A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Racing airspace "violation" question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old September 7th 10, 06:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Racing airspace "violation" question

A question for you racing rules makers out the

Does the closed airspace rule (loss of all points plus 100 pt penalty)
apply if, following a task abort on course (with enough distance on
task to score for the day), a pilot then overflies class C airspace
(legally, and in contact with approach, etc), enroute to a safe
recovery back at the home base?

The question really boils down to: Are you still "on task" after you
make a decision to abandon the declared task for reasons of safety -
say weather blocking other routes - or to avoid a landout, or both,
then legally overfly airspace on the way home? Since the task scoring
ends where you abandon the task and assuming you abort outside closed
airspace, one could argue that the return flight is the same as an
aero retrieve, where the penalty wouldn't apply, since it's perfectly
legal and easy to overfly lots of airspace out here in the west.

As currently interpreted, this rule makes you potentially fly a
riskier and/or longer route when you are probably trying to get home
late in the day, which seems counter productive and potentially
unsafe. And there is precedent in the airfield landout bonus for
rewarding a safer decision over "pushing on regardless".

I have no objection to the closed airspace rule while still on task,
although the 500 ft minor and 100 ft major violation vertical
distances seem a bit draconian and encourage "clock watching" a bit
too much - not a good idea if everyone is blasting along under a
cloudstreet at 17499'. Perhaps we should look at the FAI rules and
see how they handle it?

Anyway, enough sniveling...

Cheers,

Kirk
66

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.