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
|
|||
|
|||
OLC and airspace
This is primarily aimed at US pilots, but certainly applies to us
all... The latest issue od Soaring magazine has a well written editorial by Dennis Wright about our responsibilities of avoiding airspace that requires permission to enter. On page 13 there's an article if interest to any of us flying near (or over) class B airspace as well. I think, that in order to maintain our freedoms, we must remind our fellow pilots of their responsibility of we see or hear of any transgressions. This is not a suggestion to "bust" anyone, but more like a friendly suggestion one might make to someone who is littering, etc... I suggest that anyone submitting an OLC claim with data points above 18K, or that pass through class A, B, C, or a Restricted area or TFR should add a comment o the submittal that could look like one of the following: Rolled out of thermal at 17,800 indicated, and altimeter never reached 18K, so local pressure must have been less than standard. Crossed R-XXXX after asking FSS if it was truly not hot this weekend. Got permission from DEN center to fly in class A as I'm IFR equipped and current. As responsible users of our airspace, I think it would be a disservice NOT to to click on the "complaint" button and select "airspace infringement" for a flight without the above comments. From now on I will do this, and hope others will follow suit. My flight on July 3 is a perfect example: http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp...e7b9c3721d1a89 The "standard atmosphere" pressure log indicates I was just a bit over 18K, but adjusting for local pressure it would (I hope) show I was OK. Also, I flew close to a couple of forest fire TFR's that I was aware of nad at the end of the flight I crossed a couple of restricted areas that I confirmed with FSS were cold. -Tom ASH-26E 5Z |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's a good idea to put in the comments as you suggest, but I don't
like the idea of encouraging people with too much time on their hands to become annoying tattletales, scouring others' flight logs and getting all excited whenever they see a fix with 18,001 feet pressure altitutde. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I'm still trying to figure out if I can overfly Class C airspace
without a transponder and without having to get clearance. When I overflew El Paso a year ago I got clearance from their approach but I was well over 10,000' the entire time. Was that mandatory? -ted/2NO |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
See page 13 of this month's Soaring mag. THere's an excellent
depiction of where we may fly without transponder or comms. Having said that, it's always a good idea to chat with the controllers if (your and their) workload permits. I've gotten low near a towered airport such as Pueblo and the guy must have been starved for company, as I got the full 20 questions as I ground around in a weak thermal before finally getting away. -Tom |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
5Z wrote: See page 13 of this month's Soaring mag. THere's an excellent depiction of where we may fly without transponder or comms. Having said that, it's always a good idea to chat with the controllers if (your and their) workload permits. Tom: Thanks for the kind words on my artwork. I find that 91.215 is one of the least understood FARs, both by pilots and controllers, so I had to make a picture. The only tiny gaffe in publication was that it does not show the right margin of red airspace in alignment with the right lateral edge of the Class Charlie, in the upper diagram. Stand alone Class C does have the transponder requirement for overflight below 10,000 only by squawking-1200-code airframes. Above 10,000 msl, we are blessed with the exemption from a transponder, but all other airframes do have them up there.... (mostly), so the airliners think they will get traffic calls on all hardware and thus fail to look out the window on even VFR days. They presume that their TCAS and prox alerts and ATC buds will keep them from ingesting plastic gliders. Hence, we all need to be the See-and-Avoid vigilant ones. Fly safely all, Cindy B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
5Z wrote: See page 13 of this month's Soaring mag. THere's an excellent depiction of where we may fly without transponder or comms. Having said that, it's always a good idea to chat with the controllers if (your and their) workload permits. Tom: Thanks for the kind words on my artwork. I find that 91.215 is one of the least understood FARs, both by pilots and controllers, so I had to make a picture. The only tiny gaffe in publication was that it does not show the right margin of red airspace in alignment with the right lateral edge of the Class Charlie, in the upper diagram. Stand alone Class C does have the transponder requirement for overflight below 10,000 only by squawking-1200-code airframes. Above 10,000 msl, we are blessed with the exemption from a transponder, but all other airframes do have them up there.... (mostly), so the airliners think they will get traffic calls on all hardware and thus fail to look out the window on even VFR days. They presume that their TCAS and prox alerts and ATC buds will keep them from ingesting plastic gliders. Hence, we all need to be the See-and-Avoid vigilant ones. Fly safely all, Cindy B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|