Airspace Violations OLC

[Mal]

The OLC organizers have to assume that the participants in the contest will
not violate restricted airspace during their flights. ATC clearances are
necessary to enter certain airspace. The OLC team will not check if a pilot
has obtained the necessary clearance to enter airspace which needs ATC
clearance. This is not within our competences and responsibilities. However,
if we get to know that there has been an obvious violation of airspace then
we reserve the right to carry out special actions against that pilot and his
participation in the OLC. Of course every pilot is allowed to contact other
pilots in case of a potential airspace violation.

With the above on the OLC website it beyond me why pilots would post IGC
files showing airspace violations on the OLC

Gliders can not get clearance to this Class C Airspace

Are they normally kicked off the OLC ?

[Stefan]

Mal wrote:

> Gliders can not get clearance to this Class C Airspace

I regularly get them. (Maybe not to "this" airspace, but to some.)

Stefan

[stephanevdv]

The only airspace a glider can't get a clearance for, should be class A
(IFR only).

[cfinn]

How would you explain wave windows. I think you will find clearance
could be granted for most any airspace except prohibited, with
clearance into class B being the hardest to obtain.

[Bill Daniels]

"stephanevdv" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The only airspace a glider can't get a clearance for, should be class A
> (IFR only).
>

There is nothing in the regulations that prohibits a clearance into Class A
except that the aircraft must be properly equipped, the pilot must hold the
proper certificates and be current. There are several US pilots that
routinely fly XC in Class A airspace.

I have had local pilots tell me that when flying with a transponder and
utilizing "Flight Following" (US rough equivalent of 'Controlled VFR'),
enroute controllers have CONTACTED THEM offering clearance into Class A
airspace when it appeared that a thermal climb would reach 18,000 feet.

That's a pretty good incentive to get a transponder.

Bill Daniels

[Stefan]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> There is nothing in the regulations that prohibits a clearance into Class A

The ICAO definition of class A is "IFR only". (Each country is free to
add some local rules to the standard airspace classification, though.)

> utilizing "Flight Following" (US rough equivalent of 'Controlled VFR'),

I'm not American, but as far as I think to have understood, one of the
most common misunderstandings among US pilots is that "flight following"
means "controlled flight", while it is just a plain uncontrolled flight
with some advisories.

Stefan

[Mal]

Class C Australian airspace.

[JS]

Remembering that even Class D Australian airspace is treated like Class
B in the USA.
Jim

[Stewart Kissel]

>With the above on the OLC website it beyond me why
>pilots would post IGC
>files showing airspace violations on the OLC
>
>Gliders can not get clearance to this Class C Airspace
>
>Are they normally kicked off the OLC?


Soaring should not promote busting FAR's(USA) or whatever
they are called around the world. On the other hand,
we pay taxes to our government(s) to enforce rules.
So if you feel like enforcing them yourself...I suppose
no one is stopping you. I certainly think the OLC
has better things to do.


Why does this feel like a debate on illegal immigration
in the US?
>
>
>

[5Z]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> they are called around the world. On the other hand,
> we pay taxes to our government(s) to enforce rules.
> So if you feel like enforcing them yourself...I suppose
> no one is stopping you. I certainly think the OLC
> has better things to do.

It's up to ALL OF US to keep an eye on flight claims and attempt to
contact the person making a questionable claim. Ask them to add a
comment to the flight explaining the discrepancy, or withdraw the
flight. If they refuse, and it's an obvious bust, then submit a
"complaint" to the OLC.

Especially in the USA, we have tremendous freedom of flight. Let's not
allow some thoughtless claims to provide data for the FAA or anyone
else wishing to take away our freedom.

-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> It's up to ALL OF US to keep an eye on flight claims and attempt to
> contact the person making a questionable claim. Ask them to add a
> comment to the flight explaining the discrepancy, or withdraw the
> flight. If they refuse, and it's an obvious bust, then submit a
> "complaint" to the OLC.

The very concept of getting accusatory emails from individuals who
likely know nothing of the circumstances of my flights, would certainly
kill any interest I might have in participating in the OLC...

[Mike the Strike]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > It's up to ALL OF US to keep an eye on flight claims and attempt to
> > contact the person making a questionable claim. Ask them to add a
> > comment to the flight explaining the discrepancy, or withdraw the
> > flight. If they refuse, and it's an obvious bust, then submit a
> > "complaint" to the OLC.
>
> The very concept of getting accusatory emails from individuals who
> likely know nothing of the circumstances of my flights, would certainly
> kill any interest I might have in participating in the OLC...


How about calling in law enforcement to carry out random ramp testing
on loggers? Once folks start breaking one or two little rules, who
knows where it could lead? We need to stamp out this antisocial
widespread glider log cheating immediately!

Some good examples - all of those recent long ridge flights in the NE
USA are made WAY too close to the ground. I think all those logs
should be pulled for close scrutiny for violations!

Mike

[[email protected]]

When someone passes you on the highway doing 15 over the speed limit,
do you call 911 and sic the coppers on him? If you see your neighbor
in a sleazy bar about to get lucky, do you call his wife?

The saying "Mind your own business" comes to mind!

Kirk
66

[Mike Schumann]

When someone passes me doing 80 in a 65 zone, I do call the cops.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> When someone passes you on the highway doing 15 over the speed limit,
> do you call 911 and sic the coppers on him? If you see your neighbor
> in a sleazy bar about to get lucky, do you call his wife?
>
> The saying "Mind your own business" comes to mind!
>
> Kirk
> 66
>

[Mal]

> When someone passes you on the highway doing 15 over the speed limit,
> do you call 911 and sic the coppers on him?

15 KPH we have speed cameras and radar and lidar for that!

> If you see your neighbour
> in a sleazy bar about to get lucky, do you call his wife?

I don't hang out in sleazy bars do you!

As a former PI the wife normally paid to find out they called me.

> The saying "Mind your own business" comes to mind!

Yes just like the USA minding everyone else's business the world police.

Next time a jet on descent into Australia's busiest airport sucks a glider
through its engine don't forget to dial 000

> Kirk
> 66
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
>> It's up to ALL OF US to keep an eye on flight claims and attempt to
>> contact the person making a questionable claim. Ask them to add a
>> comment to the flight explaining the discrepancy, or withdraw the
>> flight. If they refuse, and it's an obvious bust, then submit a
>> "complaint" to the OLC.
>
> The very concept of getting accusatory emails from individuals who
> likely know nothing of the circumstances of my flights, would certainly
> kill any interest I might have in participating in the OLC...

I can understand that, but is there a way a person could contact you
that would be agreeable to you? Or as an alternative to people
contacting a pilot with a potential airspace violation, would you prefer
any pilot posting a flight with an airspace intrusion explain why the
intrusion was allowed (in the comment section on the claim form)?

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Stefan]

wrote:

> The saying "Mind your own business" comes to mind!

Airspace violations *are* my business when they cause the authorities to
enlarge that class C airspace for another 10 miles just for safety
because gliders are known not to respect airspace boundaries.

Airspace violations *are* my business when they cause ATC not to grant
me a clearance because gliders are known not to adhere to clearances.

Airspace violations *are* my business when I sit in that airliner which
hits the offending glider.

etc.

Stefan

[5Z]

wrote:
> When someone passes you on the highway doing 15 over the speed limit,
> do you call 911 and sic the coppers on him? If you see your neighbor
> in a sleazy bar about to get lucky, do you call his wife?

No, because it doesn't hurt me. If the speeding car is driving
recklessly (I don't consider speed in itself reckless), then I will try
to report.

> The saying "Mind your own business" comes to mind!

ABSOLUTELY. Airspace violations ARE my business. Whether my neighbor
is a communist, is not. But if he beats his wife, or vice versa, I
will call the cops.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be forced to file an IFR
flight plan to go soaring above 10K or more than 5 miles from the
airport.

The OLC is not mandatory. So let's only claim LEGAL flights and enjoy
the fruits of the freedoms we have here in the USA. (The naysayers so
far have been from the USA, best I can tell).

-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> The very concept of getting accusatory emails from individuals who
>> likely know nothing of the circumstances of my flights, would
>> certainly kill any interest I might have in participating in the OLC...
>
> I can understand that, but is there a way a person could contact you
> that would be agreeable to you? Or as an alternative to people
> contacting a pilot with a potential airspace violation, would you prefer
> any pilot posting a flight with an airspace intrusion explain why the
> intrusion was allowed (in the comment section on the claim form)?

I might not have an issue with the OLC implementing some mechanism for
automatically detecting and requesting clarification on any apparent
airspace violations in a flight. It may or may not be worth the hassle,
but it would at least be clear what was going on. If I instead had to
justify my every move to arbitrary observers, it definitely isn't worth
it. Every year I make flights under (and once inside, with permission)
Class B airspace, over and inside of (with permission) Class C airspace,
over and inside of (inactive) Restricted airspace, in Class A wave
windows, etc. A local pilot may or may not understand what is going on,
someone outside of the area almost certainly won't.

For some people, it would just be a license to harass other pilots.
This is one area where personal responsibility should be the primary
enforcement mechanism, just as it is for those who aren't participating
in the OLC.

Marc

P.S. I'm not currently participating in the OLC, as I don't think it is
worth the hassle...

[Mike the Strike]

Ok, so every time a pilot exceeds 18,000 feet, he just adds a note
"cleared by ATC" and everything's fine!

I don't know why there's an assumption that rule breaking is at all
widespread and that a flight outside normal airspace hasn't been done
with permission. Most of us do obey the rules, you know.

Mike

[5Z]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Ok, so every time a pilot exceeds 18,000 feet, he just adds a note
> "cleared by ATC" and everything's fine!

Yes.

> I don't know why there's an assumption that rule breaking is at all
> widespread and that a flight outside normal airspace hasn't been done
> with permission. Most of us do obey the rules, you know.

Because these flights are posted online for all to see, we the pilots
and our national organizations are indirectly responsible for what is
posted. The SSA, FAI, etc., don't want to be in the business of
policing their membership due to both the effort required and the
liability taken on.

What I, and many other responsible pilots ask, is that we all work to
keep our sport safe and out of the eyes of anyone with an agenda
against us.

When a pilot makes a questionable operation that you witness, do you
take him aside and quietly "counsel" him? It may be that what he did
was perfectly safe in his eyes, and after you hear the explaination all
is well. It may also be that he didn't realize the error and is
thankful for the concern. The OLC environment is the same, IMO.

-Tom

[[email protected]]

The point is that just because it looks like it could be illegal,
doesn't mean it is. Just because you think something is dangerous
doesn't mean it is.

Anyone who really thinks flights posted on OLC are "public" really has
an inflated opinion of our sport!

Oh forget it...

Kirk

[Bill Daniels]

"5Z" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mike the Strike wrote:
>> Ok, so every time a pilot exceeds 18,000 feet, he just adds a note
>> "cleared by ATC" and everything's fine!
>
> Yes.
>
>> I don't know why there's an assumption that rule breaking is at all
>> widespread and that a flight outside normal airspace hasn't been done
>> with permission. Most of us do obey the rules, you know.
>
> Because these flights are posted online for all to see, we the pilots
> and our national organizations are indirectly responsible for what is
> posted. The SSA, FAI, etc., don't want to be in the business of
> policing their membership due to both the effort required and the
> liability taken on.
>
> What I, and many other responsible pilots ask, is that we all work to
> keep our sport safe and out of the eyes of anyone with an agenda
> against us.
>
> When a pilot makes a questionable operation that you witness, do you
> take him aside and quietly "counsel" him? It may be that what he did
> was perfectly safe in his eyes, and after you hear the explaination all
> is well. It may also be that he didn't realize the error and is
> thankful for the concern. The OLC environment is the same, IMO.
>
> -Tom
>

I have to agree with 5Z. If it looks like a reg was busted, don't post it.
The internet is not only public, it is permanent. A file can re-surface
years later when the consequences may be...unfortunate for the pilot and the
sport in gerneral. This is something that deserves respect.

Bill Daniels

[Stefan]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> I have to agree with 5Z. If it looks like a reg was busted, don't post it.

Whenever I've seen a flight through some class-whatever-airspace, I have
just assumed that the pilot had a simple clearance.

But maybe I'm naive. Always assume the worst, every pilot is permanently
trying to bust as many rules as he can, and the government has nothing
more urging in their agenda than to **** of the glider pilots. Just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not shadowed.

Stefan

[Bill Daniels]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with 5Z. If it looks like a reg was busted, don't post
>> it.
>
> Whenever I've seen a flight through some class-whatever-airspace, I have
> just assumed that the pilot had a simple clearance.
>
> But maybe I'm naive. Always assume the worst, every pilot is permanently
> trying to bust as many rules as he can, and the government has nothing
> more urging in their agenda than to **** of the glider pilots. Just
> because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not shadowed.
>
> Stefan

That's not exactly it. The vast majority of pilots do try to fly within the
rules but can nonetheless break one inadvertantly. The accidental violation
may small and not apparent until reviewing the flight trace. Unfortunately,
the authorities may choose not to 'look the other way' since a secure IGC
file is pretty 'air-tight' evidence of the violation. The careful and
prudent pilot will choose not to post a flight showing an airspace
violation.

That said, traces which on first review appear to show a violation of a rule
may in fact be legal if, for example, the pilot obtained a clearance.
That's what the OLC comment field is for - it helps avoid controversy.

Bill Daniels

[5Z]

wrote:
> The point is that just because it looks like it could be illegal,
> doesn't mean it is.

Absolutely. This discussion has degenerated in the wrong direction.

The OLC is essentially operating on the honor system, so let's all be
honorable. This means keeping an eye out for gross violations of
regulations. The disclaimer on the OLC site is meant to remind the
submitter of some responsibility to be borne. It is in OUR BEST
INTEREST to nudge some marginal flights off the web if we feel they are
detrimental to our sport.

I'm not saying we need nannies checking every flight, but it's just
common sense that if you see a flight that's questionable, you would
approach the pilot about it. If we all do this, then it won't be a
stranger making the comment.

> Just because you think something is dangerous
> doesn't mean it is.

No, but I would approach the pilot to ask why someting that looked to
me as dangerous was done. I expect one of three responses:

1. A description of why it was not dangerous based on the pilot's
skills, perceptions, etc.

2. An admission that a mistake was made and some lesson learned.

3. An admission that the pilot was unaware the action looked dangerous,
and now upon reflection, a lesson has been learned.

I do not expect to get a lecture on minding my own business.

In the first case above, I would learn a lesson, and in the other two
both of us would learn a lesson.

> Anyone who really thinks flights posted on OLC are "public" really has
> an inflated opinion of our sport!

They can be used as "evidence" against out freedon to fly. And we can
only hope that the OLC is giving us some more exposure on what can
REALLY be done in a sailplane.

-Tom

[[email protected]]

Sit back and take a deep breath!

What you are talking about are POTENTIAL airspace violations, not
PROVEN airspace violations. I have been routinely cleared thru Class B
airspace. We also have restricted airspace close by that is open to the
public on a given day (or hour), or is restricted in subsections, or is
restricted to a certain altitude. You simply can't tell if there has
been an ACTUAL violation unless you know all the particulars about the
situation. For that reason alone OLC has no business being in the air
cop business.

MOOYMMV.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Jack]

Stefan wrote:

> Airspace violations *are* my business when they cause the authorities to
> enlarge that class C airspace for another 10 miles just for safety
> because gliders are known not to respect airspace boundaries.
>
> Airspace violations *are* my business when they cause ATC not to grant
> me a clearance because gliders are known not to adhere to clearances.
>
> Airspace violations *are* my business when I sit in that airliner which
> hits the offending glider.

And all these things have happened to you?

Have you compared the number of violations by the mythical "Piper Cub"
which happen every year to the number of violations by gliders? Have you
examined the faulty logic in advocating an expansion of airspace that is
not respected?

You also sincerely advocate the mandatory installation of transponders
in ALL air vehicles, whether A380's or balloon-borne lawn chairs, do you
not?


Jack

[Jack]

5Z wrote:

> Because these flights are posted online for all to see, we the pilots
> and our national organizations are indirectly responsible for what is
> posted. The SSA, FAI, etc., don't want to be in the business of
> policing their membership due to both the effort required and the
> liability taken on.

"...don't want to be in the business of policing the membership", so
let's all police the membership.

Great! I can hardly wait to become just like all the totalitarians we've
been fighting for the last 70 years.

Welcome to 2084.


Jack

[Stefan]

Jack wrote:

> And all these things have happened to you?

Sort of, yes. In the country I live, airspace is really crammed,
controlled airspace is permanently growing and over the last few years,
clearances have become harder to get. Our only chance to keep reasonable
soaring possibilities is to be respected as reliable partners. It only
takes one or two cowboys to destroy the work of many years.

> Have you compared the number of violations by the mythical "Piper Cub"
> which happen every year to the number of violations by gliders?

Who cares?

> Have you
> examined the faulty logic in advocating an expansion of airspace that is
> not respected?

Who cares whether it's logic or not, when it happens?

> You also sincerely advocate the mandatory installation of transponders
> in ALL air vehicles, whether A380's or balloon-borne lawn chairs, do you
> not?

No, and frankly, I can't see any conexion.

Stefan