
>3rd reason for not wanting
>to follow the FAR's and run a SAFE operation?
>
>Wondering in Placerville,
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Kirk Stant]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...

>4. If we make the 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder, MANDATORY, all
issues with the FAR's will be dealt with.

No, it won't, JJ. All it will do is add ANOTHER heads-down task
during a contest finish. And from 500' at 1 mile I can do a REALLY
nice low pass!

Why do you race? If you want to fly around surrounded by a nice big
safety bubble, then by all means do it. But we are talking RACING
here - it's supposed to be challenging, exciting, maybe a little
(GASP!) risky. If we were scattering gliders all over the countryside
I could understand your concern, but that isn't happening. And saying
"but It could happen!!!" is a bull**** argument, IMHO. Anything could
happen, and if it bothers you that much then don't do it.

Maybe we need to look at other similar sports and take some lessons
from them: different classes with more restrictions on the "beginner"
classes (Sports class, perhaps). More demonstrated skill requirements
- right now it's a joke! Better locations for finish lines/circles,
with proper finish directions, etc...

I can't wait until the next WGC when the US team is finishing at 500'
over the contest site, watching the rest of the world smoke in
underneath them - at least one minute faster.


Kirk "macho-crocho" Stant

[Robert Ehrlich]

goneill wrote:
>
> We call our location and speed eg:10k 120 the mill, 5k 130 bombay gardens,
> 1k vne stevees quarry, this works on airfields we know ,
> simply institute a location/reporting point that everyone knows or has been
> designated which gives an immediate heads up response by the pilot
> "someone is near me" where is he?

The last time I watched a contest organized at our airfield, there was a rule
that any finisher must call by radio when he was at 10km and then at 1 minute,
and say his intention (low pass or direct landing), and wait for an answer
from the contest director allowing him to do so or directing him to do something
else.

[Owain Walters]

Quite frankly I think you guys are using the rules
like a drunk uses a streetlamp. For leaning on rather
than illumination.

I have read the FAR regarding the 500' rule. The heading
itself says 'Minimum safe altitudes: General'. This
implies to me that there can be exceptions to this
rule. Why cant you guys lobby the FAA to make it legal
for gliding to participate in a world wide sport? I
am not saying it will be easy or a quick thing to do
but you must admit that it would be more beneficial
in the long term to bring the US contest rules into
line with other world competitors? If they say no,
nothing is lost. You can then carry on with your 500'
doughnut. It does seem self-defeating to give up without
a fight.

The rules are open to much interpretation for instance
gliders fly under VFR rules but do not follow the rules
by the letter. See FAR 91.159. So people quoting FAR's
need to watch their step. Otherwise you could open
a whole can of worms for everyone in ways you havent
considered.

I say that people shouldnt rock the boat. Allow people
to do what they want even if you dont like it. I dont
understand why people launch in a K8 year after year
for two hours local soaring but I do not try to stop
them. I let them get on with it. Gliding is different
things to different people, we have to accept that.
Once you do you will relax and not take everything
so seriously. I know you are about to say 'I only take
safety seriously' but we all do. But what we also take
seriously is people trying to take the fun away for
no real reason.

Chill out and let everyone do what they enjoy.

Owain

PS. Sorry but I wasnt alive in 72-74.Plattsburgh and
Heyford between 84-94


At 15:18 03 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)
>
>We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES
>the FAR's, So what are we
>going to do about that?
>
>We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the
>FAR's, So what are we going
>to do about that?
>
>We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES
>the FAR's, So what are
>we going to do about that?
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Peter W]

As a low time glider pilot who is getting back into soaring (just
bought a 1-35), I can't believe this thread. The FAA absolutely CAN
regulate people against their own stupidity. They do it with that
thing called the FAR's.

The tone of many on this issue here seems to be that the FAR's are for
the rest of aviation to follow, not contest glider pilots. Did it
ever occur to you guys that one day the FAA might get fed up with us
glider pilots and start enforcement actions against our tiny
population? Rules are rules and you are supposed to follow them.

Soaring has a terrible safety record and most of it seems due to a bad
attitude at everything related to safety. Hans Langer's tragic
accident occurred just a few weeks ago and the NTSB site says that his
spoilers weren't hooked up. How many deaths have been caused in the
last 10 years because the glider pilot didn't assemble his aircraft
correctly?

Oneday when someone makes a low pass and hurts or kills someone on the
ground or causes a midair, then you can be sure that the FAA will step
in to do something about this stupid practice.





Owain Walters > wrote in message >...
> JJ,
>
> I am sorry for starting this fight with you but I will
> proceed with what we have started.
>
> I dont mind how experinced you are in Fast Jets I dont
> see why you want to regulate against things that might
> happen. You will not stop someone hell-bent on killing
> themselves by enforcing a 500' min finish height. Lets
> be reminded that the guy who started this says that
> the racing finish is still allowed.
>
> You can not regulate against peoples stupidity. If
> this rule goes through people will get their kicks
> somewhere else and almost certainly in a more dangerous,
> less regulated situation.

[George William Peter Reinhart]

JJ,
You have a very good point.
Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as busting 18K?
No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
Rules violations used to be handled that way at the sailboat races in times
before political correctness was so much the vogue.
Cheers!, Pete


JJ Sinclair > wrote in article
>...
> I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)
>
> We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES the FAR's, So what are
we
> going to do about that?
>
> We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the FAR's, So what are we
going
> to do about that?
>
> We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES the FAR's, So
what are
> we going to do about that?
> JJ Sinclair
>

[Andy Blackburn]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation
of the FAR's is correct - that busting 500' is, without
exception, a violation in any circumstance other than
final approach to landing. It is not clear to me that
this is necessarily the case, or enforced that way
by the FAA, but put that aside for now.

If we are going to abide by the letter of the law on
FARs, then busting 500' agl ANYWHERE on course should
be grounds for penalty. This could be DQ for the day,
scoring as if you landed at the spot where the infraction
occurred, or whatever is consistent with other FAR
violations under contest rules.

I believe this would include low saves as well as ridgeline
crossings and ridge soaring, etc. In other words, we
would need to enforce a 500' agl hard deck in the scoring
programs, which would need to include an accurate terrain
elevation database. I suspect this is technically not
that hard to do since programs like SeeYou already
have it.

Before going down that path, however, I would want
to see a definitive statement from official FAA sources
that this is in fact the correct interpretation of
the FARs AND that the FAA intends to enforce these
FARs to the letter of the law, rather than only in
those instances that show some form of recklessness
beyond the technicalities alone.

It would be a pity in my view if this happened as I
really like mountain flying and ridge soaring.

9B


At 19:00 03 October 2003, George William Peter Reinhart
wrote:
>JJ,
>You have a very good point.
>Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as
>busting 18K?
>No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
>Rules violations used to be handled that way at the
>sailboat races in times
>before political correctness was so much the vogue.
>Cheers!, Pete
>
>
>JJ Sinclair wrote in article
>...
>> I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)
>>
>> We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES
>>the FAR's, So what are
>we
>> going to do about that?
>>
>> We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the
>>FAR's, So what are we
>going
>> to do about that?
>>
>> We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES
>>the FAR's, So
>what are
>> we going to do about that?
>> JJ Sinclair
>>
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

John,

Neither of these were contest accidents. One occured in Wurtsboro, NY
in January, the other on the rest day at the 15M Nats in Uvalde -- a
local pilot (not a contestant) flying a borrowed glider. Presenting
these as proof positive that contest finishes need to be changed for
safety's sake is just plain poor sportsmanship.

There is an expectation of competency for contest participants. It is
reflected in the requirements for entry... proof of prior
cross-country experience and/or seeding depending on your level. If
you are going to cite examples to make your case, you should point at
competent pilots in the act of competing. You'll get a much more
thoughtful response.

No machismo here. If we're going to talk contest safety and rules
changes, let's talk about contest accidents, at least.

[Chris OCallaghan]

Whoops, sorry John. I thought I was in another thread.

Damn, you've become so much the defacto "rules pariah," that I just
assumed you were on another contest safety rant.

I see now it is a more general safety rant... which I find completely
appropriate. Apologies again for jumping too quick.

High speed passes have their time and place and should be practiced by
competent pilots in a controlled environment. There's a need for
practice... but this too should be carefully controlled.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between contest/speed finishes
and showboat finishes, the prior used to optimize speed and the latter
to serve the pilot's ego. I've found that it's usually showboat
finishes by competent pilots that inspire less experienced pilots to
embark on a program of self-managed education, occasionally with dire
results.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "George William Peter Reinhart" > wrote:

> ...same way as busting 18K?

I most certainly take exception to that. I have never been "busted."

:)

Bob "one eight" K.

[BMacLean]

But I have not paid you for your care and advice and I don't want you
imposing it on me! You are really reaching here as your message doesn't
qualify as an analogy.

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
> Casey,
> I am NOT questioning your qualifications or conduct as a doctor. I, AM
trying
> to get you to admit that you would bring to the attention of those in
charge of
> your hospital, ANY practice or procedure that could be harmful to your
> patience.
>
> That is EXACTLY what I am doing by bringing this to the attention of the
BOD
> and Rules Committee.
> JJ Sinclair

[Ivan Kahn]

"Owain Walters" > wrote in
message ...
> Quite frankly I think you guys are using the rules
> like a drunk uses a streetlamp. For leaning on rather
> than illumination.
>
<snip>.
>
> Chill out and let everyone do what they enjoy.
>
>
It is very disappointing me to that, as a group, I have noted that glider
pilots don't understand the FARs as well as they should, nor do they take
them seriously. The 500' foot rule being discussed here is not optional, nor
is that pesky 91.155 which requires us to stay 500' or 1,000' below cloud
bases, nor are a host of other FARs that are typically ignored You can try
all you want to invent excuses, but you are just being lousy pilots.

How about showing a some pride and professionalism! And with apologies to
those who do, is that too much to expect from glider pilots?

Ivan Kahn
ATP, CFI

[Kilo Charlie]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Casey,
> I am NOT questioning your qualifications or conduct as a doctor. I, AM
trying
> to get you to admit that you would bring to the attention of those in
charge of
> your hospital, ANY practice or procedure that could be harmful to your
> patience.
>
> That is EXACTLY what I am doing by bringing this to the attention of the
BOD
> and Rules Committee.
> JJ Sinclair

I guess that my point wasn't clear enough from the earlier post. Let's try
this....my patients are my responsibility so when in my care they should
expect superb service. Now if they chose to get home from the hospital by
flying their ultralight through an a approaching gust front then it is their
business, not mine. Would I chose to say to them that it is my opinion that
they are doing the wrong thing...sure, but I would leave it at that.
Therein lies the nature of our disagreement.

It is your opinion, nothing more, that these things are unsafe. If it were
simply a parental type concern for all of us that would be fine with me.
But what I honestly think is happening with all of these discussions lately
is that you are exhibiting something called projection. That means that a
few people are projecting their own fears upon the rest of us and attempting
to regulate the sport based upon them. I know that at least one of the
stronger voices in these debates has a wife that lives in constant fear of
his racing.

I am quite honestly a big chicken JJ. That is no BS. I am a conservative
pilot that actually finds it hard to believe that anyone would push the
limits on final glide so hard that it would risk their life. Especially for
the result of potentially receiving a little trophy in a sport that 95% of
the US doesn't even know exists. The way I look at it all is that I love
this sport too much to allow one stupid decision to make it so that I don't
ever get to fly again. But this is not really about the sport, it is about
your fears and your attempt to keep me from getting to chose how I should
live my life. I have a family that loves me and depends upon my coming home
and I very much resent being painted as some type of death-wish maniac that
is a Hell's Angel of the skies. But even more than that I resent being
painted as someone willing to risk others lives to get a rush.

Re the FAR's I would say that first of all we have an aerobatic box at Turf
that allows us to have the waiver. 99% of my passes are pretty much
straight down a runway. Nevertheless my guess is that if it were as much of
an issue as you argue it is and that your interpretation of the regs were
correct, that in 50 years of racing some fed would have put a stop to it. I
also think that the reg you quote is one that has broad interpretation. You
talk as if there is no room for interpretation at all and are absolutely
certain that we are all breaking it. There are few laws that have such
clear borders. The way they get clearer is when the courts review it time
and time again. But do you really wish to take the chance that it might
potentially ground someone by whistleblowing on your friends and compadres?
What a way to prove a point.

It is sad that you view this all so strongly that you would risk destroying
the sport in order to force others to be like you.

KC

[Michael McNulty]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Andy,
> The FAR's say you can't go within 500 feet of people, places or things.
This
> means you can't come down the tie-down ramp at 10 feet for all 3 reasons.
There
> are people there, it is a place (airport) and there are things there
> (motorhomes, etc)
>
> You can go right down to the deck, anywhere that there isn't people,
places or
> things, like ridge tops, ridge soaring, etc.
>
> That brings me to another buzz-job, story. A friend came down the tie-down
area
> at 10 feet and 145 knots, pulled up, made a pattern and landed. Looked
good,
> everyone thought it was REAL SPECIAL. Later that evening, he asked me to
take a
> look at his instruments, because he thought they weren't working right. I
found
> several massive leaks in his static system caused by him nicking the tubes
with
> a drill he used to install a new GPS in the rear seat of his ASH-25. What
> happens when we have slightly pressurized cockpit air entering nicked
static
> lines? The airspeed indicators will drop. I have seen a 10 knot drop in
G-103
> at pattern airspeed.What does the pilot do when he sees his airspeed is 10
> knots below desired airspeed? He lowers the nose to obtain the desired
> airspeed. How much OVER RED-LINE did my friend go when the airspeed
indicated
> 145 knots? FLUTTER anyone?
>
> I have made my case that I think in SSA sanctioned contests, we should
have a
> mandatory 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder. I am NOT trying to tell pilots
not
> flying in a SSA sanctioned contest what they should be doing. That's
between
> you and the FAA.
> Please no more hate mail, I have a package with an Ephrata post-mark on it
and
> I'm afraid to open it.
> JJ Sinclair

This 500 ft/ 1 miile finish would in no way prevent subsequent low passes
over the airport, and the idea's originator doesn't claim it will. I
personally always plan for a 700 ft surplus on my final glides, which is
quite consistent with the proposed finish gate, and I when I choose to I
have no trouble doing a nice low pass from this set-up.

Now I personally don't have a problem with people doing all the low passes
they want, but I don't accept that people should do them over my head
without my permission in advance. While most of the people where I fly are
very skilled pilots, there are a few who give me some doubts; the problem is
that those few don't know who they are. Stay over the runway, or an
unihabited area of the field, make appropriate radio calls, and do whatever
you choose. I believe that this is consistent with the FARs, safety, and
personal responsibility.

[JJ Sinclair]

Andy,
Thank you for your reasonable response that deals with the issues. You
mentioned Minden and thought that a 50 foot, finish line could be safely
employed there. I was asked to be the CD at the first Sports Class Nationals,
held at Minden, some 20 yeasr ago. We employed a finish line on the Eastern
edge of the main N-S runway and it extended on out East for 3300 feet along the
edge of the closed runway. That closed runway is now glider tie-downs on both
sides of the N-S runway. If we extended the finish line, another 3300 feet on
out to the East, any low and slow finishers would be a minimum of half a mile
away from any runway. Clearly not a safe situation. I don't know anywhere that
a f 50 foot high, 3300 foot long finish line could be safely used at Minden
today. That is why we used the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder at this years
Regionals and will use it again if we get the 18 meter nationals in 2004.

A couple of years ago, I was again asked to be the CD at the 18 meter and
Sports Nationals held at Montague. In the Regionals that immediately preceded
the nationals, we used a finish line with 50 foot minimum altitude. The airport
lay-out is similar to Minden with a main N-S runway and glider tie-downs on
both sides of an intersecting closed runway. When it was pointed out to me,
that finishers were coming in very low, right over people in the tie-down area,
I decided to employ the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder in the Nationals. The
same situation as Minden exists at Montague. If we moved the finish line
another 3300 feet on East, a low and slow finisher would be a minimum of half a
mile from any runway. We could move the finish line to the North end of the
main runway, but finishers would find themselves over a mile away from the
glider tie-down area. This would result in some low finishers, rolling to a
stop, thousands of feet short of the southern tie-down area and consequently,
blocking the runway. I don't know anywhere the finish line could be safely used
at Montague.

The 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder eliminates all conflicts with FAR
violations and allows for a safe and efficient way to deal with finishers that
may be facing head-on situations as they come in from all directions, at the
end of a MAT task. Any head-on traffic has a full 2 mile separation. The
contestants, pull-up and slow-up at 1 mile and then enter the pattern in a
relaxed and orderly manner.

I believe the 50 foot, finish line will disappear from US competition, whether
or not it is removed from our rules, simply because no prudent Contest Manager
would employ it due to the conflicts it presents with violation of several
FAR's,
JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Andy has proposed that Minden place a finish line 1000 feet sout east of the
approach end of 30, that extends 3300 feet to the north east. Let's look at a
finisher on a MAT type task that is coming in from the north, say Dayton.The
finisher would be forced to fly right past the safety of the airport, leaving
its runways behind, and to continue on past the end of 30, on out another 1000
feet and then HOOK the GATE. Because he is "Hooking the gate", he is also
forced to be another 3300 feet to the east, in order stay out of the gate, so
as to avoid hesd-on traffic in the gate. Some would say, The a low finisher,
that found himself in this situation, could be allowad to make a rolling finish
on any runway. That brings up the penalty for making a rolling finish. It
should be substantial, because our finisher has just cut off at least 2 miles
from the rask a similar finisher must fly.

Am I the ONLY one that sees what's happening here? We have moved the gate way
out in the weeds (Band-Aid no.1). We have made the finisher stay out of
opposing head-on traffic by forcing him to stay 3300 feet farther to the east
(Band-Aid no.2).We have given him a big rolling finish penalty (Band-Aid no.
3). I think it's time to count the Band-Aids on the Finish Line. I count 3, all
right on top of a massive wound. JJ recommends amputation. What do you think,
Doctor?
JJ Sinclair

[Jonathan Gere]

JJ - Do you ever make your landing touchdown within 500' of a person,
trailer or runway light, even if it is not necessary?

Is that legal?

I'm thinking of turning you in to, or at least threatening you with,
the FAA to advance my contest rules agenda, but I wanted to point out
your lawless behavior to you privately first.

And no more of that abnormal pulling up into thermals from 110 kts!
You've been warned.

Jonathan Gere

P.S. Is a concrete runway with rebar a composite STRUCTURE? Should
power traffic divert to grass strip alternates, rather than make
UNNECESSARY landings on hard surface runways?

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Andy,
> Thank you for your reasonable response that deals with the issues. You
> mentioned Minden and thought that a 50 foot, finish line could be safely
> employed there. I was asked to be the CD at the first Sports Class Nationals,
> held at Minden, some 20 yeasr ago. We employed a finish line on the Eastern
> edge of the main N-S runway and it extended on out East for 3300 feet along the
> edge of the closed runway. That closed runway is now glider tie-downs on both
> sides of the N-S runway. If we extended the finish line, another 3300 feet on
> out to the East, any low and slow finishers would be a minimum of half a mile
> away from any runway. Clearly not a safe situation. I don't know anywhere that
> a f 50 foot high, 3300 foot long finish line could be safely used at Minden
> today. That is why we used the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder at this years
> Regionals and will use it again if we get the 18 meter nationals in 2004.
>
> A couple of years ago, I was again asked to be the CD at the 18 meter and
> Sports Nationals held at Montague. In the Regionals that immediately preceded
> the nationals, we used a finish line with 50 foot minimum altitude. The airport
> lay-out is similar to Minden with a main N-S runway and glider tie-downs on
> both sides of an intersecting closed runway. When it was pointed out to me,
> that finishers were coming in very low, right over people in the tie-down area,
> I decided to employ the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder in the Nationals. The
> same situation as Minden exists at Montague. If we moved the finish line
> another 3300 feet on East, a low and slow finisher would be a minimum of half a
> mile from any runway. We could move the finish line to the North end of the
> main runway, but finishers would find themselves over a mile away from the
> glider tie-down area. This would result in some low finishers, rolling to a
> stop, thousands of feet short of the southern tie-down area and consequently,
> blocking the runway. I don't know anywhere the finish line could be safely used
> at Montague.
>
> The 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder eliminates all conflicts with FAR
> violations and allows for a safe and efficient way to deal with finishers that
> may be facing head-on situations as they come in from all directions, at the
> end of a MAT task. Any head-on traffic has a full 2 mile separation. The
> contestants, pull-up and slow-up at 1 mile and then enter the pattern in a
> relaxed and orderly manner.
>
> I believe the 50 foot, finish line will disappear from US competition, whether
> or not it is removed from our rules, simply because no prudent Contest Manager
> would employ it due to the conflicts it presents with violation of several
> FAR's,
> JJ Sinclair

[Andy Blackburn]

Not sure I'd use a gate for MATs - for the 'hook the
gate' reason you describe. Having finishers coming
from all directions strikes me as a poor idea irrespective
of type of finish. But, in any scenario were the gate
lines up with the finish direction you'd be pulling
up right into a downwind for Runway 30. If coming
from the north you'd have to stay clear of people/vehicles
on the closed runway.

I won't belabor the point about Minden any further
as I think it should be CD discretion on how to organize
finishes based on the local environment (and out of
concern over further boring readers who don't fly there).
Certainly I didn't mean to criticize your discretion
in how you set it up as CD, just that it would be possible
without being in violation of FARs - which was the
original question on this thread. Speaking personally
I prefer the cylinder to the gate because it reduces
pilot workload (I just don't like the 500' part).

Oh, and thanks for not making it personal - a relative
rarity on ras.

9B

At 15:24 04 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Andy has proposed that Minden place a finish line 1000
>feet sout east of the
>approach end of 30, that extends 3300 feet to the north
>east. Let's look at a
>finisher on a MAT type task that is coming in from
>the north, say Dayton.The
>finisher would be forced to fly right past the safety
>of the airport, leaving
>its runways behind, and to continue on past the end
>of 30, on out another 1000
>feet and then HOOK the GATE. Because he is 'Hooking
>the gate', he is also
>forced to be another 3300 feet to the east, in order
>stay out of the gate, so
>as to avoid hesd-on traffic in the gate. Some would
>say, The a low finisher,
>that found himself in this situation, could be allowad
>to make a rolling finish
>on any runway. That brings up the penalty for making
>a rolling finish. It
>should be substantial, because our finisher has just
>cut off at least 2 miles
>from the rask a similar finisher must fly.
>
>Am I the ONLY one that sees what's happening here?
>We have moved the gate way
>out in the weeds (Band-Aid no.1). We have made the
>finisher stay out of
>opposing head-on traffic by forcing him to stay 3300
>feet farther to the east
>(Band-Aid no.2).We have given him a big rolling finish
>penalty (Band-Aid no.
>3). I think it's time to count the Band-Aids on the
>Finish Line. I count 3, all
>right on top of a massive wound. JJ recommends amputation.
>What do you think,
>Doctor?
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

JJ,

The finish cylinder has its place in competition. But not to the
exclusion of the finish line. Many of us still contend that it is
better to race to a visible marker rather than to a virtual point in
space requiring refernce to instruments. Heads up rather than heads
down. As for the FARs, aircraft regularly take off and land withn 500
feet of people, structures, and other aircraft at commercial airports.
This is by necessity.

An airport manager must balance proactive safety initiatives with
perceived risk versus safety history.

And finally, trailers and tie downs are mobile. Are we there to race
or to recreate? If the latter, call it a camp and dispense with the
racing altogether. Camps are fun too, but let's not confuse them with
contests.

OC

[Chris OCallaghan]

When was the last time you climbed to cloudbase?

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Luke 6:41


(Peter W) wrote in message >...
> As a low time glider pilot who is getting back into soaring (just
> bought a 1-35), I can't believe this thread. The FAA absolutely CAN
> regulate people against their own stupidity. They do it with that
> thing called the FAR's.
>
> The tone of many on this issue here seems to be that the FAR's are for
> the rest of aviation to follow, not contest glider pilots. Did it
> ever occur to you guys that one day the FAA might get fed up with us
> glider pilots and start enforcement actions against our tiny
> population? Rules are rules and you are supposed to follow them.
>
> Soaring has a terrible safety record and most of it seems due to a bad
> attitude at everything related to safety. Hans Langer's tragic
> accident occurred just a few weeks ago and the NTSB site says that his
> spoilers weren't hooked up. How many deaths have been caused in the
> last 10 years because the glider pilot didn't assemble his aircraft
> correctly?
>
> Oneday when someone makes a low pass and hurts or kills someone on the
> ground or causes a midair, then you can be sure that the FAA will step
> in to do something about this stupid practice.
>
>
>
>
>
> Owain Walters > wrote in message >...
> > JJ,
> >
> > I am sorry for starting this fight with you but I will
> > proceed with what we have started.
> >
> > I dont mind how experinced you are in Fast Jets I dont
> > see why you want to regulate against things that might
> > happen. You will not stop someone hell-bent on killing
> > themselves by enforcing a 500' min finish height. Lets
> > be reminded that the guy who started this says that
> > the racing finish is still allowed.
> >
> > You can not regulate against peoples stupidity. If
> > this rule goes through people will get their kicks
> > somewhere else and almost certainly in a more dangerous,
> > less regulated situation.

[Marc Ramsey]

"Jonathan Gere" > wrote...
> JJ - Do you ever make your landing touchdown within 500' of a person,
> trailer or runway light, even if it is not necessary?

91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes...

[Marc Ramsey]

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote...
> The finish cylinder has its place in competition. But not to the
> exclusion of the finish line. Many of us still contend that it is
> better to race to a visible marker rather than to a virtual point in
> space requiring refernce to instruments. Heads up rather than heads
> down.

Flying head down is never necessary. The center of the finish cylinder is
almost always close to some visible marker on the airport. If it isn't, I ask
the CD to move it so it is. My software beeps when I cross the boundary of the
cylinder, does yours? Finally, I only glance at the computer once in a while to
see if I'm falling below glide slope, which I'd also be doing with a 50 foot
gate. But then again, I'm not anal about finishing at precisely 500 feet...

> As for the FARs, aircraft regularly take off and land withn 500
> feet of people, structures, and other aircraft at commercial airports.
> This is by necessity.

91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes...

[JJ Sinclair]

Our barn has that gray grungy look that old wood gets, so I have been
power-washing it in preparation for a coat of clear Urethane. Now power washing
is a monotonous task, so I started thinking about Finish Line Accidents. Surely
we must have had some, then, way up at the top of my 20 foot ladder, I
remembered ONE. Uvalde, August, 1986. It was the first Nationals at Uvalde,
15 meter I think Anyway, this ASW-20 driver hit the Finish Line, low and fast
(in those days, 5 feet was OK) He then pulled up and proceeded off the airport
to the North and crashed in a housing area. KS remembers, we helped remove the
wreckage from this guys pick-up truck and front yard. Pilot was severely
injured, but recovered satisfactorily.

It was widely suspected that the pilot was suffering from dehydration. So, not
a Finish Line Accident, just a medical condition, Right? Dr. Cannon has
lectured frequently about dehydration in contests, he says a dehydrated pilot
can be functioning OK, even though he is becoming seriously dehydrated. He can
find Uvalde (this was before GPS) He can perform his high speed, low altitude
pass through the Finish Line, But when he pulls some G's in his pull-up, the
G's can be more than his severely dehydrated mind can handle and
.............................................CRUNC H, he crashes in a housing
area.

I finished up the back of the barn and was washing the South side (much easier,
don't need the ladder) and I remembered ANOTHER Finish Line Accident. Cal City,
Nimbus 2, (Cindy can give dates & details) This Nimbus 2 driver comes in low,
but not very fast, flew through the Finish Line and pulled up very steeply,
stalled and was killed, right in front of the Finish Line. It was widely
believed that the pilot was dehydrated, was able to find Cal City, performed
his low pass through the Finish Line and
................................................

Your Honor, The Prosecution Rests,
JJ Sinclair

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

Hey JJ - What about high-speed passes in motor-gliders ?
See ya, Dave

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
> people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
> was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located
on a
> permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
> line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
> JJ Sinclair

[Andy Blackburn]

Drink your water and don't pull G's 'till you pass
out.

That power washer will keep you hydrated!

You know I can't resist telling you how unsafe it is
to stand on top of that 20' step ladder you mentioned.
I think it's even more dangerous than contest finishes.


Here are some facts from a Ladder Safety website:

'Every day, one person dies as the result of a ladder
fall. Each year, 65,000 people sustain injuries severe
enough to require treatment in hospital emergency rooms.'

Might have to ban you from power washing your barn
- for your own safety, of course.

;-)

The defense rests (with a chuckle).

9B


At 20:48 04 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
>Our barn has that gray grungy look that old wood gets,
>so I have been
>power-washing it in preparation for a coat of clear
>Urethane. Now power washing
>is a monotonous task, so I started thinking about Finish
>Line Accidents. Surely
>we must have had some, then, way up at the top of my
>20 foot ladder, I
>remembered ONE. Uvalde, August, 1986. It was the
>first Nationals at Uvalde,
>15 meter I think Anyway, this ASW-20 driver hit the
>Finish Line, low and fast
>(in those days, 5 feet was OK) He then pulled up and
>proceeded off the airport
>to the North and crashed in a housing area. KS remembers,
>we helped remove the
>wreckage from this guys pick-up truck and front yard.
>Pilot was severely
>injured, but recovered satisfactorily.
>
>It was widely suspected that the pilot was suffering
>from dehydration. So, not
>a Finish Line Accident, just a medical condition, Right?
>Dr. Cannon has
>lectured frequently about dehydration in contests,
>he says a dehydrated pilot
>can be functioning OK, even though he is becoming seriously
>dehydrated. He can
>find Uvalde (this was before GPS) He can perform his
>high speed, low altitude
>pass through the Finish Line, But when he pulls some
>G's in his pull-up, the
>G's can be more than his severely dehydrated mind can
>handle and
>.............................................CRUNC H,
>he crashes in a housing
>area.
>
>I finished up the back of the barn and was washing
>the South side (much easier,
>don't need the ladder) and I remembered ANOTHER Finish
>Line Accident. Cal City,
>Nimbus 2, (Cindy can give dates & details) This Nimbus
>2 driver comes in low,
>but not very fast, flew through the Finish Line and
>pulled up very steeply,
>stalled and was killed, right in front of the Finish
>Line. It was widely
>believed that the pilot was dehydrated, was able to
>find Cal City, performed
>his low pass through the Finish Line and
>................................................
>
>Your Honor, The Prosecution Rests,
>JJ Sinclair
>

[Jonathan Gere]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Gere" > wrote...
> > JJ - Do you ever make your landing touchdown within 500' of a person,
> > trailer or runway light, even if it is not necessary?
>
> 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
> aircraft below the following altitudes...

I meant not "necessary for takeoff or landing".

The things I mentioned are not necessary for landing. Lots of people
do them as a normal part of their landing, but they could land at the
far corner of the airport (or off-field) to better follow the FAR's,
if JJ's legal opinions were correct, not ridiculous.

Lots of other people make low passes as a normal part of their
landings, right under the noses of FAA officials, the ones who get a
weekday off with pay visiting glider contests. I guess JJ is right
that low passes are illegal!

The seventh level of hell: eternity with JJ, John Cochrane, and the
guy who determined that rigging a glider required a logbook entry as
preventative maintenance, until the FAR wording was changed.

Jonathan Gere

[Greg Arnold]

"Tom Seim" wrote in message

> One time I fould myself too low to make the A/P. The best landing
> option was at the local high school on a vacant play field. Had to
> make final over a soccer field (occupied). An irate parent complained
> to the FAA. I talked to an investigator & explained the circumstances.
> Her only comment was "After flying over so much farm land why did you
> have to land close to people?". I went thru why gliding is different
> from operating power A/C (more uncertainties, etc.) and that was the
> end of that. Nobody was hurt and nothing got damaged. Translation: no
> enforcement action.


What if there were a few kids on all the available fields, and you had no
other landing options? Would you have made a low pass to clear the field?
What if you had never done one before because you viewed low passes as
irresponsible?

[Chris OCallaghan]

> Flying head down is never necessary. The center of the finish cylinder is
> almost always close to some visible marker on the airport. If it isn't, I ask
> the CD to move it so it is. My software beeps when I cross the boundary of the
> cylinder, does yours? Finally, I only glance at the computer once in a while to
> see if I'm falling below glide slope, which I'd also be doing with a 50 foot
> gate. But then again, I'm not anal about finishing at precisely 500 feet...

I don't agree. When you approach a cylinder, you are aiming at its
center. I haven't seen a computer program that optimizes the point on
the cycliner you should be aiming at given current position and
altitude and interpolates your desired finish height to that point.
Instead you are looking down as the distance clicks off, and checking
your altitude to make sure that you don't fall slightly short. As
noted in earlier threads this means more heads down and more
variations in traffic height and speed, all converging on a much
smaller area (the optimum point on the cylinder).

Finish lines are almost completely heads up. If you can't judge 50
feet looking out the window, you have problems... certainly becuase
your altimeter is showing a variation of 50 feet or more since you set
it at takeoff. Additionally, traffic speed is much closer to uniform.
Low, slow gliders land straight ahead rather than obstructing the
finish line. And I've yet to encounter a glider at my height circling
1 mile from a finish line.

>
> 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
> aircraft below the following altitudes...

My high speed finish is typically the crosswind or downwind leg of my
pattern. I have, on several occasions, thermalled away from a high
speed pass (never at a contest). There you have an argument. Otherwise
I'm excercising my options as a pilot to conform to a standard
pattern... one established by contestants prior to the contest. I am
therefore within the requirements of 91.119.

Be careful when citing book and passage from the FARs. I know for a
fact that you don't follow some rules (none of us do) as scrupulously
as you are applying them in this case. I can find some gray in 91.119.
You'll be hard pressed to find any in 91.155.

Virtue: the behavior we demand of others, but excuse the lack of in
ourselves.

[Marc Ramsey]

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> > Flying head down is never necessary. The center of the finish cylinder is
> > almost always close to some visible marker on the airport. If it isn't, I
ask
> > the CD to move it so it is. My software beeps when I cross the boundary of
the
> > cylinder, does yours? Finally, I only glance at the computer once in a
while to
> > see if I'm falling below glide slope, which I'd also be doing with a 50 foot
> > gate. But then again, I'm not anal about finishing at precisely 500 feet...
>
> I don't agree. When you approach a cylinder, you are aiming at its
> center. I haven't seen a computer program that optimizes the point on
> the cycliner you should be aiming at given current position and
> altitude and interpolates your desired finish height to that point.

I'm not a mathematician, but I think you'll find that the point you should be
aiming for on the cylinder is on the line from your current position to the
center of the cylinder. Since, as far as I know, your computer is guiding you
towards the center of the cylinder from your current position, then you will
cross that optimal point.

> Instead you are looking down as the distance clicks off, and checking
> your altitude to make sure that you don't fall slightly short.

I'm not worried about falling slightly short, since I'm nearly always 500 feet
or more above the minimum finish altitude. Frankly, if your computer can't help
you navigate to the desired height at the edge of the cylinder, yell at the
designer, or get a new instrument or software. This isn't rocket science.

BTW, if you look carefully at SSA contest rules 10.9.3, it states quite clearly
that a finish is recorded when you enter the 3 dimensional cylinder. It does
not say you have to enter at the edge, you can also enter through the bottom.
What this means is that even if you cross the edge of the cylinder at lower than
the minimum height, as long as you can pull up and get a single fix within the
cylinder, you've got a finish.

Now, some buttheads somewhere will no doubt start coming in below the cylinder
and pulling up through the center, figuring this will give them a speed
advantage. It won't, since while you finish time is recorded where you enter
the cylinder, your finish distance only goes to the edge.

> As noted in earlier threads this means more heads down and more
> variations in traffic height and speed, all converging on a much
> smaller area (the optimum point on the cylinder).

If everyone is coming from the same final turnpoint, then they will all converge
on pretty much the same point, whether using a finish gate or a cylinder. When
everyone is not coming from the same final turnpoint (i.e. an MAT), everyone
still converges on pretty much the same point with a finish gate, but they do
not converge with a cylinder.

Again, the advantage of a finish cylinder is that those people who have
sufficient energy (and don't feel the need to make low pass), end up overhead
the airport well over 500 feet, at a comfortable speed, with plenty of time to
assess the traffic situation, watch out for those on marginal glides, go through
their checklist, etc. This has worked very well at every contest I've flown in
that used a finish cylinder. The only recent contest where I've felt
stressed/hurried during finishes, was one where a few traditionalists browbeat
the CD into using a GPS finish gate.

> Be careful when citing book and passage from the FARs. I know for a
> fact that you don't follow some rules (none of us do) as scrupulously
> as you are applying them in this case. I can find some gray in 91.119.
> You'll be hard pressed to find any in 91.155.

The original quote from your message was:

>> As for the FARs, aircraft regularly take off and land withn 500
>> feet of people, structures, and other aircraft at commercial airports.
>>This is by necessity.

And my point was, yes indeed, this happens, and it's perfectly legal according
to 9.119.

> Virtue: the behavior we demand of others, but excuse the lack of in
> ourselves.

The only virtue that I request of others on this group is that they actually
read and consider what is said...

Marc

[John Galloway]

IMHO mid air collisions are the worry.

The closer to VNE you fly the simpler the lookout and
collision avoidance issue (with respect to other gliders)
becomes.

Close to the ground there is less chance there is of
hitting a glider in the blind spot below you.

There are generally more gliders around an airfield
then anywhere else.

Ergo, if you want safe finishes, (including avoiding
close outlandings) you want to get gliders back low
and fast and look at the issue as one of flow control
i.e. does everyone know where to go and what to do
after the finish pull up. This is, in effect, what
has been informally and safely sorted out by pilots
and comp directors for decades.

A close remote high finish potentially leaves a number
of gliders milling around at or below normal circuit
height getting in each others way and increases the
collision risk.

John Galloway

[Tom Seim]

> What if there were a few kids on all the available fields, and you had no
> other landing options? Would you have made a low pass to clear the field?
> What if you had never done one before because you viewed low passes as
> irresponsible?

And your point is?

[Brian Case]

Here is what the local FAA Saftey inspector from the FSDO told me less
than a month ago.
"Just about everyone likes to do a low pass once in a while. I have
even done one in a my Aeronca champ, but no one noticed. The FAR's say
500 feet from any man made object, except for takeoff and landing.
Precedince is a fence post is a man made object. However an occasional
low pass safely done over a runway will usually not get the FAA's
attention. However repeated low passes will result in a visit from you
local FAA inspector and possible certificate action"

That is right from the FAA and perhaps not word for word but you get
the idea. It may be interpreted differently at different FSDO's. But
it seems to mee that our FSDO has a very common sense approach to this
subject.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL



Andy Blackburn > wrote in message >...
> Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation
> of the FAR's is correct - that busting 500' is, without
> exception, a violation in any circumstance other than
> final approach to landing. It is not clear to me that
> this is necessarily the case, or enforced that way
> by the FAA, but put that aside for now.
>
> If we are going to abide by the letter of the law on
> FARs, then busting 500' agl ANYWHERE on course should
> be grounds for penalty. This could be DQ for the day,
> scoring as if you landed at the spot where the infraction
> occurred, or whatever is consistent with other FAR
> violations under contest rules.
>
> I believe this would include low saves as well as ridgeline
> crossings and ridge soaring, etc. In other words, we
> would need to enforce a 500' agl hard deck in the scoring
> programs, which would need to include an accurate terrain
> elevation database. I suspect this is technically not
> that hard to do since programs like SeeYou already
> have it.
>
> Before going down that path, however, I would want
> to see a definitive statement from official FAA sources
> that this is in fact the correct interpretation of
> the FARs AND that the FAA intends to enforce these
> FARs to the letter of the law, rather than only in
> those instances that show some form of recklessness
> beyond the technicalities alone.
>
> It would be a pity in my view if this happened as I
> really like mountain flying and ridge soaring.
>
> 9B
>
>
> At 19:00 03 October 2003, George William Peter Reinhart
> wrote:
> >JJ,
> >You have a very good point.
> >Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as
> >busting 18K?
> >No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
> >Rules violations used to be handled that way at the
> >sailboat races in times
> >before political correctness was so much the vogue.
> >Cheers!, Pete
> >
> >
> >JJ Sinclair wrote in article
> >...
> >> I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)
> >>
> >> We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES
> >>the FAR's, So what are
> we
> >> going to do about that?
> >>
> >> We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the
> >>FAR's, So what are we
> going
> >> to do about that?
> >>
> >> We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES
> >>the FAR's, So
> what are
> >> we going to do about that?
> >> JJ Sinclair
> >>
> >

[Andy Blackburn]

At 19:06 05 October 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>I'm not a mathematician, but I think you'll find that
>the point you should be aiming for on the cylinder
>
>is on the line from your current position to the
> center of the cylinder. Since, as far as I know,
> your computer is guiding you towards the center
>of the cylinder from your current position,
>then you will cross that optimal point.

This is correct - the shortest distance to the cylinder
is on a radial from the center.

>Frankly, if your computer can't help you navigate to
>the desired height at the edge of the cylinder, yell
>
>at the designer, or get a new instrument or software.
>
>This isn't rocket science.

I think the point is navigating to a point in space
requires monitoring glide angle to the 500'/1mile point.
I am aware of computers that beep when you cross the
cylinder, but not of any that tell you along the way
if you are GOING TO make it. This is what requires
the heads-down time. Or leaving a minute or so of time
on the clock for enough extra altitude to not have
to worry about it.

Also, the 'get a new computer' point contradicts the
purported logic for recent rules changes (such as 15
min) - that it excludes some pilots from competition
to require the 'latest and greatest' computer technology.
I don't buy that logic and it looks like you don't
either, but it is out there.

>BTW, if you look carefully at SSA contest rules 10.9.3,
>it states quite clearly that a finish is recorded when
>you enter the 3 dimensional cylinder. It does not
>say you have to enter at the edge, you can also enter
>through the bottom. What this means is that even if
>you cross the edge of the cylinder at lower than the
>minimum height, as long as you can pull up and get
>a single fix within the cylinder, you've got a finish.


>Now, some buttheads somewhere will no doubt start
>coming in below the cylinder and pulling up through
>
>the center, figuring this will give them a speed
>advantage. It won't, since while you finish time is
>
>recorded where you enter the cylinder, your
>finish distance only goes to the edge.

Actually, I think the optimal is to be close to zero
feet just before 1 mile, then do a ballistic pullup
(to roughly zero mph - depending on initial speed)
right at 500' and 1 mile (kind of like pole vaulting).
This presumes you carry extra potential energy on the
glide as a buffer. Otherwise the optimal is to fly
Mc speed corresponding to your last climb right to
the 500'/1 mi point. If you hit a little sink you could
do a mini-ballistic pullup at the edge or go hunting
for lift (at 500'). This potential practice is the
logic behind John Cochrane's finish donut suggestion
- the cost of which is even more pressure on heads
down computer time to clear the 1-mile deep donut and/or
trying to find lift to reach the bottom of the cylinder.

I am not recommending any of these techniques - it's
just what the rules encourage the foolhardy (or desparate)
to try.

At least with the finish at ground level at the airport
you have a continuous visual reference as to whether
you are gaining or losing on the glide angle, keeping
the pilot's head out of the cockpit - that's the main
point.

9B

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>Sure, it's only 25-50
>points over the course of Regionals to just finish
>high and not worry about it - but the temptation to
>save the points, push for 500' and spend a few seconds
>to take a couple of peeks at the computer in the last
>mile or so I bet is pretty irresistible to many pilots.
>At 130kts, a few seconds is all it takes...

Apparently, I'm giving up a lot more than 25-50 points, because I'd
never dare come in that fast. I set my "finish" altitude to 500', which
puts me about 200' over the edge of the 1 mile radius finish circle.
And, like Marc, I find an occasional glance at the PDA is plenty to keep
me on glide slope. Even though it might require a few more glances than
going to the ground at the finish line, the few times I've used this
kind of finish, there was less traffic because we were spread out more.

I'd like to continue using the 1 or 2 mile finish until I've had more
experience with it, because it seemed to work well.
--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[Tim Ward]

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > ...
> > This is correct - the shortest distance to the cylinder
> > is on a radial from the center.
> > ...
>
> Not correct if there is some cross wind.

I can understand a crosswind changing the required heading, and even the
optimum speed to fly, but how does it change the distance?

Tim Ward

[Robert Ehrlich]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> ...
> This is correct - the shortest distance to the cylinder
> is on a radial from the center.
> ...

Not correct if there is some cross wind.