OLC and airspace

[5Z]

This is primarily aimed at US pilots, but certainly applies to us
all...

The latest issue od Soaring magazine has a well written editorial by
Dennis Wright about our responsibilities of avoiding airspace that
requires permission to enter. On page 13 there's an article if
interest to any of us flying near (or over) class B airspace as well.

I think, that in order to maintain our freedoms, we must remind our
fellow pilots of their responsibility of we see or hear of any
transgressions. This is not a suggestion to "bust" anyone, but more
like a friendly suggestion one might make to someone who is littering,
etc...

I suggest that anyone submitting an OLC claim with data points above
18K, or that pass through class A, B, C, or a Restricted area or TFR
should add a comment o the submittal that could look like one of the
following:

Rolled out of thermal at 17,800 indicated, and altimeter
never reached 18K, so local pressure must have been less
than standard.

Crossed R-XXXX after asking FSS if it was truly not hot
this weekend.

Got permission from DEN center to fly in class A as I'm
IFR equipped and current.

As responsible users of our airspace, I think it would be a disservice
NOT to to click on the "complaint" button and select "airspace
infringement" for a flight without the above comments.

>From now on I will do this, and hope others will follow suit.

My flight on July 3 is a perfect example:
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/2005/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=199209&ueb=N&olc=olc-usa&spr=en&dclp=130c8775503f45a5a8e7b9c3721d1a89

The "standard atmosphere" pressure log indicates I was just a bit over
18K, but adjusting for local pressure it would (I hope) show I was OK.
Also, I flew close to a couple of forest fire TFR's that I was aware
of nad at the end of the flight I crossed a couple of restricted areas
that I confirmed with FSS were cold.

-Tom
ASH-26E 5Z

[[email protected]]

It's a good idea to put in the comments as you suggest, but I don't
like the idea of encouraging people with too much time on their hands
to become annoying tattletales, scouring others' flight logs and
getting all excited whenever they see a fix with 18,001 feet pressure
altitutde.

[5Z]

wrote:
> It's a good idea to put in the comments as you suggest, but I don't
> like the idea of encouraging people with too much time on their hands
> to become annoying tattletales, scouring others' flight logs and
> getting all excited whenever they see a fix with 18,001 feet pressure
> altitutde.

I'd rather it be one of us than the FAA :(

The point is to enlighten everyone to the fact that we're (possibly)
being watched. So if you see a "blatant" misstep, then why not give
the pilot a gentle reminder to toe the line. Better they lose an OLC
flight than we all lose the privilege of flying at all.

-Tom

[[email protected]]

I'm still trying to figure out if I can overfly Class C airspace
without a transponder and without having to get clearance.

When I overflew El Paso a year ago I got clearance from their approach
but I was well over 10,000' the entire time. Was that mandatory?

-ted/2NO

[5Z]

See page 13 of this month's Soaring mag. THere's an excellent
depiction of where we may fly without transponder or comms. Having
said that, it's always a good idea to chat with the controllers if
(your and their) workload permits.

I've gotten low near a towered airport such as Pueblo and the guy must
have been starved for company, as I got the full 20 questions as I
ground around in a weak thermal before finally getting away.

-Tom

[CindyASK]

5Z wrote:
> See page 13 of this month's Soaring mag. THere's an excellent
> depiction of where we may fly without transponder or comms. Having
> said that, it's always a good idea to chat with the controllers if
> (your and their) workload permits.

Tom:

Thanks for the kind words on my artwork.
I find that 91.215 is one of the least understood
FARs, both by pilots and controllers, so I had to make
a picture. The only tiny gaffe in publication was that
it does not show the right margin of red airspace in alignment
with the right lateral edge of the Class Charlie, in the upper
diagram.
Stand alone Class C does have the transponder requirement
for overflight below 10,000 only by squawking-1200-code
airframes.
Above 10,000 msl, we are blessed with the exemption from
a transponder, but all other airframes do have them up there....
(mostly), so the airliners think they will get traffic calls
on all hardware and thus fail to look out the window on even VFR days.
They presume that their TCAS and prox alerts and ATC buds will keep
them from ingesting plastic gliders. Hence, we all need to be the
See-and-Avoid vigilant ones.

Fly safely all,

Cindy B

[CindyASK]

5Z wrote:
> See page 13 of this month's Soaring mag. THere's an excellent
> depiction of where we may fly without transponder or comms. Having
> said that, it's always a good idea to chat with the controllers if
> (your and their) workload permits.

Tom:

Thanks for the kind words on my artwork.
I find that 91.215 is one of the least understood
FARs, both by pilots and controllers, so I had to make
a picture. The only tiny gaffe in publication was that
it does not show the right margin of red airspace in alignment
with the right lateral edge of the Class Charlie, in the upper
diagram.
Stand alone Class C does have the transponder requirement
for overflight below 10,000 only by squawking-1200-code
airframes.
Above 10,000 msl, we are blessed with the exemption from
a transponder, but all other airframes do have them up there....
(mostly), so the airliners think they will get traffic calls
on all hardware and thus fail to look out the window on even VFR days.
They presume that their TCAS and prox alerts and ATC buds will keep
them from ingesting plastic gliders. Hence, we all need to be the
See-and-Avoid vigilant ones.

Fly safely all,

Cindy B