High Speed Passes & the FAA

That's good Owain,
You question my wanting to run a safe operation by following the FAR's and then
suggest there are 3 reasons for my actions, none of which has anything to do
with safety.

I assume one of the 3 would be that I'm just too scared to do a low pass. Let
me just say, I probably have more time *on the deck* than 99 % of ras readers.
I'm talking about low level terrain following radar missions in the B-52H,
RF-4C and F-111F (8000TT)

Maybe old JJ got chicken in his old age (reason no.2 ?) I have done my share of
worm-burners, I once approached the gate from an odd angle that had me coming
in at 5 feet (old rules) and 140 knots. I spotted a contest worker walking back
from the window (remember the gate window ?) Anyway, the guy DUCKED. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ. Then there was the formation low
pass we did at Williams (my last) I was no.2 and told lead that I had my long
tips on, so don't go over my red-line of 120 knots. I had my eyes glued to
lead, only to find we are doing 145 knots as I pull from 5 feet. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ.

OK, Owain, I assume I got 2 of them, but what's my 3rd reason for not wanting
to follow the FAR's and run a SAFE operation?

Wondering in Placerville,
JJ Sinclair

There have been two recent fatalities in the US involving high speed
passes. In both cases, the pilot seems to have become distracted,
overloaded, etc. by the high speed pass, so the resulting crash was a
stall/spin while making the following low turn to land. (Gliders have
also fluttered apart in high speed passes in the past.)

I'm sure we'll hear soon from other posters to this thread something
like "Well those pahluts wuz just bozos. Any reehl pahlut kin handl
that there kahnd of streuhs," "Yeh kint trah to legislate commin
sinse," and so forth. (Sorry, I can't do justice to the inventive
spelling in this thread!) And it is true that everything in aviation
has limits, which pilots must respect. The limits on low passes are a
little tighter than many pilots realize. The limits are often about
traffic and what to do after the pass rather than the pass itself. But
nothing is inherently dangerous if the limits are known and observed.
OTOH, when the limits are tight, there will be an unavoidably higher
error rate of pilots who for one reason or another bust the limits.

So let's just leave the undeniable fact that there are occasional
accidents on the table. Make up your own mind whether the low passes
are worth the suffering of the "other pilot's" family and friends (of
course it will never happen to you), and whether next time the FAA or
NTSB or insurance company will start asking questions about landing
patterns and procedures.

NYC01FA071

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X00437&key=1

FTW01LA179

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...15X01694&key=1


John Cochrane

JJ,

I am sorry for starting this fight with you but I will
proceed with what we have started.

I dont mind how experinced you are in Fast Jets I dont
see why you want to regulate against things that might
happen. You will not stop someone hell-bent on killing
themselves by enforcing a 500' min finish height. Lets
be reminded that the guy who started this says that
the racing finish is still allowed.

You can not regulate against peoples stupidity. If
this rule goes through people will get their kicks
somewhere else and almost certainly in a more dangerous,
less regulated situation. Better the devil you know.

As I said before you can speculate to the reasons.


Owain

PS. Where did you fly your F111's. Chances are we may
have been in the same place at some point.



At 14:06 03 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
That's good Owain,
You question my wanting to run a safe operation by
following the FAR's and then
suggest there are 3 reasons for my actions, none of
which has anything to do
with safety.

I assume one of the 3 would be that I'm just too scared
to do a low pass. Let
me just say, I probably have more time *on the deck*
than 99 % of ras readers.
I'm talking about low level terrain following radar
missions in the B-52H,
RF-4C and F-111F (8000TT)

Maybe old JJ got chicken in his old age (reason no.2
?) I have done my share of
worm-burners, I once approached the gate from an odd
angle that had me coming
in at 5 feet (old rules) and 140 knots. I spotted a
contest worker walking back
from the window (remember the gate window ?) Anyway,
the guy DUCKED. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ. Then
there was the formation low
pass we did at Williams (my last) I was no.2 and told
lead that I had my long
tips on, so don't go over my red-line of 120 knots.
I had my eyes glued to
lead, only to find we are doing 145 knots as I pull
from 5 feet. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ.

OK, Owain, I assume I got 2 of them, but what's my
3rd reason for not wanting
to follow the FAR's and run a SAFE operation?

Wondering in Placerville,
JJ Sinclair

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...

4. If we make the 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder, MANDATORY, all
issues with the FAR's will be dealt with.

No, it won't, JJ. All it will do is add ANOTHER heads-down task
during a contest finish. And from 500' at 1 mile I can do a REALLY
nice low pass!

Why do you race? If you want to fly around surrounded by a nice big
safety bubble, then by all means do it. But we are talking RACING
here - it's supposed to be challenging, exciting, maybe a little
(GASP!) risky. If we were scattering gliders all over the countryside
I could understand your concern, but that isn't happening. And saying
"but It could happen!!!" is a bull**** argument, IMHO. Anything could
happen, and if it bothers you that much then don't do it.

Maybe we need to look at other similar sports and take some lessons
from them: different classes with more restrictions on the "beginner"
classes (Sports class, perhaps). More demonstrated skill requirements
- right now it's a joke! Better locations for finish lines/circles,
with proper finish directions, etc...

I can't wait until the next WGC when the US team is finishing at 500'
over the contest site, watching the rest of the world smoke in
underneath them - at least one minute faster.


Kirk "macho-crocho" Stant

goneill wrote:

We call our location and speed eg:10k 120 the mill, 5k 130 bombay gardens,
1k vne stevees quarry, this works on airfields we know ,
simply institute a location/reporting point that everyone knows or has been
designated which gives an immediate heads up response by the pilot
"someone is near me" where is he?

The last time I watched a contest organized at our airfield, there was a rule
that any finisher must call by radio when he was at 10km and then at 1 minute,
and say his intention (low pass or direct landing), and wait for an answer
from the contest director allowing him to do so or directing him to do something
else.

Quite frankly I think you guys are using the rules
like a drunk uses a streetlamp. For leaning on rather
than illumination.

I have read the FAR regarding the 500' rule. The heading
itself says 'Minimum safe altitudes: General'. This
implies to me that there can be exceptions to this
rule. Why cant you guys lobby the FAA to make it legal
for gliding to participate in a world wide sport? I
am not saying it will be easy or a quick thing to do
but you must admit that it would be more beneficial
in the long term to bring the US contest rules into
line with other world competitors? If they say no,
nothing is lost. You can then carry on with your 500'
doughnut. It does seem self-defeating to give up without
a fight.

The rules are open to much interpretation for instance
gliders fly under VFR rules but do not follow the rules
by the letter. See FAR 91.159. So people quoting FAR's
need to watch their step. Otherwise you could open
a whole can of worms for everyone in ways you havent
considered.

I say that people shouldnt rock the boat. Allow people
to do what they want even if you dont like it. I dont
understand why people launch in a K8 year after year
for two hours local soaring but I do not try to stop
them. I let them get on with it. Gliding is different
things to different people, we have to accept that.
Once you do you will relax and not take everything
so seriously. I know you are about to say 'I only take
safety seriously' but we all do. But what we also take
seriously is people trying to take the fun away for
no real reason.

Chill out and let everyone do what they enjoy.

Owain

PS. Sorry but I wasnt alive in 72-74.Plattsburgh and
Heyford between 84-94


At 15:18 03 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)

We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES
the FAR's, So what are we
going to do about that?

We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the
FAR's, So what are we going
to do about that?

We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES
the FAR's, So what are
we going to do about that?
JJ Sinclair

As a low time glider pilot who is getting back into soaring (just
bought a 1-35), I can't believe this thread. The FAA absolutely CAN
regulate people against their own stupidity. They do it with that
thing called the FAR's.

The tone of many on this issue here seems to be that the FAR's are for
the rest of aviation to follow, not contest glider pilots. Did it
ever occur to you guys that one day the FAA might get fed up with us
glider pilots and start enforcement actions against our tiny
population? Rules are rules and you are supposed to follow them.

Soaring has a terrible safety record and most of it seems due to a bad
attitude at everything related to safety. Hans Langer's tragic
accident occurred just a few weeks ago and the NTSB site says that his
spoilers weren't hooked up. How many deaths have been caused in the
last 10 years because the glider pilot didn't assemble his aircraft
correctly?

Oneday when someone makes a low pass and hurts or kills someone on the
ground or causes a midair, then you can be sure that the FAA will step
in to do something about this stupid practice.





Owain Walters wrote in message ...
JJ,

I am sorry for starting this fight with you but I will
proceed with what we have started.

I dont mind how experinced you are in Fast Jets I dont
see why you want to regulate against things that might
happen. You will not stop someone hell-bent on killing
themselves by enforcing a 500' min finish height. Lets
be reminded that the guy who started this says that
the racing finish is still allowed.

You can not regulate against peoples stupidity. If
this rule goes through people will get their kicks
somewhere else and almost certainly in a more dangerous,
less regulated situation.

JJ,
You have a very good point.
Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as busting 18K?
No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
Rules violations used to be handled that way at the sailboat races in times
before political correctness was so much the vogue.
Cheers!, Pete


JJ Sinclair wrote in article
...
I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)

We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES the FAR's, So what are
we
going to do about that?

We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the FAR's, So what are we
going
to do about that?

We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES the FAR's, So
what are
we going to do about that?
JJ Sinclair

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation
of the FAR's is correct - that busting 500' is, without
exception, a violation in any circumstance other than
final approach to landing. It is not clear to me that
this is necessarily the case, or enforced that way
by the FAA, but put that aside for now.

If we are going to abide by the letter of the law on
FARs, then busting 500' agl ANYWHERE on course should
be grounds for penalty. This could be DQ for the day,
scoring as if you landed at the spot where the infraction
occurred, or whatever is consistent with other FAR
violations under contest rules.

I believe this would include low saves as well as ridgeline
crossings and ridge soaring, etc. In other words, we
would need to enforce a 500' agl hard deck in the scoring
programs, which would need to include an accurate terrain
elevation database. I suspect this is technically not
that hard to do since programs like SeeYou already
have it.

Before going down that path, however, I would want
to see a definitive statement from official FAA sources
that this is in fact the correct interpretation of
the FARs AND that the FAA intends to enforce these
FARs to the letter of the law, rather than only in
those instances that show some form of recklessness
beyond the technicalities alone.

It would be a pity in my view if this happened as I
really like mountain flying and ridge soaring.

9B


At 19:00 03 October 2003, George William Peter Reinhart
wrote:
JJ,
You have a very good point.
Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as
busting 18K?
No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
Rules violations used to be handled that way at the
sailboat races in times
before political correctness was so much the vogue.
Cheers!, Pete


JJ Sinclair wrote in article
...
I flew the 111 at Mountain Home ('72-'74)

We have established that the 50 foot gate VIOLATES
the FAR's, So what are
we
going to do about that?

We have established that some pull-ups VIOLATE the
FAR's, So what are we
going
to do about that?

We have established that finishing over people, VIOLATES
the FAR's, So
what are
we going to do about that?
JJ Sinclair

John,

Neither of these were contest accidents. One occured in Wurtsboro, NY
in January, the other on the rest day at the 15M Nats in Uvalde -- a
local pilot (not a contestant) flying a borrowed glider. Presenting
these as proof positive that contest finishes need to be changed for
safety's sake is just plain poor sportsmanship.

There is an expectation of competency for contest participants. It is
reflected in the requirements for entry... proof of prior
cross-country experience and/or seeding depending on your level. If
you are going to cite examples to make your case, you should point at
competent pilots in the act of competing. You'll get a much more
thoughtful response.

No machismo here. If we're going to talk contest safety and rules
changes, let's talk about contest accidents, at least.