Racing airspace "violation" question

On Sep 7, 11:02*pm, Frank wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:29*pm, Andy wrote:





On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:

For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
canceled or not.

No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
with FAI.

In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.

The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
then turned in his log.

I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
week.

Andy (the scorer in this instance)

Even more stupidly, if a contestant turns in a log with an inadvertent
airspace violation, and elects to withdraw his flight log for the day,
he/she STILL gets a zero for the day plus a 100 pt penalty the next
day. *How bizarre is that?! *The rule that says a contestant must be
offered the opportunity to withdraw his/her flight log was intended to
avoid having a record of an airspace violation hanging around where
someone from our friendly government might see it (can you say
"airline pilot career-ending"?). *However, with the present rule
interpretation, a zero on day X combined with a 100pt penalty on day X
+1 is no less incriminating than the original flight log, especially
when the score becomes 'official'.

Ya gotta love the guys who think these things up - going one way and
then the other on the same issue. *We now have the best scoring system
in the world. *It is so good that you have to consult with two
lawyers, three accountants, and a convicted felon (only the felon
really understands the system) before turning in the day's flight log

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is not complicated.
Stay out of forbidden airspace- don't get penalty.
The contest board, and by extension the rules committee, has a clear
directive from the SSA board to have a zero tolerance policy with
respect top airspace violations. The rules reflect this directive.
If you can make a case for being lenient on violations, please try to
do so.
The decision not to permit overflight is based primarily on 2
considerations:
1) Transponders are required for overflight of some of these pieces of
airspace. To not be at a competitive disadvantage, pilots would have
to add another expensive piece of equipment(understood that some folks
would think this is a good idea) which can have an adverse affect on
participation. Don't make the mistake of making the case that they are
not required. The order of precidence in the FAR's, which was
carefully parsed, will show otherwise.
2)) There is no assurance that the pilot can positively stay out of
the airspace as he may descend into it. 40 guys all asking for OK to
fly through Class C would result in a huge mess.
"Simple" solution- stay out.
As to withdrawal of log- or non submission. Your violation is between
you and the FAA and the contest operation etc. intends to stay out of
that.
The policies here are, in part, the result of one of the most
difficult exchanges between the contest committee and the BOD and will
not be subject to change.
FWIW
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcomittee Chair

On Sep 7, 8:01*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
I think QT is right, though it took some puzzling over the rules for
me to see it.

Actually, I think that having a mysterious flight log failure will not
get you out of trouble. A valid log has to show takeoff, path of
flight and landing (see below), and if there are any gaps, the cd is
supposed to assume you went real fast right to the prohibited space.
That says "path of flight and landing" not just "task."

Now should we change it? The event -- you abandon the task, want to
fly home, and the only way to do it safely is go over a class C, and
you have a radio and transponder -- seems pretty remote. *Was it
really unsafe to go around, or was it just extra gas for a
motorglider?

10.5.2 Flight Log requirements
10.5.2.1 A valid Flight Log is one that:
• Was produced by a Flight Recorder that meets the provisions of Rule
6.7.4
• Shows the takeoff, the path of the flight, and the landing.
• Has a typical interval between fixes of 15 seconds or less.
• Between takeoff and landing, shows no interval between fixes
exceeding 15 minutes (See Rule 6.3.3.2 for motorized sailplanes
constraint).

10.12.5 Gaps in a Flight Log longer than one minute shall be
interpreted unfavorably to the pilot. During each such gap:
• the closest horizontal approach to or from the nearest closed
airspace shall be calculated assuming a speed of 100 mph
• if in the judgment of the CD there was any realistic possibility of
a vertical airspace violation, the closest vertical approach to the
nearest closed airspace shall be calculated based on a climb rate of
1000 feet per minute

John Cochrane

On Sep 8, 5:53*am, wrote:
On Sep 7, 11:02*pm, Frank wrote:





On Sep 7, 10:29*pm, Andy wrote:

On Sep 7, 5:50*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:

For any flight for which you must turn in a log (i.e. any launch taken
from the contest site after grid time and before the day is canceled)
you may not enter closed airspace. *You can violate closed airspace
and incur the penalty whether you start or not and whether the day is
canceled or not.

No doubt that this is what SSA rules require but the rules really need
a review and I'd suggest bringing the airspace violation rules in line
with FAI.

In this case the FAI rules would have scored 66 (the OP) to the point
of furthest progress and there would have been no penalty.

The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
then turned in his log.

I hope 66 was not depending on the prize money to buy groceries this
week.

Andy (the scorer in this instance)

Even more stupidly, if a contestant turns in a log with an inadvertent
airspace violation, and elects to withdraw his flight log for the day,
he/she STILL gets a zero for the day plus a 100 pt penalty the next
day. *How bizarre is that?! *The rule that says a contestant must be
offered the opportunity to withdraw his/her flight log was intended to
avoid having a record of an airspace violation hanging around where
someone from our friendly government might see it (can you say
"airline pilot career-ending"?). *However, with the present rule
interpretation, a zero on day X combined with a 100pt penalty on day X
+1 is no less incriminating than the original flight log, especially
when the score becomes 'official'.

Ya gotta love the guys who think these things up - going one way and
then the other on the same issue. *We now have the best scoring system
in the world. *It is so good that you have to consult with two
lawyers, three accountants, and a convicted felon (only the felon
really understands the system) before turning in the day's flight log

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is not complicated.
Stay out of forbidden airspace- don't get penalty.
The contest board, and by extension the rules committee, has a clear
directive from the SSA board to have a zero tolerance policy with
respect top airspace violations. The rules reflect this directive.
If you can make a case for being lenient on violations, please try to
do so.
The decision not to permit overflight is based primarily on 2
considerations:
1) Transponders are required for overflight of some of these pieces of
airspace. To not be at a competitive disadvantage, pilots would have
to add another expensive piece of equipment(understood that some folks
would think this is a good idea) which can have an adverse affect on
participation. Don't make the mistake of making the case that they are
not required. The order of precidence in the FAR's, which was
carefully parsed, will show otherwise.
2)) There is no assurance that the pilot can positively stay out of
the airspace as he may descend into it. 40 guys all asking for OK to
fly through Class C would result in a huge mess.
"Simple" solution- stay out.
As to withdrawal of log- or non submission. Your violation is between
you and the FAA and the contest operation etc. intends to stay out of
that.
The policies here are, in part, the result of one of the most
difficult exchanges between the contest committee and the BOD and will
not be subject to change.
FWIW
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcomittee Chair

Ahh, OK, I'll just deal with it, for the better of the SSA, it's
image, and the sport in general.

And no, I didn't protest the penalty, I'm the one who made the
decision to go home via the safest route as the day was ending. Could
I have gone around the Class C instead of over it? Maybe, but it
would have been close.

Anyway, I learned more about the sport, had a fun flight with good
friends, and made it home safely for a cold one; what more can one ask
for?

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On Sep 7, 7:29*pm, Andy wrote:

The stupidity of the situation is that 66 would be 100 points better
off if he had a logger failure than if he announced his intention to
abandon the task, made a completely legal class C overflight, *and
then turned in his log.

I have to correct that - the score would have been the same since
failure to turn in a log would get zero for the day and the additional
100 point penalty.

Andy

As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
the day. Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
conflict with getting home.

Randy

On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 wrote:
As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
conflict with getting home.

Randy

What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
practical circumstance.

John Cochrane

On Sep 8, 10:07*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
On Sep 8, 10:50*am, LOV2AV8 wrote:

As long as we're discussing a rules change and not a score change for
the day. *Many other contestants aborted at the first turn point
rather than the second turn point because of the Class C airspace
conflict with getting home.

Randy

What day of what contest was this? What was the issue with going
around class C? How was it impossible to continue the course,
impossible to go around class C, but easy to go over? I'm not being
hostile, I'd just like to go look at the task and results. Stated in
the abstract it all seems so unlikely, so it would be good to know the
practical circumstance.

John Cochrane

This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
from Tucson Soaring Club. The CD set a long and challenging task that
proved too long, mostly because of a late start. Only one contestant
completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
abandoned.

We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
safest way home from tiger country.

Mike

At 17:36 08 September 2010, Mike the Strike wrote:

This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
from Tucson Soaring Club. The CD set a long and challenging task that
proved too long, mostly because of a late start. Only one contestant
completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
abandoned.

We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
safest way home from tiger country.


And since no one is mentioned it yet, it is perfectly legal to overfly a
Class C without a transponder and without being in radio contact with the
tower, as long as you are above 10000 ft MSL. This is a fairly common
move in the western half of the US...

Marc

On Sep 8, 12:08*pm, Marc Ramsey
wrote:
At 17:36 08 September 2010, Mike the Strike wrote:



This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
abandoned.

We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
safest way home from tiger country.

And since no one is mentioned it yet, it is perfectly legal to overfly a
Class C without a transponder and without being in radio contact with the
tower, as long as you are above 10000 ft MSL. *This is a fairly common
move in the western half of the US...

Marc

Marc beat me to that. And before anybody challenges him please
carefully read 14 CFR 91.215. This seems to be a common point of
confusion. But it would be much better if people actually have
transponders near Class C or B airspace to begin with.

I am not commenting on whether what the contest rules should or should
not allow overflight. I can see a reason for now wanting contestants
to try to overfly the top of class C or 10,000 MSL and fall into it.

And personally (since John stirred the pot there) I would hope that if
the SSA is going to run contests near Class C airspace then maybe they
ought to consider the need to require transponders in gliders (ouch I
can hear keyboards being pounded out there...).


Darryl

I absolutely agree with the SSA Board's zero-tolerance attitude
towards rules violations.

On the other hand, there are controlled, restricted, and/or prohibited
areas in every contest envelope I've flown in and we routinely assign
tasks that require us to exercise our piloting abilities to remain
clear of this closed airspace. Thanks to GPS loggers, enforcement is
easy, as evidenced by Rule 10.12.1 "Tasks should be set to avoid
flight through closed airspace or areas of high-density traffic." This
somewhat nebulous guidance gives the CD the flexibility to set tasks
even when a straight line between two specific points within turn area
cylinders passes through such airspace. An airspace infraction is easy
to spot on the trace and the consequences for busting this rule are
straightforward and dire. The expansion of closed airspace to include
all airspace above it is, as our Rules Committee reps have said, a
simple way to deal with attempts to cross closed airspace that fail
due to sink or miscalculated glides.

However, I have to take issue with the reasoning that anyone
questioning whether this rule ought to be changed for flights
involving a return from an abandoned task is championing leniency for
violations. As far as I'm concerned, an FAA airspace violation during
a flight that originates from a contest launch should be penalized the
same whether it's outbound on the scorable portion or inbound on the
non-scorable return portion. What's different is the pilot's incentive
to shave the margin a little more closely in the pursuit of speed
points on the scorable portion. Yeah, one could argue that a pilot
might push a little farther before turning around and then be
compelled to fly just as aggressively to return before legal sunset
(or a storm) and thereby be incentivized to take chances with airspace
but, in the words of one of our Rules Committee guys, that seems
pretty remote.

I think we should explore allowing a pilot to overfly Class C and
other closed airspace on the way home after abandoning a task if it's
legal without a transponder or radio contact. I realize this opens the
door to "well, if it's legal for him to go over, why not let me go
through 'cause I've got the required equipment and expertise and it
doesn't give me any extra contest points." But so be it.

Let me ask a different question: would an aero retrieve be permitted
to overfly a Class C on the way back to the contest site without
penalty? I hope so. Yet that flight is also clearly in the scope of an
SSA sanctioned contest. How about a motorglider that lands part way
around, then launches again and motors back, overflying a Class C in
the process?

As long as I'm making trouble, let me offer the notion that
practically speaking, there may be a solution on days such as the one
described here in Rule 5.6.2.4 "Closed airspace is considered closed
at all times, except as specifically announced by the CD." As I read
this, a CD could announce on a questionable day that it was OK to
overfly closed airspace returning from an abandoned task.

Speaking of CDs, I'm reminded of the one a few years ago who decided
to go the extra mile, so to speak, and declared (as per Rule 5.6.2.3)
that all the airspace UNDER the overlying layers of Class C airspace
would also be closed. When queried about the fact that this excluded a
few small airports as potential landing sites, the CD breezily
informed the assembled pilots that there were plenty of fields
available in that area if they had to land out. That this CD was
related to the owner of a local fiberglass repair shop was not thought
to be a factor in this ruling.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA