IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

At 13:24 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that will
cheerfully
exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about
everybody else, of
course) during the drive to the gliderport will then
pontificate about
minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace
bounderies.

Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics!
You are safer at
18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring
at the
altimeter!

Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed,
but what the
hell, it's monday and it's raining....

Kirk
66

I have pondered over this in detail after having read
most of the threads in RAS and here. And I am still
undecided.

When OLC started it was purely fun and easy, now it
has become 'the' entity for showing not only the world
but even more importantly your local flying buddies
your acheivements. For years I flew in relative obscurity
with only a few people knowing what I did, where and
how fast I went. Now with posting to OLC everyone with
any interest in soaring knows.

The question for me now becomes; Do I have a responsibility
to my flying buddies to protect their right to fly
and not bring unwanted attention of allegded violations
of the FAR's to our club and local flying area. To
that question I have to say yes.

On the other hand it makes me angry that a once fun
and purely innocent OLC (after all we are in it for
the money and chics) has been takin over by the aviation's
version of the 'Moral Majority' and turned into the
McCarthyism of everybody looking suspicously at each
others flights and airing those suspiscions publicly
in the name of protecting their right to fly. It just
smacks of Orwell's 1984 'big brother is watching'.
Read Soarpoint's post on RAS.

Then again we don't have to post our flights that violate
the FAR's! So now you see why I am so undecided

This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

wrote:
This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

Nicely put.

GC

FAA enforcement is admittedly a hypothetical situation. I have not
heard of any enforcement actions from a posted log. Even if there were,
a good lawyer could probably poke holes in it. So I don't think this is
the main issue.

We did have a mid-air recently. Since it was in Class-G below 18K, our
reps who are trying to contain the fallout from this don't have to
start by digging out of a hole. And fortunately we have a good working
relationship with the parties as well.

Now if it happened above 18K (without a clearance), the situation would
be completely different, for the pilot and the community. Even a near
miss report from above 18K is going to cause problems for more than
just the pilot involved.

So the question to the community is, which is the slippery slope:

1) Letting people post flights with obvious problems, in effect
encouraging others to emulate this until something bad happens. Then
try to dig out of the hole.

2) Trying to discourage this by asking people to change their behavior,
to make it less likely that we dig a hole in the first place.

P.S. There is also an insurance aspect to this as well. If your log
shows an obvious violation, your insurance could deny payment in the
event of a loss. This will cause a lot more pain than the FAA can.

wrote:
This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

Doug Haluza wrote:
FAA enforcement is admittedly a hypothetical situation. I have not
heard of any enforcement actions from a posted log. Even if there were,
a good lawyer could probably poke holes in it. So I don't think this is
the main issue.

We did have a mid-air recently. Since it was in Class-G below 18K, our
reps who are trying to contain the fallout from this don't have to
start by digging out of a hole. And fortunately we have a good working
relationship with the parties as well.

Now if it happened above 18K (without a clearance), the situation would
be completely different, for the pilot and the community. Even a near
miss report from above 18K is going to cause problems for more than
just the pilot involved.

So the question to the community is, which is the slippery slope:

1) Letting people post flights with obvious problems, in effect
encouraging others to emulate this until something bad happens. Then
try to dig out of the hole.

2) Trying to discourage this by asking people to change their behavior,
to make it less likely that we dig a hole in the first place.


There is also number 3, which is the only one relevant to the accident
you mentioned, but from some reason it is discounted buy many, and it
is:

3) Encourage pilots to install a transponder and turn it on.


P.S. There is also an insurance aspect to this as well. If your log
shows an obvious violation, your insurance could deny payment in the
event of a loss. This will cause a lot more pain than the FAA can.

This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.



wrote:
This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

Ramy wrote:
Encourage pilots to install a transponder and turn it on.

Agreed, transponder use is a good thing. This is why we need to
actively discourage posting 18K flights on OLC (without an
explanation). People use the OLC to see what more experienced pilots
do. If they see this, they will emulate it. And if they do they will
have to turn their transponders off, otherwise ATC will see them going
over 18K. So clearly this would compromise safety in multiple ways.

Now if you can follow that argument, the sunset argument is not that
different. If people see flights continuing well past sunset, they will
think that's OK, and they will do it too. If they are trying to be
competitive, they will stretch the limits even further. So clearly we
need to discourage this as well.

We don't need anarchists arguing that any attempts at self governance
is futile. And we don't need ****house lawyers trying to parse the
meaning of "is." We just need people to realize the common sense in
this and do the right thing.

Doug Haluza wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Encourage pilots to install a transponder and turn it on.

Agreed, transponder use is a good thing. This is why we need to
actively discourage posting 18K flights on OLC (without an
explanation). People use the OLC to see what more experienced pilots
do. If they see this, they will emulate it. And if they do they will
have to turn their transponders off, otherwise ATC will see them going
over 18K. So clearly this would compromise safety in multiple ways.


I sure hope that pilots don't turn off their transponders if they
accidentally go over 18K, this would be a serious and intention
violation. At least with a transponder on, while violating the FARs,
they pose less collision risk then below 18K without a transponder.

Now if you can follow that argument, the sunset argument is not that
different. If people see flights continuing well past sunset, they will
think that's OK, and they will do it too. If they are trying to be
competitive, they will stretch the limits even further. So clearly we
need to discourage this as well.


Agreed, but you would have achieved much better results and response if
instead of enforcing it retroactively you would clearly publish the
rules (instead of hidden behind the "about" link) and enforce it going
forward (preferably automatically). The olc currently has a repository
of 4 years worth of thousands of flights, including quiet a few winning
flights, which ended after sunset. Should we remove them all?

Ramy

Ramy wrote:

This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.


Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
(don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
This includes but is not limited to:

- Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
- Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
Flight Review, etc.)
- Operation is conducted within FARs
- etc.

The concept of "no fault" primarily exists in some personal auto
policies (depending on the state) and all worker's compensation
policies. Other than that, fault is absolutely one of the first
things that is looked at.

Imagine the scenario where a collision occurs between a glider at
18,500 and a Piper Malibu on a flight plan. In the best case, let's
assume that both the Piper and glider pilot escape with their lives.
Now, there's this little problem of $500K worth of damage to the Piper
in addition to the written-off glider. The insurance company for the
Piper figures out that the glider shouldn't have been there and
immediately subrogates to collect back their $500K from the glider
pilot's insurance company. At the trial, it is determined early on
that the glider pilot was in fact not cleared into Class A airpspace.
Guess who is going to be stuck, not only with the cost of their glider,
but the $500K in damages to the Piper as well? Hint: It's not the
glider pilot's insurance company, nor is it the Piper pilot's insurance
company.

My firm is currently managing the claims information systems for one of
the 800lb gorillas in the global insurance business. We see that they
contract out investigations for especially costly aviation incidents to
specialists who do nothing but try to find out if one party or the
other was operating outside of the regs. These sorts of folks are
pilots like us, and they will use every method (including some pretty
unethical approaches) to make sure their employer doesn't get stuck
with a $500K bill if they can help it.

Bottom line: Operating at the margins our outside of the FARs will
mor than likely invalidate your insurance in the event of a claim and
may have very severe financial repurcussions for the pilot.

For more on this, you can check out this sobering article by John
Yodice in AOPA Pilot Magazine:
http://www.aopaia.com/display_article_07.cfm

Erik Mann

Erik,

Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
the law will find in favor of the insuree unless the policy
specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.

I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
with the FAA, but that's another matter!

Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
"If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.

Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.

-John

Papa3 wrote:
Ramy wrote:

This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.


Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
(don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
This includes but is not limited to:

- Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
- Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
Flight Review, etc.)
- Operation is conducted within FARs
- etc.

Erik Mann

Further to my last note. I forgot to point out that there are two
fundamental concepts in Erik's post that are being convolved. One is:
do you have insurance coverage? The second is: who pays for damages?

As I said above, if something isn't explicitly excluded in your
insurance contract, then you do have insurance coverage. This means you
will be defended by the insurance company in the lawsuit which will be
held to find fault, and that you will be reimbursed for your loss.

The second issue, who pays, is what I think Erik was really getting at.
In the lawsuit following an accident, someone will be found at fault.
If it's you, then your insurance company must pay the other party as
well as you. If it's the other party, then their insurance company will
pay you and their insuree.

Hope this clears up any confusion I might have left in people's minds.

-John


jcarlyle wrote:
Erik,

Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
the law will find in favor of the insuree unless the policy
specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.

I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
with the FAA, but that's another matter!

Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
"If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.

Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.

-John

Papa3 wrote:
Ramy wrote:

This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.


Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
(don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
This includes but is not limited to:

- Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
- Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
Flight Review, etc.)
- Operation is conducted within FARs
- etc.

Erik Mann