![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 66 | June 4th 10 12:54 PM |
(USA) US/Mexico "airspace" (boundary) files available | Tuno | Soaring | 4 | March 27th 10 07:17 PM |
On Sharing airspace with "non-rated UAV "pilots" | vaughn | Piloting | 15 | March 15th 09 04:08 PM |
"Fly Baby, you violated Class B Airspace" | Ron Wanttaja | Piloting | 27 | September 5th 07 08:30 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Connecticut To Get "Creamed" By Airspace Redesign Change? | Free Speaker | General Aviation | 0 | August 8th 06 02:42 PM |