Soar Oshkosh 2006

[Ian Cant]

There is a little misconception evident in Robert Mudd
and Diogenes's comments on the soaring booth which
will be at Oshkosh this year.

Robert wrote '..non-SSA Chapter clubs will not be mentioned..'
and Diogenes replied 'Basically the SSA is in the business
of promoting the SSA, not soaring per se - though that
can result in soaring also being promoted. I thought
the organizers solicited donations from many sources
- perhaps if a non-SSA-affiliated club donated they
also get on the list.'

As a practical matter, there is no easy way to contact
all non-SSA affiliated clubs. One of the advantages
of being an SSA affiliated club is that you are then
included on the 'where-to-fly' map. And as an organizational
matter, since the SSA is the sponsoring organization
and the booth renter, EAA expects and demands that
only SSA members can be actively promoted from it.

That said, the declared purpose of the booth is SOARING,
sponsored by but not restricted to the SSA. We would
be more than happy to include non-SSA clubs in an auxiliary
list of places to soar, and mention them to interested
potential recruits to the sport. We would also be
very happy to have non-SSA glider pilots come by and
see what's happening. And those manufacturers of soaring-related
products who are not SSA members but have their own
separate booths at Oshkosh ? We would like to cooperate
with them by directing prospective customers to their
booths and in exchange having them direct their contacts
to the SOARING booth.

The SSA today is in the process of shedding some old
habits and becoming more responsive to the real needs
of the entire soaring community. The SSA needs the
support of the whole community, and the whole community
does benefit from the activities of the SSA - if it
didn't already exist we'd have to invent it.

Ian

[Terry]

Ian Cant wrote:
> The SSA today is in the process of shedding some old
> habits and becoming more responsive to the real needs
> of the entire soaring community. The SSA needs the
> support of the whole community, and the whole community
> does benefit from the activities of the SSA - if it
> didn't already exist we'd have to invent it.
>
> Ian
================================================== ==

Mr. Cant:

First, a well done for pushing the rock back up the hill and getting a
display for gliders at the premier aviation event of OSH. I cannot
agree with your assessment of the current direction of the SSA given my
personal interactions for the past several years. I have found an
organization that appears wholly dedicated to the care and feeding of a
small rural office building and staff. And a directorate complicit
with that assessment.

Recently, I found an old cache of SOARING magazines and looked up my A,
B, and C badges. The names in that 25 year old magazine would be very
familiar to today's readers--same volunteers, same directors, same
concerns about membership only now we are 2/3 of the 1981 size.

SSA's problems are organizational. Any area with an ineffective
director has no means of change. Other areas are just as fossilized
and any attempts to offer aid or direction are ignored. Eventually one
just gives up. Remember what the SSA did NOT do once ADSB and other
equipment requirements finally kill our sport.

Terry Claussen
DPEG AZ

[Terry]

I'll say it again: ...any attempts to offer aid or direction are
ignored.

To answer your question, I did not run for director, but I did offer
after Mr. Wright's 2004 request for volunteers. As I recall, there was
not an election for director in my region but an appointment.

The familiar plea that no one offers does not wash when the circle is
closed. Here in PHX, we are about to get a major change to our class
B. AOPA is currently more active than SSA in this. AOPA even had a
spokesman in today's paper. Nothing from SSA although the current
planned changes will severely impact operations at both Turf and
Estrella. I offered, asked, pleaded and got zilch in return--only a
reference that Cindy Bricker "takes care of airspace for us."

It only takes a little encouragement. The OSH group was very nearly
shutdown by the directorate until it was discovered that they may
actually pull it off. Good for them. If more of us bypass the SSA,
maybe more will get done.

[Bruce]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>
>> SSA's problems are organizational. Any area with an ineffective
>> director has no means of change. Other areas are just as fossilized
>> and any attempts to offer aid or direction are ignored. Eventually one
>> just gives up. Remember what the SSA did NOT do once ADSB and other
>> equipment requirements finally kill our sport.
>
>
> When did you last run for director in your region? When did you last
> volunteer to help? As president of a smaller soaring organization
> (Pacific Soaring Council), I hear from plenty of people complaining
> about all the things we should be doing, yet when I offer them the
> opportunity to do something about it, most of them just can't seem to
> find the time...
>
> Marc
Criticism is easy, leading is hard. Funny how even at club level it is a
minority who are always making it happen. (not that the majority of the majority
appreciate it)

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Marc Ramsey]

Terry wrote:
> I'll say it again: ...any attempts to offer aid or direction are
> ignored.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I hear that all of the time, too.

For instance, you mentioned that you feared SSA inaction on ADS-B is
endangering the sport. Have you discussed this with other pilots and
come up with a coherent argument? Put together a presentation which
your SSA Director could present to the Executive Committee? Done a
posting here in an effort to do some grass roots organizing? These
things don't happen by magic, and yes, sometimes the bureaucracy will
try to shut you down. But, if you are persuasive and persistent enough,
someone will listen...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Terry wrote:

>
> The familiar plea that no one offers does not wash when the circle is
> closed. Here in PHX, we are about to get a major change to our class
> B. AOPA is currently more active than SSA in this.

As I would expect it be, since it's a much larger organization. As a
member of both groups, I don't think it's criticism of the SSA that they
aren't as active (I'm taking your word for this, since I am not familiar
with the situation), but a consequence of the size and priorities of the
two groups.

> AOPA even had a
> spokesman in today's paper. Nothing from SSA although the current
> planned changes will severely impact operations at both Turf and
> Estrella. I offered, asked, pleaded and got zilch in return--only a
> reference that Cindy Bricker "takes care of airspace for us."
>

Did you contact Cindy? If you haven't, give it a try: she is very
approachable and working hard on SSA business. She isn't the only one
involved in airspace, either, because this is too important for that. A
call to her will likely be informative and useful.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Paul M. Cordell]

Terry wrote:
> I'll say it again: ...any attempts to offer aid or direction are
> ignored.
>
> To answer your question, I did not run for director, but I did offer
> after Mr. Wright's 2004 request for volunteers. As I recall, there was
> not an election for director in my region but an appointment.
>
> The familiar plea that no one offers does not wash when the circle is
> closed. Here in PHX, we are about to get a major change to our class
> B. AOPA is currently more active than SSA in this. AOPA even had a
> spokesman in today's paper. Nothing from SSA although the current
> planned changes will severely impact operations at both Turf and
> Estrella. I offered, asked, pleaded and got zilch in return--only a
> reference that Cindy Bricker "takes care of airspace for us."
>
> It only takes a little encouragement. The OSH group was very nearly
> shutdown by the directorate until it was discovered that they may
> actually pull it off. Good for them. If more of us bypass the SSA,
> maybe more will get done.
>

Cindy Brickner is aware of the Phoenix Class B redesign and has spoken
directly with the Phoenix TRACON manager regarding the LOA that is about
to be put into place for Soaring operations in the area. Both the ASA
(Arizona Soaring Association) and the SSA have been involved in this
redesign as well as the last one. Jim Burch must be given credit for
leading the effort.

As for Terry’s statement, “planned changes will severely impact
operations at both Turf and Estrella.” No additional restrictions
have been imposed that didn’t already exist. In fact, this is really
a realignment to more accurately reflect the actual traffic patterns.
They are lowering the ceiling from 10,000 ft to 9,000 feet. When was
the last time you remember the Feds giving airspace back?

I have had numerous direct discussions via phone and E-mail with Cindy
on this subject. She isn’t hard to get a hold of. Her contact
information is published on the SSA web site as well as her own
commercial Soaring web site. She is involved and her involvement is
important to keep the National Airspace perspective as it pertains to
Soaring in mind.


Paul Cordell
ASA President
SSA Life Member

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Paul,

Can you explain the changes at Phoenix that will affect soaring for the
rest of us? My understanding from flying at SLC and MSP is that we can
still fly in the Mode C veil but clear of Class B. I have not looked
at recent changes to see if I can fly over the top of the B, but at SLC
we don't go that direction anyway.

Tim

[[email protected]]

Hi Terry:

Having been a close observer and persistant critic of the SSA during
the dog days of the computer system disaster and all that it signified,

I would disagree that nothing has changed:

1. SSA's finances are now handled competently and, importantly, with
considerable transparency.
2. The website, by virtue of an all volunteer effort, has improved
dramatically.
3. Cindy Brickner's efforts to maintain and even increase our access
to airspace in the Owens by opening and maintaining communications

with the authorities have yielded spectacular results as did her
work on
radio frequency misuse. Her efforts are usually low key,
persistent and,
as a result, effective. I'd be surprised if she wasn't involved
in the Phoenix
matter (and more surprised if her involvement was anything but
beneficial).
4. The Hobbs operation, while still not all it could be, has improved
greatly
since a visit I made some years ago when I walked through the
front door
and was completely ignored, even when I wandered behind the
counter.
5. My guess is that the resistance to the OSH effort had to do with
where the
money would come from, not its desirability.

Are there still problems? Sure! Big ones!

1. An organization with a shrinking membership needs to publicise and
recruit as if
it's life depended on it.
2. Hobbs is not an ideal home for a national organization if for no
other reason than
its limited access for members and volunteers. Isolation tends to
create a bunker
mentality in the staff as well.
3. Equipment requirements are not, IMHO, our biggest regulatory
threat; that honour
goes to TSA's orgy of TFR's, etc..
4. Do-nothing directors can be voted out; failing that, bylaws could
be written setting
out a director's duties and penalties for failure to perform them.
(Really bad ones
could be encouraged to run for Congress.)

Many of these problems are being addressed; some wait to be addressed.

Some may never be addressed. Never-the-less, real changes have taken
place,
on balance for the better.

Raphael Warshaw
1LK

[diogenes]

Ian Cant wrote:
> That said, the declared purpose of the booth is SOARING,
> sponsored by but not restricted to the SSA.

Thanks for the clarification. What you are doing helps spread the
soaring bug to others who might be susceptible, yet takes a lot of
work and would not get done without your volunteering so deserves
praise and appreciation. I've no intention of disparaging the Oshkosh
display effort, quite the contrary since I myself have made a donation
- but I did so because I had understood it was to be a "soaring" booth
and not an "SSA" booth (at that time the SSA had made no
contribution, to my knowledge). I'm an SSA member, but that does not
mean that I think of soaring as an SSA-only arena. My understanding
is that 2/3 of the donated money has come from individuals so SSA is
"a" sponsor of this event, not that the event is "SSA sponsored".

Were I making the decision I'd include non-SSA clubs in the SSA's
on-line "Where to Fly" list (with no frills, and with a disclaimer
indicating that the information is less reliable than for
SSA-affiliated organizations). Their decision is otherwise.
Personally I've always gotten a feeling of cliquishness when dealing
with the SSA, yet perhaps that is just me. But I don't want to turn
what you are doing, and the good it will do, into a discussion of the
SSA so will say no more.

[Paul M. Cordell]

TTaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Can you explain the changes at Phoenix that will affect soaring for the
> rest of us? My understanding from flying at SLC and MSP is that we can
> still fly in the Mode C veil but clear of Class B. I have not looked
> at recent changes to see if I can fly over the top of the B, but at SLC
> we don't go that direction anyway.
>
> Tim
>

My point is that without a National perspective, Changes anywhere in the
National system may have effect on the rest of the country. I think
that it is important to have some coordination and a focal point such as
Cindy.

Specifically, the proposed Phoenix redesign would have prevented
operation within the Mode C veil from the ceiling of Class B or Class C
airspace up to 10,000ft MSL. This would have effectively put a cap on
operations both at Estrella and Turf of 9,000. The LOA that is
being worked out will allow unlimited VFR Glider operations (without
Transponders) within the Veil. Refer to FAR 91.215(b)(3)(ii)

[BTIZ]

A review of FAR91.215 does exempt gliders from transponder requirements
within the 30nm Mode C veil, but they have to operate clear of Class B
airspace AND BELOW the top of Class B airspace to 10,000ft MSL which ever is
LOWER.

So if the Class B stops at 9,000MSL, then without a transponder, ANY
AIRCRAFT, not just gliders, that are approved for operations within the Mode
C veil without a transponder are capped at 9,000MSL and cannot continue
climb to 10,000MSL which will get them out of the Mode C veil limitation and
into the standard "above 10,000MSL" transponder or no transponder
requirements.

We face that same issue with the Las Vegas Class B, the glider club has a
waiver with the FAA and local Tracon for specific climb windows to climb
above 9,000MSL. It is only usable by members of the glider club who receive
specific training in it's operation of the climb waiver. It is the same as
going to Minden and operating in the Wave Windows, you need the
training/approval of the signature to the waiver to be able to use the
waiver.

BT

"TTaylor at cc.usu.edu" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Paul,
>
> Can you explain the changes at Phoenix that will affect soaring for the
> rest of us? My understanding from flying at SLC and MSP is that we can
> still fly in the Mode C veil but clear of Class B. I have not looked
> at recent changes to see if I can fly over the top of the B, but at SLC
> we don't go that direction anyway.
>
> Tim
>

[BTIZ]

> I don't fly there, but if I understand this correctly (and
> if I don't, I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me), the
> problem goes something like this:
>
> 91.215 allows transponderless glider flight inside a Mode C
> veil only at altitudes below the top of the Class B. If the
> top of the Class B is 10,000', then when the Feds "give
> back" Class B airspace by lowering the top to 9,000', the
> effect is to take away the airspace that transponderless
> aircraft use, while "giving back" airspace above the Class B
> (from 9,000 to 10K') to aircraft that have transponders.
>
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

YES !! you are correct.
BT