Class A airspace

[flying_monkey]

OK, I'm puzzled. Maybe you folks can help me understand this. I
looked up the definition of Class A airspace, which is "from 18,000
feet MSL to and including FL600" with few exceptions that don't apply
to the area I'm looking at. I've seen more than one flight posted on
OLC which have a high point above 18,000 feet, up to 18,500 feet. Is
there some fine point I'm not understanding which makes this legal?

Heck, I think it should be illegal to fly in conditions where you could
thermal into the stratosphere. Unless they can make conditions like
that back here in the east, where about 6,000 is the highest I've
gotten all summer.

Thanks in advance,
Ed

[5Z]

flying_monkey wrote:
> I've seen more than one flight posted on
> OLC which have a high point above 18,000 feet, up to 18,500 feet. Is
> there some fine point I'm not understanding which makes this legal?

It appears you are talking about the USA. Flight above 18K is illegal
without ATC authorization of some sort (wave window or IFR clearance).
The clearance issues have been discussed in other threads. When
posting a flight that could be questioned, please add a comment to
indicate the extenuating circumstances involved.

See http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/OLC.htm for the SSA's
position regarding the posting of "questionable" flights. It's up to
the participants to maintain peer pressure on anyone who blatantly
violates FARs.

The altitude displayed when looking at an IGC trace, is based on
standard pressure (altimeter set to 29.92). To find the true altitude
at any point, one needs to locate an official weather reporting station
near the piont in question, and look up the actual pressure at the time
(I use http://wunderground.com). 1" of mercury is 1,000', so it is
possible to see altitudes several hundred feet about 18,000'.

Remember, soaring and the OLC are fun activities, and we don't want the
FAA to step in and add huge restrictions. We have some of the best
airspace access in the world - let's not blow it by condoning improper
and illegal behavior.

-Tom

[flying_monkey]

The flights I'm talking about both show that they have pressure
altitude sensors. The two airports I checked in the area both showed
baro readings of around 29.82 at the time being examined in the flight,
which could account for 100' of error. But, the takeoff altitudes
match the takeoff airport elevation within 57' at most. The GPS
altitudes reported were as high as 19,000 ft, while the highest
pressure altitude reported was near 18,500. I'm removing one of those
particular flights from my consideration, as the overage was probably
only about 34 feet, and I could easily imagine that his altimeter was
off by that much. The other flight, though, would have almost
certainly indicated as high as 18,400. That's an obvious violation.
But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
a violation when that function is activated.

Ed

[5Z]

flying_monkey wrote:
> But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
> a violation when that function is activated.

I may be wrong, but I don't think SeeYou has a set of rules for pure
altitude based violations. If you define a SUA that covers your area
of interest and has a base of 18K, then it might trigger. I typically
look at the statistics as those show a max altitude.

-Tom

[JS]

5Z wrote:
> flying_monkey wrote:
> > But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
> > a violation when that function is activated.
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think SeeYou has a set of rules for pure
> altitude based violations. If you define a SUA that covers your area
> of interest and has a base of 18K, then it might trigger. I typically
> look at the statistics as those show a max altitude.
>
> -Tom


Hallooo:
WinPilot, etc warn close to Class A or Restricted, unless the
function is turned off or your airspace file is old or corrupt. (The
airspace file, not the pilot!) I don't think that any program or the
OLC would flag you for being within 500 feet of a structure on a ridge
flight though. You might find a few instances of that violation if
you're bored enough to look. (ie: it's rained for a week and you feel
like being a Fed)
Agreed, if you talk to ATC and get clearance into Class A or a
restricted area; an option we all may excercise; it would be best noted
in pilot comments of OLC flights. Not sure how to explain permission to
fly 300' over a ski lift, though!
It's nice to cruise the Whites, but sometimes I miss ridge flying.
Jim

[SAM 303a]

What is your point? That we need another set of watchdogs?
We shouldn't condone or copy the behaviour you've identified, but I don't
see how it benefits the sport to point it out to the authorities or make a
stink on RAS.
I bet with a little Googling you could find contact info for The Offender.
If you feel so strongly why don't you contact The Offender?


"flying_monkey" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The flights I'm talking about both show that they have pressure
> altitude sensors. The two airports I checked in the area both showed
> baro readings of around 29.82 at the time being examined in the flight,
> which could account for 100' of error. But, the takeoff altitudes
> match the takeoff airport elevation within 57' at most. The GPS
> altitudes reported were as high as 19,000 ft, while the highest
> pressure altitude reported was near 18,500. I'm removing one of those
> particular flights from my consideration, as the overage was probably
> only about 34 feet, and I could easily imagine that his altimeter was
> off by that much. The other flight, though, would have almost
> certainly indicated as high as 18,400. That's an obvious violation.
> But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
> a violation when that function is activated.
>
> Ed
>

[flying_monkey]

JS wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > flying_monkey wrote:
> > > But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
> > > a violation when that function is activated.
> >
> > I may be wrong, but I don't think SeeYou has a set of rules for pure
> > altitude based violations. If you define a SUA that covers your area
> > of interest and has a base of 18K, then it might trigger. I typically
> > look at the statistics as those show a max altitude.
> >
> > -Tom
>
>
> Hallooo:
> WinPilot, etc warn close to Class A or Restricted, unless the
> function is turned off or your airspace file is old or corrupt. (The
> airspace file, not the pilot!) I don't think that any program or the
> OLC would flag you for being within 500 feet of a structure on a ridge
> flight though. You might find a few instances of that violation if
> you're bored enough to look. (ie: it's rained for a week and you feel
> like being a Fed)
> Agreed, if you talk to ATC and get clearance into Class A or a
> restricted area; an option we all may excercise; it would be best noted
> in pilot comments of OLC flights. Not sure how to explain permission to
> fly 300' over a ski lift, though!
> It's nice to cruise the Whites, but sometimes I miss ridge flying.
> Jim

I don't see how any glider I've seen could be cleared into Class A.
Even if the controller says it's OK and gives a clearance, the fact
that the pilot is probably not instrument rated and current, and the
glider is certainly not legally equipped for IFR flight would prevent
you from accepting the clearance. A wave window is different, I think.
That's actually a modification of the airspace, so that where you're
flying isn't Class A.

Looking further into the FARs, they could have had traffic assigned to
FL185 that day. The flight under discussion certainly penetrated that
airspace. Might not be normal for IFR traffic to be there, but it's
possible. I think I'll set my personal limit to maybe 17,500 (like
I'll ever get a chance to do that. Hah!).

Regarding getting the attention of the feds, it doesn't seem smart to
post any flight to OLC which shows a pressure altitude that penetrates
18,000 for even one data point, or a GPS altitude that penetrates that
when corrected for the difference between surface barometric pressure
and 29.92. SeeYou will certainly tell you about this if you look
carefully, and I'm sure other programs will too. Also, do you suppose
the pilot changed from the nasal cannula he was probably using for
oxygen to a mask for the time above 18,000'? If we as a community keep
giving out enough information (and rope), the public or the feds will
happily hang us with that rope.

Can you actually get permission to overfly that ski lift? And, can you
anticipate it far enough in advance to ask? Many ridges have the
occasional house along the top, you'd have to have permission for each
one of those, too. The ridge is certainly fun, but thermalling into
Class A, can you imagine that? I've got to move back out west. (Wife
says, "No chance.") Maybe I can make a deal with her for a week at
Minden or someplace. It would take too long to tow the glider out
there, so it'll have to be someplace where I can fly into and rent
something decent.

Ed

[flying_monkey]

SAM 303a wrote:
> What is your point? That we need another set of watchdogs?
> We shouldn't condone or copy the behaviour you've identified, but I don't
> see how it benefits the sport to point it out to the authorities or make a
> stink on RAS.
> I bet with a little Googling you could find contact info for The Offender.
> If you feel so strongly why don't you contact The Offender?
>
Geez! I'm not trying to point this out to the authorities, or make any
kind of stink. Oh, yeah, I know that the FAA folks probably read this,
but I bet they'd be a lot more impressed if we started policing this
widely ourselves as a group. We all need to police ourselves so that
we don't break the rules, and on the remote chance that we do, we don't
advertise it to the world. A little peer pressure would work wonders
here. Contacting the offender directly wouldn't do this. It might
correct this one instance, and get that one flight claim retracted, but
if the word is spread wider, maybe people will think before they
infringe or post.

Ed

[hans]

In the past there was a function in the OLC that marked every flight
with a possible airspace infringement. The result of the airspace check
was made available to the pilot before the flight was claimable for the
OLC. But the peer pressure was too strong for some of the buddies of Mr.
Rose and so first this feature and later the person that had implemented
this feature were removed from the OLC.


flying_monkey schrieb:
> SAM 303a wrote:
>> What is your point? That we need another set of watchdogs?
>> We shouldn't condone or copy the behaviour you've identified, but I don't
>> see how it benefits the sport to point it out to the authorities or make a
>> stink on RAS.
>> I bet with a little Googling you could find contact info for The Offender.
>> If you feel so strongly why don't you contact The Offender?
>>
> Geez! I'm not trying to point this out to the authorities, or make any
> kind of stink. Oh, yeah, I know that the FAA folks probably read this,
> but I bet they'd be a lot more impressed if we started policing this
> widely ourselves as a group. We all need to police ourselves so that
> we don't break the rules, and on the remote chance that we do, we don't
> advertise it to the world. A little peer pressure would work wonders
> here. Contacting the offender directly wouldn't do this. It might
> correct this one instance, and get that one flight claim retracted, but
> if the word is spread wider, maybe people will think before they
> infringe or post.
>
> Ed
>

[Ramy]

One more thing to consider is that loggers have errors as much as 500ft
at these altitudes, and without seeing the logger calibration data it
is not possible to determine if the glider was in class A airspace. We
shouldn't penetrate class A airspace, (I had to open spoilers recently
to avoid it, as flying at 120 knots wouldn't do) but no doubt anyone
who flies without a transponder, although it is legal, is posing much
higher risk to commercial traffic then someone with a transponder who
accidentally brush class A....

Ramy

flying_monkey wrote:
> SAM 303a wrote:
> > What is your point? That we need another set of watchdogs?
> > We shouldn't condone or copy the behaviour you've identified, but I don't
> > see how it benefits the sport to point it out to the authorities or make a
> > stink on RAS.
> > I bet with a little Googling you could find contact info for The Offender.
> > If you feel so strongly why don't you contact The Offender?
> >
> Geez! I'm not trying to point this out to the authorities, or make any
> kind of stink. Oh, yeah, I know that the FAA folks probably read this,
> but I bet they'd be a lot more impressed if we started policing this
> widely ourselves as a group. We all need to police ourselves so that
> we don't break the rules, and on the remote chance that we do, we don't
> advertise it to the world. A little peer pressure would work wonders
> here. Contacting the offender directly wouldn't do this. It might
> correct this one instance, and get that one flight claim retracted, but
> if the word is spread wider, maybe people will think before they
> infringe or post.
>
> Ed

[Dan[_4_]]

Atmospheric pressure, temp difference from the ICAO std atmosphere(ISA)
(4 feet per degree of ISA deviation times the number of thousands of
feet, if I recall correctly - bigger than the pressure differences),
and logger pressure sensor errors all play. My Volkslogger, on the
last 3 calibrations, reads several hundred feet higher than the
calibrated sensor at 18k. Logger pressure sensors are not accurate,
but are repeatably precise... the reason you do the altitude correction
on altitude gain badge applications in most cases. I imagine that a
sensor which was accurate would cost a lot more, which is not something
most folks want with loggers!

So, in my case, if I fly close to 17,999', it can appear I'm in class
A. My OLC claims, however, offer to send a copy of the baro cal
certificate to whoever wants it, to show I was legal on the flight...
Jumping to the conclusion that there is an infraction without the facts
is dangerous. I'm sure that few would post a similar flight without a
reason like mine.

GPS altitude is above the GPS ellipsoid; it is also subject to bigger
errors than the horizontal errors (due to system design). Comparing
pressure and GPS altitude is problematic.

Dan

hans wrote:
> In the past there was a function in the OLC that marked every flight
> with a possible airspace infringement. The result of the airspace check
> was made available to the pilot before the flight was claimable for the
> OLC. But the peer pressure was too strong for some of the buddies of Mr.
> Rose and so first this feature and later the person that had implemented
> this feature were removed from the OLC.
>
>
> flying_monkey schrieb:
> > SAM 303a wrote:
> >> What is your point? That we need another set of watchdogs?
> >> We shouldn't condone or copy the behaviour you've identified, but I don't
> >> see how it benefits the sport to point it out to the authorities or make a
> >> stink on RAS.
> >> I bet with a little Googling you could find contact info for The Offender.
> >> If you feel so strongly why don't you contact The Offender?
> >>
> > Geez! I'm not trying to point this out to the authorities, or make any
> > kind of stink. Oh, yeah, I know that the FAA folks probably read this,
> > but I bet they'd be a lot more impressed if we started policing this
> > widely ourselves as a group. We all need to police ourselves so that
> > we don't break the rules, and on the remote chance that we do, we don't
> > advertise it to the world. A little peer pressure would work wonders
> > here. Contacting the offender directly wouldn't do this. It might
> > correct this one instance, and get that one flight claim retracted, but
> > if the word is spread wider, maybe people will think before they
> > infringe or post.
> >
> > Ed
> >

[BTIZ]

there are known errors between GPS reported altitude and pressure set
altitude..
BT

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> flying_monkey wrote:
>> But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
>> a violation when that function is activated.
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think SeeYou has a set of rules for pure
> altitude based violations. If you define a SUA that covers your area
> of interest and has a base of 18K, then it might trigger. I typically
> look at the statistics as those show a max altitude.
>
> -Tom
>

[58y]

flying_monkey wrote:
> The flights I'm talking about both show that they have pressure
> altitude sensors. The two airports I checked in the area both showed
> baro readings of around 29.82 at the time being examined in the flight,
> which could account for 100' of error. But, the takeoff altitudes
> match the takeoff airport elevation within 57' at most. The GPS
> altitudes reported were as high as 19,000 ft, while the highest
> pressure altitude reported was near 18,500. I'm removing one of those
> particular flights from my consideration, as the overage was probably
> only about 34 feet, and I could easily imagine that his altimeter was
> off by that much. The other flight, though, would have almost
> certainly indicated as high as 18,400. That's an obvious violation.
> But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
> a violation when that function is activated.

1. Do you know the pilot didn't have clearance?

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference could easily
have indicated >400' lower than the baro reference you see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

[Soarin Again]

On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.

The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
enjoy.
I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
from further flight.
For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
That should have been included in the remarks section
of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
it with ATC.

>2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
>errors at high
>altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
>could easily
>have indicated >400' lower than the baro reference you
>>see on OLC.
>
>3. Fly your own ship.
>
>
>Jack
>

[dave r.]

heck, 6000 ft isn't even pattern altitude where I live! That would really
make it a rotten summer.

dave in boulder


"flying_monkey" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> OK, I'm puzzled. Maybe you folks can help me understand this. I
> looked up the definition of Class A airspace, which is "from 18,000
> feet MSL to and including FL600" with few exceptions that don't apply
> to the area I'm looking at. I've seen more than one flight posted on
> OLC which have a high point above 18,000 feet, up to 18,500 feet. Is
> there some fine point I'm not understanding which makes this legal?
>
> Heck, I think it should be illegal to fly in conditions where you could
> thermal into the stratosphere. Unless they can make conditions like
> that back here in the east, where about 6,000 is the highest I've
> gotten all summer.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ed
>

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

flying_monkey wrote:

> I don't see how any glider I've seen could be cleared into Class A.

It can be done, however, and a waiver is one way to do it.

> Even if the controller says it's OK and gives a clearance, the fact
> that the pilot is probably not instrument rated and current, and the
> glider is certainly not legally equipped for IFR flight would prevent
> you from accepting the clearance. A wave window is different, I think.
> That's actually a modification of the airspace, so that where you're
> flying isn't Class A.

It is still Class A, but the pilot(s) have been given waivers from the
Class A requirements. A minor point, but important because only pilots
with waivers are allowed into the airspace, not just anybody, even if
the wave window is in operation.

>
> Looking further into the FARs, they could have had traffic assigned to
> FL185 that day. The flight under discussion certainly penetrated that
> airspace.

I believe, but can't site a regulation or procedure, that ATC keeps at
least 1000' between FL assignments and 18,000 msl. Still, I agree it's
bad behavior, and even if there is a 1000' margin, the glider pilot
should not be using it. It's not a margin anymore, then, is it?

> Might not be normal for IFR traffic to be there, but it's
> possible. I think I'll set my personal limit to maybe 17,500 (like
> I'll ever get a chance to do that. Hah!).

Wave exists back East. Go for it!

>
> Regarding getting the attention of the feds, it doesn't seem smart to
> post any flight to OLC which shows a pressure altitude that penetrates
> 18,000 for even one data point, or a GPS altitude that penetrates that
> when corrected for the difference between surface barometric pressure
> and 29.92.

It is not possible to do the correction using surface barometric
pressure, because the altimeter and the GPS are measuring two different
things (altimeter-pressure, GPS-height). You would have to know the
atmospheric pressure and temperature from the surface to the glider
before you could convert the GPS measurement to an altimeter reading.
So, we need to stick with the pressure log for these discussions,
because the 18,000 msl is a pressure number.

> Also, do you suppose
> the pilot changed from the nasal cannula he was probably using for
> oxygen to a mask for the time above 18,000'?

Since this isn't part of the logger record, I don't think we have to
worry about stuff like this affecting our "reputation". If he was
getting enough oxygen at 18,000, he's still getting enough even at
19,000, so it's not a safety concern, just a "regulatory" infraction.

I do worry about pilots posting flights that seem to break the rules,
for just the reasons you mention.

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

[Doug Haluza]

I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration for a Peter
Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt claims from a Peter
Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint, or if the pilot
removed all his flights and registration in protest.

Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s is not the proper
way to addres this. There is a partner check function in the OLC which
should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
olc<at>ssa<dot>org. We have access to the pilot's email and can contact
them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.

As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can be quite large,
especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace shows a large
unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best to add a note
addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
> On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
> flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
> such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.
>
> The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
> a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
> would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
> causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
> enjoy.
> I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
> their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
> from further flight.
> For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
> That should have been included in the remarks section
> of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
> pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
> it with ATC.
>
> >2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
> >errors at high
> >altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
> >could easily
> >have indicated >400' lower than the baro reference you
> >>see on OLC.
> >
> >3. Fly your own ship.
> >
> >
> >Jack
> >

[Doug Haluza]

Does anyone have links to posted copies of LOA's for wave windows, or
electronic copies they can forward to me via email? I have been looking
into get a wave window set up in PA, but Cleveland Center is not
familiar with the existing wavers set up with other centers. So this
would help me move the process forward.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >>A wave window is different
> >
> >It is still Class A, but the pilot(s) have been given waivers from the
> >Class A requirements. A minor point, but important because only pilots
> >with waivers are allowed into the airspace, not just anybody, even if
> >the wave window is in operation.
>
> A related point is that the waiver is granted through a
> Letter of Agreement between the ATC and some other party
> (club, commercial operation, etc.). Typically, the LOA
> requires that anyone operating under the waiver granted in
> that document read the LOA and understand/comply with the
> requirements set forth therein. Sometimes this step is
> glossed over.
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[5Z]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Does anyone have links to posted copies of LOA's for wave windows, or
> electronic copies they can forward to me via email? I have been looking
> into get a wave window set up in PA, but Cleveland Center is not
> familiar with the existing wavers set up with other centers. So this
> would help me move the process forward.

Couple LOAs here: http://soarbfss.org/flying.php

[jb92563]

I agree, we do NOT need to test the limits of our airspace rules
because the only reason we are allowed to fly in all the airpsace that
we have is because we have not presented ourselves as a threat to other
more important air traffic.

It will just take one downed airliner, or even a close call, to change
all that overnight!!!

Perhaps there was not enough oxygen getting to this individuals brain
at the time either, when 19,000 on the Altimeter did not register
anything significant for him.

If we do this and not manage ourselves our future might be limited to
12,500.

Lets not!

I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact cause
letter from the locally responsible governing organization to reprimand
any pilot that violates important airspace.

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves.

Ray

[58y]

jb92563 wrote:


> It will just take one downed airliner, or even a close call, to change
> all that overnight!!!

> Perhaps there was not enough oxygen getting to this individuals brain
> at the time either, when 19,000 on the Altimeter did not register
> anything significant for him.

> I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact cause
> letter from the locally responsible governing organization to reprimand
> any pilot that violates important airspace.
>
> At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves.



We're seeing more paranoia than self-discipline in some of these posts.

Are the facts something that might of interest to you? Doug Haluza has
already indicated he is trying to track down whatever might be
instructive for the rest of us.

In the mean time you might study up on altimeter error, ATC procedures,
and maybe start an exercise program.


Jack

[Ramy]

I am curious if all those paranoids about loosing our privileges or
taking down an airliner as a result of someone accidentally and
momentarily penetrating class A airspace by few hundred feets, are
actually flying with transponders below 18K where the likelihood for an
airliner is many time folds higher?
I am flying with TPAS, and am amazed to find out how few gliders using
transponders, and even fewer when further away from the airspace.

Ramy

jb92563 wrote:
> I agree, we do NOT need to test the limits of our airspace rules
> because the only reason we are allowed to fly in all the airpsace that
> we have is because we have not presented ourselves as a threat to other
> more important air traffic.
>
> It will just take one downed airliner, or even a close call, to change
> all that overnight!!!
>
> Perhaps there was not enough oxygen getting to this individuals brain
> at the time either, when 19,000 on the Altimeter did not register
> anything significant for him.
>
> If we do this and not manage ourselves our future might be limited to
> 12,500.
>
> Lets not!
>
> I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact cause
> letter from the locally responsible governing organization to reprimand
> any pilot that violates important airspace.
>
> At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves.
>
> Ray

[Ian Cant]

Doug,
I just looked at the international OLC, and sure enough there is
a Peter Klose, but from Aero Team Klix in Germany. He has no flights
posted.

I don't know if this whole episode is some kind of bad joke or not, but
perhaps you can quietly contact AT Klix and see what really happened. If he
bust the Class A and has now tried to hide the evidence then at least he may
have learned something. On the other hand, if he never did anything of the
sort, we have a malicious troublemaker on ras.

Regards,

Ian

[Frank Whiteley]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "5Z" > wrote:
>
> >>get a wave window set up in PA, but Cleveland Center is not
> >> familiar with the existing wavers set up with other centers. So this
> >> would help me move the process forward.
> >
> >Couple LOAs here: http://soarbfss.org/flying.php
>
> They look a lot like the one I worked on with Boston Center.
> You might want to get them from a few different areas to
> convince Cleveland Center that they are common and not just
> an oddity of the Rockies. You can probably call up the
> military desk (a.k.a. "military coordinator") at a few
> different Centers and ask for copies. That's how I did it.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
Procedures
http://www.soarcsa.org/wave_operating_procedures.htm
Agreement
http://www.soarcsa.org/wave_agreement.htm

Frank Whiteley

[Soarin Again]

Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

At 16:36 23 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration
>for a Peter
>Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt
>claims from a Peter
>Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint,
>or if the pilot
>removed all his flights and registration in protest.
>
>Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s
>is not the proper
>way to addres this. There is a partner check function
>in the OLC which
>should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
>olcssaorg. We have access to the pilot's email and
>can contact
>them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.
>
>As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can
>be quite large,
>especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace
>shows a large
>unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best
>to add a note
>addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.
>
>Doug Haluza
>SSA-OLC Admin
>
>Soarin Again wrote:
>> On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
>> flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
>> such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.
>>
>> The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
>> a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
>> would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
>> causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
>> enjoy.
>> I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
>> their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
>> from further flight.
>> For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
>> That should have been included in the remarks section
>> of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
>> pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
>> it with ATC.
>>
>> >2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
>> >errors at high
>> >altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
>> >could easily
>> >have indicated >400' lower than the baro reference
>>>>you
>> >>see on OLC.
>> >
>> >3. Fly your own ship.
>> >
>> >
>> >Jack
>> >
>
>

[Soarin Again]

1 901.96 Thiele Uwe co pilot Dach Rüdiger US (BW) 1139.6
141.1 Parowan Ut Gld (US) SFV Mannheim Nimbus 3DM 1818-0222
flight file 665c3k51-190 this file when opened in SeeYou
list Peter Klos as pilot.

At 16:36 23 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration
>for a Peter
>Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt
>claims from a Peter
>Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint,
>or if the pilot
>removed all his flights and registration in protest.
>
>Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s
>is not the proper
>way to addres this. There is a partner check function
>in the OLC which
>should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
>olcssaorg. We have access to the pilot's email and
>can contact
>them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.
>
>As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can
>be quite large,
>especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace
>shows a large
>unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best
>to add a note
>addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.
>
>Doug Haluza
>SSA-OLC Admin
>
>Soarin Again wrote:
>> On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
>> flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
>> such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.
>>
>> The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
>> a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
>> would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
>> causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
>> enjoy.
>> I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
>> their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
>> from further flight.
>> For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
>> That should have been included in the remarks section
>> of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
>> pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
>> it with ATC.
>>
>> >2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
>> >errors at high
>> >altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
>> >could easily
>> >have indicated >400' lower than the baro reference
>>>>you
>> >>see on OLC.
>> >
>> >3. Fly your own ship.
>> >
>> >
>> >Jack
>> >
>
>

[Doug Haluza]

Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
SSA policy. For more info see:

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/OLCSummary.htm

However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
> Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
> is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
> It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
> But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
> Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
> is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
> the flight and Thiele is claiming it.
>
> I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
> is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
> 18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
> to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
> pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.
>

[Bert Willing]

Additionally, accusing somebody in public without giving his own real name
is disgusting.

Bert Willing

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
> have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
> explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
> SSA policy. For more info see:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/OLCSummary.htm
>
> However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
> address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
> named individuals without knowing all the facts.
>
> Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
> contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org.
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin
>
> Soarin Again wrote:
>> Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
>> is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
>> It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
>> But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
>> Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
>> is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
>> the flight and Thiele is claiming it.
>>
>> I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
>> is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
>> 18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
>> to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
>> pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.
>>
>

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

An interesting US thread primarily about access to Upper airspace (in US
above 18000FT), but also about IFR flight in gliders.
In the UK we have also had much discussion last year about access to
upper airspace (variously above FL195, FL245).

The differences between the two threads seems to be that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites (OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots should be free to
fly.

Not to say that the competitive spirit has not resulted in some
"unsportsmanly" behaviour in recent UK competitions.

It is a pity some of us are deprived of access to traces of some of the
boundary-pushing flights of top pilots because these pilots have to fear
the nit-picking of their colleagues. When something appears not quite
right, often an in-depth conversation may be needed to establish the
facts rather than an immediate counter-blast.

Gliding is a small sport and doesn't need to restrict itself into
oblivion. If commercial air traffic can constantly demand control of
ever increasing amounts of airspace, what is their legal right? We have
just as much right and should constantly be pushing the boundaries,
pressing our case and establishing our need.

If you can string together a half-decent set of legal and commonsensical
reasonning why you can do something that appears safe, fun and
enjoyable, then go and do it. Don't spend the time trying to cross the
last t of the legalese. If you are not competant or motivated enough to
do that particular activity, then it is not always helpful to focus on
potential technicalities as to why others should not be allowed their
pleasure. I wonder why lawyers are so rich? If you want zero risk, don't
aviate in any form.

Rory

[58y]

Thank you, Rory.


Jack

----

Rory O'Conor wrote:

> An interesting US thread primarily about access to Upper airspace (in US
> above 18000FT), but also about IFR flight in gliders.
> In the UK we have also had much discussion last year about access to
> upper airspace (variously above FL195, FL245).
>
> The differences between the two threads seems to be that the UK
> discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which one of the
> solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights onto online
> soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership with
> information to support the case for ongoing access.
>
> In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly about how to prevent
> others posting good flights to online soaring sites (OLC) when they
> exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather different
> approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats who wish to
> demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to prevent safe and
> enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots should be free to
> fly.
>
> Not to say that the competitive spirit has not resulted in some
> "unsportsmanly" behaviour in recent UK competitions.
>
> It is a pity some of us are deprived of access to traces of some of the
> boundary-pushing flights of top pilots because these pilots have to fear
> the nit-picking of their colleagues. When something appears not quite
> right, often an in-depth conversation may be needed to establish the
> facts rather than an immediate counter-blast.
>
> Gliding is a small sport and doesn't need to restrict itself into
> oblivion. If commercial air traffic can constantly demand control of
> ever increasing amounts of airspace, what is their legal right? We have
> just as much right and should constantly be pushing the boundaries,
> pressing our case and establishing our need.
>
> If you can string together a half-decent set of legal and commonsensical
> reasonning why you can do something that appears safe, fun and
> enjoyable, then go and do it. Don't spend the time trying to cross the
> last t of the legalese. If you are not competant or motivated enough to
> do that particular activity, then it is not always helpful to focus on
> potential technicalities as to why others should not be allowed their
> pleasure. I wonder why lawyers are so rich? If you want zero risk, don't
> aviate in any form.
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>

[Soarin Again]

>The differences between the two threads seems to be
>that the UK
>discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which
>one of the
>solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights
>onto online
>soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership
>with
>information to support the case for ongoing access.
>
>In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly
>about how to prevent
>others posting good flights to online soaring sites
>(OLC) when they
>exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather
>different
>approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats
>who wish to
>demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to
>prevent safe and
>enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots
>should be free to
>fly.

In the U.S. we have access to airspace, provided we
follow the rules. Your opinion that those who blatantly
disregard the rules are simply pushing the boundaries,
is hogwash.

There are two separate issues regarding violations
of
regulations in the U.S. One is the competative issue,
which means that giving credit for flights that intentionally
violate regulations is blatantly unfair to the vast
majority of the other pilots who comply with the regulations.
This also encourages those who are currently bending
to go a step further and just ignore them altogether.
The other issue is that we enjoy far better access
to airspace than most of the rest of the world. Showing
that we as a group will not tolerate pilots blatantly
violating rules is one of the few ways we have to show
the Fed's that the vast majority of us
are trying to self police ourselves. We do not need
renegades putting our current airspace availability
in jeopardy.
Not to mention the fact that posting flights on the
internet with your name, glider type and registration
number along with a flight log showing your violation,
is a pretty dumb thing to do.
If the Fed's ever start looking at these files as a
revenue stream of violations, it will give a whole
new meaning to the words 'nit picking'.

[SAM 303a]

Can I hear an 'Amen' for brother Doug?

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
> address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
> named individuals without knowing all the facts.
>
> Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
> contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org.
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin

[SAM 303a]

"Soarin Again" > wrote in message
...
> In the U.S. we have access to airspace, provided we
> follow the rules. Your opinion that those who blatantly
> disregard the rules are simply pushing the boundaries,
> is hogwash.

You can't possibly know if it is 'hogwash' or not unless you have detailed
weather info and the results of their baro calibration. Talking to the
pilot before posting to this forum would not only be the gentlemanly thing
to do, it will also do more to protect our right to fly than your public
nitpicking possibly could.

>
> There are two separate issues regarding violations
> of
> regulations in the U.S. One is the competative issue,
> which means that giving credit for flights that intentionally

All that prize money and all those hot soaring groupies going to the wrong
pilots... The horror of it all.
It's true, I too got into sailplane racing for the money and the groupies,
but I stay with it just for the fun of it.

> Not to mention the fact that posting flights on the
> internet with your name, glider type and registration
> number along with a flight log showing your violation,
> is a pretty dumb thing to do.

So let me get this straight--you want to try to argue with someone who is
dumb? The result will be a meaningless victory or a doubly embarassing
defeat.

Re: your handle "Soarin Again"
Please, go fly. Step back from the keyboard, please.

[flying_monkey]

I'm in agreement with what you've quoted here. But I'm also in
agreement with jb92563 who said:
"I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact
cause
letter from the locally responsible governing organization to
reprimand
any pilot that violates important airspace.

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves. "

Ed

SAM 303a wrote:
> Can I hear an 'Amen' for brother Doug?
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
> > address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
> > named individuals without knowing all the facts.
> >
> > Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
> > contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org.
> >
> > Doug Haluza
> > SSA-OLC Admin

[Graeme Cant]

flying_monkey wrote:

> letter from the locally responsible governing
> organization to reprimand any pilot that violates
> important airspace.

Name some of the airspace you think is UNimportant?

> At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE
> governing ourselves. "

But you AREN'T governing yourself. That's what they do in UK and OZ and
(a little) NZ. YOU'RE governed by the FAA. Just like instructors in
172s and bizjets and 747 ATPs.

If you bust a rule, the FAA will come after the individual pilot. It's
a matter between him and the FAA. Airline pilots bust altitudes every
day but nobody blames it on the entire profession. It's an individual
and his own licence.

Group punishment is a very 1940s concept. I don't believe the FAA is
seriously into it - but you know your own country best.

All this self-policing angst sounds suspiciously like the expression of
some fairly common personality traits. How many of you are first
children? :)

GC

[Jack[_5_]]

Graeme Cant wrote:

> All this self-policing angst sounds suspiciously like the expression of
> some fairly common personality traits.

It's become quite common over here, unfortunately: another aspect of the
feminization of America.


Jack

[[email protected]]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> flying_monkey wrote:
> > At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE
> > governing ourselves. "
>
> But you AREN'T governing yourself. That's what they do in UK and OZ and
> (a little) NZ. YOU'RE governed by the FAA. Just like instructors in
> 172s and bizjets and 747 ATPs.
>
> If you bust a rule, the FAA will come after the individual pilot. It's
> a matter between him and the FAA. Airline pilots bust altitudes every
> day but nobody blames it on the entire profession. It's an individual
> and his own licence.
>
> Group punishment is a very 1940s concept. I don't believe the FAA is
> seriously into it - but you know your own country best.

This thorny thread has implications elsewhere in the U.S. (e.g., how to
treat contest flight records with apparent airspace violations, the
current answer being a huge penalty--i.e., negative score for the day).
I agree with those who urge caution before accusing someone without
having all the facts. I also agree there's risk in trying to act as an
enforcement mechanism when, in fact, we are not self governing.

There's greater risk, however, in doing nothing. Do not misunderstand.
I'm not advocating vigilante-style, do-it-yourself
denouncement/enforcement, particularly on RAS. Several years ago, I
actually had one self-described instrument of justice tell me in a
private email that he didn't care whether the facts supported his
loudly and frequently expressed views that a certain pilot was a crook:
he just KNEW he was right. :(

But as Doug Haluza has noted regarding the OLC, there are mechanisms
for reporting incidents that might be of concern to all of us. The
"Safety Box" at U.S. contests is another. A private word with the pilot
is yet another, if undertaken in the proper spirit.

With the advent of GPS flight recorders, the details of our flights are
now quite public. The OLC is just one way. Many U.S. national and
regional contests publish all flight traces. Other local and regional
season-long contests have Web sites where pilots post their logs, as do
local soaring clubs.

And if it's easy for us to run those records through SeeYou to check
for airspace infringement, don't think the Feds aren't doing it also. I
was on the grid at the U.S. Std. Class Nationals in Uvalde, TX a few
weeks ago when two gentlemen approached me asking for contest
headquarters. Turns out one of them had read a contest report on the
Internet about a minor problem with a towplane due to a maintenance
lapse and they had flown in to investigate...the following day. One of
them returned later and we chatted for quite a while. He was a nice,
extremely knowledgeable soaring enthusiast. He's owned at least three
high-performance gliders and currently flies a state-of-the-art
motorglider. He didn't seem like a steely-eyed, narrow-minded
bureaucrat obsessed with running errant pilots to ground and punishing
them for minor violations. For better or worse, his attitude was well
within the laissez-faire-to-vengeful-regulator spectrum displayed in
this thread. But with his Federal hat on, he was intent on finding out
what--and who--had gone wrong the previous day in a situation where
most of us would have just shaken our heads and rolled our eyes at the
mechanic's goof.

So I don't think it's inappropriate for any of us who spots what may be
a significant FAR violation to take some action. Whether that's
contacting the pilot in question or referring it to another
soaring-related entity, I frankly haven't gone through a disciplined
thought process. I suspect it would depend on the circumstances. For
what it's worth, I've done it once, and in a fashion that I think
neither threatened nor alienated the pilot in question.

The consequences of not taking action could be nothing...or very
severe. It's almost irrelevant whether the FAA is full of bureaucrats
who enjoy group punishment. They exist. There are also quite a few
enlightened people who don't get paid for exercising judgment and
giving us a break, but do so anyway. They're there at all levels. The
SSA, in particular, has worked very hard over the years to build
relationships with FAA officials to preserve the rights we have. While
the results aren't always widely publicized (trumpeting a big "win"
against the regulators is counterproductive), we've all benefited.

Yet, as I said, that's irrelevant. Should a glider encounter an
airliner or any other IFR aircraft above 18,000 (or in other controlled
airspace) with newsworthy consequences, we'll all be at the mercy not
just of reactionary FAA officials but of citizens' and industry trade
groups and--especially--politicians...who are VERY into group
punishment--especially if the group is too small to be politically
influential--if it will garner publicity, money, and/or votes. Read SSA
Executive Director Dennis Wright's column in the August SOARING about
the 1978 San Diego midair between a small plane and an airliner. Those
of us who lived through the subsequent NPRM 78-19 and threat to soaring
in this country will never forget the sense of outrage and incredulity
at the proposed airspace grab...that would have done nothing to address
the accident that sparked it.

So although I would suggest not airing it on RAS next time, don't sit
idly by if you see something that looks illegal any more than I hope
you wouldn't stay silent if you saw something dangerous. They're often
the same but something illegal--even if not apparently dangerous--can
have much more far-reaching consequences to all of us.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[Stewart Kissel]

On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.



I don't quite understand...this guy posts the flight
for all to see on OLC and that is okay. Someone brings
up this flight on RAS...and this is not okay?

Perhaps the pilot somehow stayed under FL180 on that
flight, I would think an explanation with his upload
would be warranted. This idea that 'pushing the envelope'
in regards to the FAR's blows my mind. If a mid-air
occurs I doubt the public would buy it. I also agree
with Ramy...transponder usage would help with a much
larger issue. But that is for another flame-war.

[JS]

This thread is about an important concept (playing by the rules) but
has twisted off into the realm of paranoia, with names and dates. Just
because someone didn't explain in the comments that they were cleared
above 17,999 feet, doesn't mean that they weren't cleared. Innocent
until proven guilty or something like that.

If I was to pass your car and trailer on the way to the airport, and
you were driving at the speed limit, would you:

A. Report me to the FAA.
B. Take my drivers license.
C. Remove my flight claim from the OLC.
D. Tell my mum.

>From some posts in this thread, I'd assume all of the above. I'll never
get steak and kidney pie again.

How about reporting me to the IRS if you believe I'm not paying enough
tax?

It's far from a good idea to intentionally break the rules, but it's
a much worse idea for private individuals to play traffic cop.

A phrase that got me in trouble before...
Remember when the OLC was FUN?

Jim

[Kilo Charlie]

"JS" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> A phrase that got me in trouble before...
> Remember when the OLC was FUN?

And sex was safe???

KC

[Jack[_1_]]

Kilo Charlie wrote:

>>Remember when the OLC was FUN?
>
>
> And sex was safe???


When was that?


Jack

[Doug Haluza]

wrote:
<snip>
> Yet, as I said, that's irrelevant. Should a glider encounter an
> airliner or any other IFR aircraft above 18,000 (or in other controlled
> airspace) with newsworthy consequences....

Let's hope it does not come to this. All we really need are a few
official near-miss reports from hevay drivers who see a little too much
glider above 18K, and we will have to deal with the unwanted attention.
It is normal procedure for airline pilots to file near-miss
reports--they do it all the time. I had to take evasive action with a
727 who turned toward me a while back, and when I filed my near-miss
report after landing, I was told that the other pilot had alredy filed
his.

If you think this is unlikely because the big boys mostly stay up above
30K, think again. The turboprop commuter fleet is being replaced with
commuter jets that often cruise near the bottom of the Class A. So,
it's getting more crowded there.

The FAA is responsible for enforcement, so we can leave that to them.
But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement, and rewarding
pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement. Aside from the
regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct. So, we will
remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation of Class-A
airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is not Orwell's "Big
Brother" it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

[Kilo Charlie]

"Jack" > wrote in message
et...
> Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>>>Remember when the OLC was FUN?
>>
>>
>> And sex was safe???
>
>
> When was that?

Ahh.....give me a minute.....when I was in high school??? We only worried
about getting girls pregnant not if we would die from it. That was a long
time ago though. But we digress.....apologies because this is a great
thread and should keep on track. :-)

KC
>
>
> Jack

[Jack[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:

> It is normal procedure for airline pilots to file near-miss
> reports--they do it all the time. I had to take evasive action with a
> 727 who turned toward me a while back, and when I filed my near-miss
> report after landing, I was told that the other pilot had alredy filed
> his.

You are talking NTSB reports? How would anyone know? They are
confidential. Someone may have made the comment that he was about to, or
that he had -- but a lot of good intentions go by the boards, too. On
the other hand, airline pilots do file NTSB reports fairly often, as
anyone can. In fact, more people should file them.



> The FAA is responsible for enforcement, so we can leave that to them.
> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement, and rewarding
> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement. Aside from the
> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct. So, we will
> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation of Class-A
> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is not Orwell's "Big
> Brother" it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

I'm with you, Doug, but what is "obvious"? Sounds like a sticky little
detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured out, will you?


Jack

[Kilo Charlie]

I totally agree with Chip. My personal response to all of this came years
back when after many long high final glides (not in the class A) back to PHX
from the north realized that my back was turned to the heavies descending
into Sky Harbor and had no chance of seeing me.....I couldn't even see the
glider a mile in front of me at that time of day and altitude that I knew
was there....so I installed a mode C transponder. Not that I am a very
altruistic type but figured that if one of them hit me and went down it
would change the face of soaring and general aviation forever....so I did it
as much if not more for the sport as for me.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Doug Haluza]

Jack wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>
> > It is normal procedure for airline pilots to file near-miss
> > reports--they do it all the time. I had to take evasive action with a
> > 727 who turned toward me a while back, and when I filed my near-miss
> > report after landing, I was told that the other pilot had alredy filed
> > his.
>
> You are talking NTSB reports? How would anyone know? They are
> confidential. Someone may have made the comment that he was about to, or
> that he had -- but a lot of good intentions go by the boards, too. On
> the other hand, airline pilots do file NTSB reports fairly often, as
> anyone can. In fact, more people should file them.
>
No, I was talking about an near miss report filed with the ATC center
responsible for the airspace. There is a desk that handles these, so
they are aware of all reports.
>
> > The FAA is responsible for enforcement, so we can leave that to them.
> > But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement, and rewarding
> > pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement. Aside from the
> > regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct. So, we will
> > remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation of Class-A
> > airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is not Orwell's "Big
> > Brother" it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
>
> I'm with you, Doug, but what is "obvious"? Sounds like a sticky little
> detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured out, will you?
>
Well, you're right about this, it's not easy. Altitude errors in the
flight referenece altimeter and logger can be several hunded feet, but
a flight over 20,000' MSL corrected for field elevation at takeoff is
certainly a problem, probably over 19,000' MSL too. We don't want to
define a hard number, because that would set a limit for "allowable"
cheating. So anything 18,000' or over is questionable, and the question
must be answered by the pilot.

Pilots should be making a good faith effort to remain clear of Class A,
and not post flights to the OLC if they know they failed to do this
(whether intentional or not). They should also analyze their flight,
and if the trace has altitudes 18,000 feet or over after correcting for
QNH at field elevation, a comment in the claim is required. If they
don't have a reasonable explanation, they should not post it, or they
should remove the claim if someone else points this out to them. If no
reasonable explanation is given, it may also be removed by an OLC
Admin.

So, while we are not in the business of punishing bad behavior, we are
not in the business of rewarding it either.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

[Stewart Kissel]

Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
for using transponders...

Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
part). Flame shield activated.
>> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
>>and rewarding
>> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
>>Aside from the
>> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
>>So, we will
>> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
>>of Class-A
>> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
>>not Orwell's 'Big
>> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
>
>I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
>a sticky little
>detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
>out, will you?
>
>
>Jack
>

[[email protected]]

Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!

Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.

Al


Stewart Kissel wrote:
> Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
> of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
> doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
> not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
> violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
> is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
> support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
> it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
> dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
> An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
> for using transponders...
>
> Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
> a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
> idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
> part). Flame shield activated.
> >> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
> >>and rewarding
> >> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
> >>Aside from the
> >> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
> >>So, we will
> >> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
> >>of Class-A
> >> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
> >>not Orwell's 'Big
> >> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
> >
> >I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
> >a sticky little
> >detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
> >out, will you?
> >
> >
> >Jack
> >

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
> and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!
>
> Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
> restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.

What major contest? If you mean an SSA sanctioned contest, that would
be an automatic 0 points for the day, and an additional 100 point
penalty. If you mean something like the Gerlach Dash, some restricted
areas have listed max altitudes, some have schedules listed on the
sectionals and it is perfectly legal to enter them during inactive
hours, and some can be readily entered with a simple radio call,
particularly on weekends...

Marc

[Ramy Yanetz]

Maybe the airspace was cold? If so, the pilot should add a comment about it.

Ramy

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
> and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!
>
> Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
> restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.
>
> Al
>
>
> Stewart Kissel wrote:
>> Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
>> of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
>> doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
>> not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
>> violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
>> is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
>> support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
>> it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
>> dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
>> An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
>> for using transponders...
>>
>> Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
>> a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
>> idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
>> part). Flame shield activated.
>> >> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
>> >>and rewarding
>> >> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
>> >>Aside from the
>> >> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
>> >>So, we will
>> >> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
>> >>of Class-A
>> >> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
>> >>not Orwell's 'Big
>> >> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
>> >
>> >I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
>> >a sticky little
>> >detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
>> >out, will you?
>> >
>> >
>> >Jack
>> >
>

[[email protected]]

Guess we will never know...

Airspace in question is 500-17999 07:15 to 23:30 (local) 7 days a week
including holidays.


Ramy Yanetz wrote:
> Maybe the airspace was cold? If so, the pilot should add a comment about it.
>
> Ramy
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
> > and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!
> >
> > Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
> > restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > Stewart Kissel wrote:
> >> Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
> >> of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
> >> doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
> >> not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
> >> violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
> >> is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
> >> support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
> >> it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
> >> dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
> >> An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
> >> for using transponders...
> >>
> >> Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
> >> a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
> >> idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
> >> part). Flame shield activated.
> >> >> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
> >> >>and rewarding
> >> >> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
> >> >>Aside from the
> >> >> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
> >> >>So, we will
> >> >> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
> >> >>of Class-A
> >> >> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
> >> >>not Orwell's 'Big
> >> >> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
> >> >
> >> >I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
> >> >a sticky little
> >> >detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
> >> >out, will you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >> >
> >

[[email protected]]

Yes he should.

Al

Ramy Yanetz wrote:
> Maybe the airspace was cold? If so, the pilot should add a comment about it.
>
> Ramy
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
> > and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!
> >
> > Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
> > restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > Stewart Kissel wrote:
> >> Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
> >> of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
> >> doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
> >> not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
> >> violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
> >> is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
> >> support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
> >> it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
> >> dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
> >> An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
> >> for using transponders...
> >>
> >> Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
> >> a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
> >> idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
> >> part). Flame shield activated.
> >> >> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
> >> >>and rewarding
> >> >> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
> >> >>Aside from the
> >> >> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
> >> >>So, we will
> >> >> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
> >> >>of Class-A
> >> >> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
> >> >>not Orwell's 'Big
> >> >> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
> >> >
> >> >I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
> >> >a sticky little
> >> >detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
> >> >out, will you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jack
> >> >
> >

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> Guess we will never know...
>
> Airspace in question is 500-17999 07:15 to 23:30 (local) 7 days a week
> including holidays.

If you mean R4816S, I've received permission several times to enter on
weekends, and at least once on a weekday. The Fallon folks pretty much
fly Monday through Friday only. What contest?

[JS]

NOW, BOYS!

Perhaps class A and R has nothing to do with gliders losing use of
airspace. See posts about the Minden midair. Nobody badly hurt, that's
fantastic!

Jim

[Doug Haluza]

Yes, and fortunately the accident apparently did not happen in Class-A
airspace. If something like this did happen in Class-A, the
repurcussions could be wide ranging. Even if the glider pilot thinks
he's at 17,999' the FDR and ATC tapes are going to be given more
weight. So this points out the need to leave some buffer altitude as
well. You are not goiing to get the benefit of the doubt.

JS wrote:
> NOW, BOYS!
>
> Perhaps class A and R has nothing to do with gliders losing use of
> airspace. See posts about the Minden midair. Nobody badly hurt, that's
> fantastic!
>
> Jim

[Marc Ramsey]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Yes, and fortunately the accident apparently did not happen in Class-A
> airspace. If something like this did happen in Class-A, the
> repurcussions could be wide ranging. Even if the glider pilot thinks
> he's at 17,999' the FDR and ATC tapes are going to be given more
> weight. So this points out the need to leave some buffer altitude as
> well. You are not goiing to get the benefit of the doubt.

I disagree about the repercussion issue. If a glider was involved in a
midair in Class A airspace without appropriate clearance, then the pilot
is in clear violation of the FARs, subject to enforcement action
(assuming he survives), and there is no need for further rule making.

It is precisely this sort of situation, a conflict between aircraft
legally present in the same airspace, that sometimes leads to
undesirable (from our perspective) changes in airspace classification
and rules. What is truly fortunate was that it was not an airliner...

Marc

[Stefan]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> It is precisely this sort of situation, a conflict between aircraft
> legally present in the same airspace, that sometimes leads to
> undesirable (from our perspective) changes in airspace classification
> and rules. What is truly fortunate was that it was not an airliner...

A couple of years ago, there was a midair over the French alps (possibly
the best known (as well as the best) glider area in Europe), between an
airliner which approached Lyon (France) and a glider. (I forgot further
details.) Luckily, both aircraft landed safely. It was clearly the
airliners fault, as the collision occured in airspace class E and the
glider had the right of way. Problem was, the airliner pilots thought
they were in class D, because the Jeppesen map which they used was wrong.

Anyway, before this accident, all airspace over the French alps was
class E up to FL195, i.e. freely usable by everyone without a clearance.
As a consequence of this accident, it's no more.

Stefan

[Brian[_1_]]

Have you read the Notam's on GPS accuracy. It is entirely possible the
pilot was clear of the Restricted airspace. I have observed GPS to be
off by as much as 5 miles when these notams are in effect. Very
disconcerting when your GPS says you are at the airport and all you can
see is sage brush.

Brian

wrote:
> Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
> and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!
>
> Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
> restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.
>
> Al
>
>
> Stewart Kissel wrote:
> > Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
> > of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
> > doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
> > not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
> > violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
> > is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
> > support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
> > it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
> > dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
> > An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
> > for using transponders...
> >
> > Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
> > a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
> > idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
> > part). Flame shield activated.
> > >> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
> > >>and rewarding
> > >> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
> > >>Aside from the
> > >> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
> > >>So, we will
> > >> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
> > >>of Class-A
> > >> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
> > >>not Orwell's 'Big
> > >> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
> > >
> > >I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
> > >a sticky little
> > >detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
> > >out, will you?
> > >
> > >
> > >Jack
> > >

[[email protected]]

The date in question was not subject to GPS testing.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/gpsnotices/GPS_Interference.pdf

Al

Brian wrote:
> Have you read the Notam's on GPS accuracy. It is entirely possible the
> pilot was clear of the Restricted airspace. I have observed GPS to be
> off by as much as 5 miles when these notams are in effect. Very
> disconcerting when your GPS says you are at the airport and all you can
> see is sage brush.
>
> Brian
>
> wrote:
> > Forget Class A, how about the guy that infringes on restricted airspace
> > and STILL submits the flight on OLC in order to win a major contest!!
> >
> > Pressure differences etc can be explained but ploughing through
> > restricted airspace in this time of GPS is not excusable.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > Stewart Kissel wrote:
> > > Before data loggers and the OLC...pilots had no record
> > > of how high they flew other then a barograph, and no
> > > doubt Class A was getting busted. What irks me is
> > > not someone close to Class A...but those that deliberatley
> > > violate and then post their flights. This behaviour
> > > is bad for our sport on a couple of levels...so I whole-heartedly
> > > support Doug and the OLC bunch on keeping an eye on
> > > it. We are much to small a group to be nothing but
> > > dust-in-the-wind if a glider brings down an airliner.
> > > An those flying in busy airspace are to be commended
> > > for using transponders...
> > >
> > > Within reason I think a little self-policing can go
> > > a long way, because we as pilots have a much better
> > > idea of what is going on then the FAA(for the most
> > > part). Flame shield activated.
> > > >> But the pilot community is responsible for reinforcement,
> > > >>and rewarding
> > > >> pilots who break the rules gives negative reinforcement.
> > > >>Aside from the
> > > >> regulatory issues, it is also unsportsmanlike conduct.
> > > >>So, we will
> > > >> remove OLC flight claims that show ovbious violation
> > > >>of Class-A
> > > >> airspace without a reasonable explanation. This is
> > > >>not Orwell's 'Big
> > > >> Brother' it's more like Big Brothers and Big Sisters.
> > > >
> > > >I'm with you, Doug, but what is 'obvious'? Sounds like
> > > >a sticky little
> > > >detail. Let us know when the SSA/OLC bunch get it figured
> > > >out, will you?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Jack
> > > >

[Bert Willing]

The restriction of the airspace in the French Alps has nothing to do with
this accident which happened over the Massif Central (an A319 inbound
Montpellier hitting a Grob Twin III).

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> It is precisely this sort of situation, a conflict between aircraft
>> legally present in the same airspace, that sometimes leads to undesirable
>> (from our perspective) changes in airspace classification and rules.
>> What is truly fortunate was that it was not an airliner...
>
> A couple of years ago, there was a midair over the French alps (possibly
> the best known (as well as the best) glider area in Europe), between an
> airliner which approached Lyon (France) and a glider. (I forgot further
> details.) Luckily, both aircraft landed safely. It was clearly the
> airliners fault, as the collision occured in airspace class E and the
> glider had the right of way. Problem was, the airliner pilots thought they
> were in class D, because the Jeppesen map which they used was wrong.
>
> Anyway, before this accident, all airspace over the French alps was class
> E up to FL195, i.e. freely usable by everyone without a clearance. As a
> consequence of this accident, it's no more.
>
> Stefan

[Stefan]

Bert Willing schrieb:
> The restriction of the airspace in the French Alps has nothing to do with
> this accident which happened over the Massif Central (an A319 inbound
> Montpellier hitting a Grob Twin III).

Ah Didon, mais on parle des évènements différentes!

I've looked it up: It wasn't actually a midair, but a near miss ... very
near to be precise, estimated separation was 20m! Here is the report:
http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-ie990605/pdf/f-ie990605.pdf
(for our friends on the other side of the pond: sorry, available in
French only.)

The crucial remark is on page 11:


RECOMMANDATIONS DE SÉCURITÉ

1. ... En conséquence, le BEA renouvelle les deux premières
ecommandations émises à la suite de l'abordage du 12 février 1999 dans
la région de Montpellier: [that was the midair you mentioned]

....

1) la mise en place de classes d'espace adaptées, ou d'espaces
aériens spécifiques, assurant la protection des itinéraires IFR publiés;


And that is what they did.

Stefan

[Bert Willing]

You're correct, this is why the restrictions over the Northern area where
implemented. And they took advantage of this change to adapt the holdings
vor Lyon-Satolas at the same time, eating parts of our airspace over the
Vercors range :-(

"Stefan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Bert Willing schrieb:
>> The restriction of the airspace in the French Alps has nothing to do with
>> this accident which happened over the Massif Central (an A319 inbound
>> Montpellier hitting a Grob Twin III).
>
> Ah Didon, mais on parle des évènements différentes!
>
> I've looked it up: It wasn't actually a midair, but a near miss ... very
> near to be precise, estimated separation was 20m! Here is the report:
> http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-ie990605/pdf/f-ie990605.pdf
> (for our friends on the other side of the pond: sorry, available in French
> only.)
>
> The crucial remark is on page 11:
>
>
> RECOMMANDATIONS DE SÉCURITÉ
>
> 1. ... En conséquence, le BEA renouvelle les deux premières ecommandations
> émises à la suite de l'abordage du 12 février 1999 dans la région de
> Montpellier: [that was the midair you mentioned]
>
> ...
>
> 1) la mise en place de classes d'espace adaptées, ou d'espaces
> aériens spécifiques, assurant la protection des itinéraires IFR publiés;
>
>
> And that is what they did.
>
> Stefan

[jb92563]

The reason for the Angst about the airspace and us pleasure users is
not about a
1000' (+- altitude errors) infraction of class A airspace, its about
the public crying bloody murder if glider drills an airliner with 150
people on board.

The government officials would love nothing more than to ban ALL
pleasure traffic from the skies if they could.......all we need to do
is give them a reason.

We are maybe 50 thousand people who enjoy the air for pleasure at the
will of the other 300 Million people who live here in the US.

There is no significant financial benefit from us 50 thousand pleasure
flyers, and in fact we are noisy, annoying and scary to at least 50
million of those people.

You see, if we were to kill any significant of them and they got ****ed
off about it....what do you think would happen?

Do you think they would blame the airliners or their pilots....some
might.....but most of the others would say that we dont HAVE to be up
there and are just doing it for kicks anyway.....and have no qualms
about shutting us down.

It was interesting to note how the incident about the Jet that ran down
a glider at 16,000' in Minden Monday.

A reporter described the even as a "Glider hit the Jet" as if he
purposely failed to avoid the jet and aimed for it......I know that
sounds stupid, but it reveals the perception of who needs to do the
avoiding. Basically we are up there for fun and better stay out of
everyones way.

Same thing many years ago when another jet ran down a Cessna near San
Diego that was in contact with the controllers as he was practicing
landings etc.......the loss of life was total with 150+ dead from the
airliner. Again it was the publics perception that the Cessna got in
the way of the jet and was the cause of the accident, when it was the
jet or controllers that screwed up.

Lets not give anyone reason to question why we need to be in the air.

We should NEVER condone airspace violations or willingly accept and
document them, let alone the very organization that governs us, lest we
dig our own graves.

THAT is the point of all this banter!!!!

Ray

[Doug Haluza]

jb92563 wrote:
> The reason for the Angst about the airspace and us pleasure users is
> not about a
> 1000' (+- altitude errors) infraction of class A airspace, its about
> the public crying bloody murder if glider drills an airliner with 150
> people on board.
<snip>
> We should NEVER condone airspace violations or willingly accept and
> document them, let alone the very organization that governs us, lest we
> dig our own graves.
>
> THAT is the point of all this banter!!!!
>
> Ray

We may not be able to aviod negaive consequences, even if we are doing
everything by the book. But if we are not doing everything by the book,
we are likely to have the book thrown at us collectively, not just
individually.

[Doug Haluza]

As a follow-up, one of the pilots has responded to our email, and
requested more time to review the situation because they were using a
borrowed glider. They agreed to remove the flight if they cannot find a
satisfactory explanation.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
> have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
> explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
> SSA policy. For more info see:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/OLCSummary.htm
>
> However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
> address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
> named individuals without knowing all the facts.
>
> Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
> contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org.
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin
>
> Soarin Again wrote:
> > Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
> > is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
> > It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
> > But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
> > Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
> > is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
> > the flight and Thiele is claiming it.
> >
> > I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
> > is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
> > 18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
> > to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
> > pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.
> >

[Nyal Williams]

[Nyal Williams]