Minimum Safe Altitude

What's really bugging me is that according to the law (at least in the
UK) a glider "shall not fly closer to any person, vessel, vehicle or
structure than 500 feet, except with permission in writing from the
Authority... [and for] normal take-off and landing". As noted in the
AAIB report for the HusBos accident these gliders where flying well
within that margin, for example clearing telegraph wires by 6-9', the
15' from people on the lane 350m outside the airfield boundary, and
from the map in the report the ground tracks were within 300' of farm
buildings. Clearly these gliders were not flying "normal landings".

So - and these are honest questions - surely these pilots, and others
doing the same thing at other comps, were all breaking the law? Why
has this ever been tolerated?


Dan

Kirk,

Didn't Bob Hoover get his license pulled because some of the
federalies didn't like his style of flying? I think he got his
license back, but not without an act of God.

(I've been flying gliders since 1981 and I wonder if Mr. Hoover has
more time flying his Shrike and other airplanes in the "engine off"
mode than I have logged in gliders...)

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

On Feb 12, 11:34 am, "
wrote:
Kirk,

Didn't Bob Hoover get his license pulled because some of the
federalies didn't like his style of flying? I think he got his
license back, but not without an act of God.

(I've been flying gliders since 1981 and I wonder if Mr. Hoover has
more time flying his Shrike and other airplanes in the "engine off"
mode than I have logged in gliders...)

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Ray, I think it had more to do with his age.

Kirk

Over many years comp finishes in the UK breached the
low flying rules, everyone knew it, some of us said
so publicly and were derided for it. Now we have had
the accident and from now on the BGA rules will have
to be approved by the CAA. If you think that the FAA
would act any differently from the CAA then carry on,
if you don't, do something about it now before you
get something imposed on you that no-one likes.

At 16:48 12 February 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
My point in all of this is; SSA sanctioned rules violate
FAR 91.119 and we are in a vulnerable position if
we
have a UK type accident.

No they don't. Like anything else in life, common
sense is required.
You have to place the finish line so that you either
finish along a
runway, or away from people and property.

Kirk believes the AIM allows him to fly any pattern
he wishes. I'd like to listen in as he explains his
50 foot pattern to the Federallies. Let's see now,
you started your pattern at 50 feet, pulled up to
a
tear-drop, down-wind and then landed the other way?
When they get through shaking their heads, they'll
read him the FAR about Minimum Safe Altitude, then
the FAR about Reckless Flying, then they'll lift his
ticket and well have one less cowboy ruining this
sport
for the rest of us.
JJ

Again, your interpretation vs mine. I've already talked
to some FAA
guys about it, and they agree with me. I'm sure you
can find some
other ones who would violate me on the spot - in fact
I know one here
in IL. Funny though, a circling approach at minimums
is OK, though,
to these same guys. Guess it depends on what you are
trained to do,
and who pays you salary.

There is a difference between hotdogging in the pattern
and flying a
thought-out contest finish. And the FARs and AIM provide
ample
guidance on what you can - and cannot - do in the pattern.
I comply
with the regulations. You do not want to see it that
way, so be it.
But it seems to me that I'm not the cowboy in this
rodeo trying to
ruin this sport!

Unfortunately, it's becoming a moot point since the
creeping
mediocrity of pilot-selected tasks and 500'/1 mile
finishes after a 2
hour task seems to be taking over the sport. I guess
my definition of
a 'contest' is different from some others out there.

And a happy monday to you, too!

Kirk
66

Over many years comp finishes in the UK breached the
low flying rules, everyone knew it, some of us said
so publicly and were derided for it. Now we have had
the accident and from now on the BGA rules will have
to be approved by the CAA. If you think that the FAA
would act any differently from the CAA then carry on,
if you don't, do something about it now before you
get something imposed on you that no-one likes.

At 16:48 12 February 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
My point in all of this is; SSA sanctioned rules violate
FAR 91.119 and we are in a vulnerable position if
we
have a UK type accident.

No they don't. Like anything else in life, common
sense is required.
You have to place the finish line so that you either
finish along a
runway, or away from people and property.

Kirk believes the AIM allows him to fly any pattern
he wishes. I'd like to listen in as he explains his
50 foot pattern to the Federallies. Let's see now,
you started your pattern at 50 feet, pulled up to
a
tear-drop, down-wind and then landed the other way?
When they get through shaking their heads, they'll
read him the FAR about Minimum Safe Altitude, then
the FAR about Reckless Flying, then they'll lift his
ticket and well have one less cowboy ruining this
sport
for the rest of us.
JJ

Again, your interpretation vs mine. I've already talked
to some FAA
guys about it, and they agree with me. I'm sure you
can find some
other ones who would violate me on the spot - in fact
I know one here
in IL. Funny though, a circling approach at minimums
is OK, though,
to these same guys. Guess it depends on what you are
trained to do,
and who pays you salary.

There is a difference between hotdogging in the pattern
and flying a
thought-out contest finish. And the FARs and AIM provide
ample
guidance on what you can - and cannot - do in the pattern.
I comply
with the regulations. You do not want to see it that
way, so be it.
But it seems to me that I'm not the cowboy in this
rodeo trying to
ruin this sport!

Unfortunately, it's becoming a moot point since the
creeping
mediocrity of pilot-selected tasks and 500'/1 mile
finishes after a 2
hour task seems to be taking over the sport. I guess
my definition of
a 'contest' is different from some others out there.

And a happy monday to you, too!

Kirk
66

John Sinclair wrote:
FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
no person may operate an aircraft.................................
....
(c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle or structure.

In light of the above regulation, would someone please
tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).

Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
JJ
JJ, why don't you quit your whining. Do you remember this post
below. I've only flown a few contests
and every one of them the finish was made outside of the a/p boundry
finish no lower than
50' and not over people or property.

You know what, Chris? I think your right. I too will
post no more on ras. Both sides have beat this Finish
Gate vs. Finish Cylinder to death and nobody's going
to change their mind on anything. I for one will not
enter a contest that employs the Finish Gate, but that's
my personal decision. The Rules Committee, Ex-Com and
Directors have the facts and our opinions. I leave
this in their capable hands.

To the Brits, let me say; I apologize for using their
tragic accident to further my personal belief that
low altitude finishes are dangerous.

JJ Sinclair

As I understand the FAR's we
are not allowed to fly over people below 500 feet unless we are in
the
act of landing. When we are driving in on the 50-foot gate, we are
not
in the act of landing,...

If we were to move the line, say 500 feet
away from the people, we would end up with a low and slow finisher
landing in the sage brush.

I was driving in hard toward the 50 foot
finish line when a pilot from the other class called a rolling
finish,
coming from the opposite direction. We didn't even come close, but
let's assume for the sake of discussion that we did run into each
other. One pilot is below 500 feet and in the act of landing. The
other
pilot is below 500 feet and not in the act of landing.

Quoted from JJ's post on RAS on March 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't remember a site where I wasn't below 500 feet over people,
places or
things as I made my dive through the finish line. Even at Hobbs,
which
has got to be the most wide open place in the world, I was close to
the
limit as I crossed the highway, finishing from the east, then I flew
over the golf course and over the tie-downs, before hitting the line
at
50 feet.

quoted from JJ's post on March 18, 2005

Let's see, you flew over the tiedowns legally at 500 feet and then
lost 450 feet in less than 500 feet horizontal distance? Just a
little hard to believe. Maybe you broke the regs here too.


I flew the 2nd Sport Class Nationals at Hobbs in 1985? and landed out
every day
except the last. At the end, all I wanted to hear was, "Good finish,
JJ, good
contest, John", from Charlie and I heard it. I do miss the old finish
gate and
Charlie telling all finishers that. I wonder if Charlie Light would
consider
doing that again?

Quoted from JJ's post from August 29, 2002

Which way do you want it, really? There are more quotes from out
there from you JJ. All posted here with all due respect, of course.

Best regards


On Feb 11, 9:26 am, John Sinclair
wrote:
FAR 91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
no person may operate an aircraft.................................
....
(c)... closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle or structure.

In light of the above regulation, would someone please
tell me how our 50 foot finish line is legal? All the
finish lines I have seen come within 500 feet of a
person (Charlie & his kids) , vehicle (his van).

Aren't we just asking for what happened in the UK?
JJ

JJ, why don't you quit your whining.

Good question Rustynuts, why don't I quit whining about
the finish line?

1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the finish
line at Cal City.

2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but saw
what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.

3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
his actions influenced others to take unnecessary risks.

4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
forever altered.

Don't get me wrong, I love to do low finishes and have
done hundreds of them over the past 30 years. For a
long time that was the only way to finish the race.
Then came GPS and suddenly we had a better and safer
alternative. Most of us went to the finish cylinder,
but some kept on using the finish line because they
liked doing it. I believe it violates FAR 91.119 and
I know it involves muck more risk for no good reason
other than, It's fun to do.
I believe most competition pilots know how to do a
low finish safely and isn't it a sight to behold. A
fast ship, right on the deck, streaming water, headed
for the finish line. Problem is, we set an example
for all others to follow, instructors show their students,
ride pilots show their passengers. Hey, watch this,
look what I can do!

Dont worry Rustynuts, our society doesn't have a very
good record in dealing with safety issues. Right now
we are busy ignoring the need for transponders in certain
areas. I'll shut up and it'll be business as usual
until we have another needless fatality at the finish
line.

And so it goes,
JJ

John Sinclair wrote:

1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the finish
line at Cal City.

Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please.


2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but saw
what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.

From this short description it sounds more like a Darwin award
situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima
detonation, decides to build a small explosive device of his own.
Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if he uses the
appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond the age of
twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more appropriately.
Some do, some don't. We move on.


3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
his actions influenced others to take unnecessary risks.

I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand the risk.
There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also quite confident
that at least some pilots were accommodating him in order to become
the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to do so is
undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That the photographer
would not have understood this gives him too little credit, and
ignores his career achievements in the process.


4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
forever altered.

I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to one form of
aviation or another, and there have been so many. That doesn't
change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they would choose
again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the risks we take. We
who are left have the great advantage of learning from their
mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful to learn the
wrong lessons as to ignore their passing.

The responsibility for this most recent fatality must lie with the
organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all three. But we err
if we believe that our task is to determine degree of fault or
proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection between
desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever we have an
opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems there are so many
ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only permutations
of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many rules we
promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will leak through
whenever we provide an avenue.

The organic punishment to each of the three entities concerned in
the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden to the wider
community through restrictions to flight only compounds the tragedy.
The answer is education, and training, and some pride to be taken in
what we can do, rather than in so much that we may not.


Jack

Nice little chat about how things should be, Jack.
Now lets talk about how things are. Lets get right
down where the rubber meets the road. I'm involved
with running a national contest, next year and I need
to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the
one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents
and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder
which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer?
Remember that I live in sue-happy California where
they'll sue you because the coffee you were served
was too hot! Who's liable if we should have a finish
line accident? The pilot because he did what we told
him to do? How about the SSA who continued to sanction
a procedure that violates FAR's. Next, my club.........good
luck, they haven't got a dime, but then they'll come
after me. I haven't got much, but it took me 72 years
to collect it and I'd kind'a like to keep what I got.

So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next
year?
JJ



At 03:36 14 February 2007, Jack wrote:
John Sinclair wrote:

1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the
finish
line at Cal City.

Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please.


2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the
Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but
saw
what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try.

From this short description it sounds more like a
Darwin award
situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima
detonation, decides to build a small explosive device
of his own.
Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if
he uses the
appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond
the age of
twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more
appropriately.
Some do, some don't. We move on.


3. I whine for the British photographer who probably
didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize
his actions influenced others to take unnecessary
risks.

I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand
the risk.
There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also
quite confident
that at least some pilots were accommodating him in
order to become
the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to
do so is
undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That
the photographer
would not have understood this gives him too little
credit, and
ignores his career achievements in the process.


4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is
forever altered.

I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to
one form of
aviation or another, and there have been so many. That
doesn't
change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they
would choose
again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the
risks we take. We
who are left have the great advantage of learning from
their
mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful
to learn the
wrong lessons as to ignore their passing.

The responsibility for this most recent fatality must
lie with the
organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all
three. But we err
if we believe that our task is to determine degree
of fault or
proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection
between
desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever
we have an
opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems
there are so many
ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only
permutations
of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many
rules we
promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will
leak through
whenever we provide an avenue.

The organic punishment to each of the three entities
concerned in
the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden
to the wider
community through restrictions to flight only compounds
the tragedy.
The answer is education, and training, and some pride
to be taken in
what we can do, rather than in so much that we may
not.


Jack