High Speed Passes & the FAA

"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Flying head down is never necessary. The center of the finish cylinder is
almost always close to some visible marker on the airport. If it isn't, I
ask
the CD to move it so it is. My software beeps when I cross the boundary of
the
cylinder, does yours? Finally, I only glance at the computer once in a
while to
see if I'm falling below glide slope, which I'd also be doing with a 50 foot
gate. But then again, I'm not anal about finishing at precisely 500 feet...

I don't agree. When you approach a cylinder, you are aiming at its
center. I haven't seen a computer program that optimizes the point on
the cycliner you should be aiming at given current position and
altitude and interpolates your desired finish height to that point.

I'm not a mathematician, but I think you'll find that the point you should be
aiming for on the cylinder is on the line from your current position to the
center of the cylinder. Since, as far as I know, your computer is guiding you
towards the center of the cylinder from your current position, then you will
cross that optimal point.

Instead you are looking down as the distance clicks off, and checking
your altitude to make sure that you don't fall slightly short.

I'm not worried about falling slightly short, since I'm nearly always 500 feet
or more above the minimum finish altitude. Frankly, if your computer can't help
you navigate to the desired height at the edge of the cylinder, yell at the
designer, or get a new instrument or software. This isn't rocket science.

BTW, if you look carefully at SSA contest rules 10.9.3, it states quite clearly
that a finish is recorded when you enter the 3 dimensional cylinder. It does
not say you have to enter at the edge, you can also enter through the bottom.
What this means is that even if you cross the edge of the cylinder at lower than
the minimum height, as long as you can pull up and get a single fix within the
cylinder, you've got a finish.

Now, some buttheads somewhere will no doubt start coming in below the cylinder
and pulling up through the center, figuring this will give them a speed
advantage. It won't, since while you finish time is recorded where you enter
the cylinder, your finish distance only goes to the edge.

As noted in earlier threads this means more heads down and more
variations in traffic height and speed, all converging on a much
smaller area (the optimum point on the cylinder).

If everyone is coming from the same final turnpoint, then they will all converge
on pretty much the same point, whether using a finish gate or a cylinder. When
everyone is not coming from the same final turnpoint (i.e. an MAT), everyone
still converges on pretty much the same point with a finish gate, but they do
not converge with a cylinder.

Again, the advantage of a finish cylinder is that those people who have
sufficient energy (and don't feel the need to make low pass), end up overhead
the airport well over 500 feet, at a comfortable speed, with plenty of time to
assess the traffic situation, watch out for those on marginal glides, go through
their checklist, etc. This has worked very well at every contest I've flown in
that used a finish cylinder. The only recent contest where I've felt
stressed/hurried during finishes, was one where a few traditionalists browbeat
the CD into using a GPS finish gate.

Be careful when citing book and passage from the FARs. I know for a
fact that you don't follow some rules (none of us do) as scrupulously
as you are applying them in this case. I can find some gray in 91.119.
You'll be hard pressed to find any in 91.155.

The original quote from your message was:

As for the FARs, aircraft regularly take off and land withn 500
feet of people, structures, and other aircraft at commercial airports.
This is by necessity.

And my point was, yes indeed, this happens, and it's perfectly legal according
to 9.119.

Virtue: the behavior we demand of others, but excuse the lack of in
ourselves.

The only virtue that I request of others on this group is that they actually
read and consider what is said...

Marc

IMHO mid air collisions are the worry.

The closer to VNE you fly the simpler the lookout and
collision avoidance issue (with respect to other gliders)
becomes.

Close to the ground there is less chance there is of
hitting a glider in the blind spot below you.

There are generally more gliders around an airfield
then anywhere else.

Ergo, if you want safe finishes, (including avoiding
close outlandings) you want to get gliders back low
and fast and look at the issue as one of flow control
i.e. does everyone know where to go and what to do
after the finish pull up. This is, in effect, what
has been informally and safely sorted out by pilots
and comp directors for decades.

A close remote high finish potentially leaves a number
of gliders milling around at or below normal circuit
height getting in each others way and increases the
collision risk.

John Galloway

What if there were a few kids on all the available fields, and you had no
other landing options? Would you have made a low pass to clear the field?
What if you had never done one before because you viewed low passes as
irresponsible?

And your point is?

Here is what the local FAA Saftey inspector from the FSDO told me less
than a month ago.
"Just about everyone likes to do a low pass once in a while. I have
even done one in a my Aeronca champ, but no one noticed. The FAR's say
500 feet from any man made object, except for takeoff and landing.
Precedince is a fence post is a man made object. However an occasional
low pass safely done over a runway will usually not get the FAA's
attention. However repeated low passes will result in a visit from you
local FAA inspector and possible certificate action"

That is right from the FAA and perhaps not word for word but you get
the idea. It may be interpreted differently at different FSDO's. But
it seems to mee that our FSDO has a very common sense approach to this
subject.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL



Andy Blackburn wrote in message ...
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

At 19:06 05 October 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:
I'm not a mathematician, but I think you'll find that
the point you should be aiming for on the cylinder

is on the line from your current position to the
center of the cylinder. Since, as far as I know,
your computer is guiding you towards the center
of the cylinder from your current position,
then you will cross that optimal point.

This is correct - the shortest distance to the cylinder
is on a radial from the center.

Frankly, if your computer can't help you navigate to
the desired height at the edge of the cylinder, yell

at the designer, or get a new instrument or software.

This isn't rocket science.

I think the point is navigating to a point in space
requires monitoring glide angle to the 500'/1mile point.
I am aware of computers that beep when you cross the
cylinder, but not of any that tell you along the way
if you are GOING TO make it. This is what requires
the heads-down time. Or leaving a minute or so of time
on the clock for enough extra altitude to not have
to worry about it.

Also, the 'get a new computer' point contradicts the
purported logic for recent rules changes (such as 15
min) - that it excludes some pilots from competition
to require the 'latest and greatest' computer technology.
I don't buy that logic and it looks like you don't
either, but it is out there.

BTW, if you look carefully at SSA contest rules 10.9.3,
it states quite clearly that a finish is recorded when
you enter the 3 dimensional cylinder. It does not
say you have to enter at the edge, you can also enter
through the bottom. What this means is that even if
you cross the edge of the cylinder at lower than the
minimum height, as long as you can pull up and get
a single fix within the cylinder, you've got a finish.


Now, some buttheads somewhere will no doubt start
coming in below the cylinder and pulling up through

the center, figuring this will give them a speed
advantage. It won't, since while you finish time is

recorded where you enter the cylinder, your
finish distance only goes to the edge.

Actually, I think the optimal is to be close to zero
feet just before 1 mile, then do a ballistic pullup
(to roughly zero mph - depending on initial speed)
right at 500' and 1 mile (kind of like pole vaulting).
This presumes you carry extra potential energy on the
glide as a buffer. Otherwise the optimal is to fly
Mc speed corresponding to your last climb right to
the 500'/1 mi point. If you hit a little sink you could
do a mini-ballistic pullup at the edge or go hunting
for lift (at 500'). This potential practice is the
logic behind John Cochrane's finish donut suggestion
- the cost of which is even more pressure on heads
down computer time to clear the 1-mile deep donut and/or
trying to find lift to reach the bottom of the cylinder.

I am not recommending any of these techniques - it's
just what the rules encourage the foolhardy (or desparate)
to try.

At least with the finish at ground level at the airport
you have a continuous visual reference as to whether
you are gaining or losing on the glide angle, keeping
the pilot's head out of the cockpit - that's the main
point.

9B

In article ,
says...
Sure, it's only 25-50
points over the course of Regionals to just finish
high and not worry about it - but the temptation to
save the points, push for 500' and spend a few seconds
to take a couple of peeks at the computer in the last
mile or so I bet is pretty irresistible to many pilots.
At 130kts, a few seconds is all it takes...

Apparently, I'm giving up a lot more than 25-50 points, because I'd
never dare come in that fast. I set my "finish" altitude to 500', which
puts me about 200' over the edge of the 1 mile radius finish circle.
And, like Marc, I find an occasional glance at the PDA is plenty to keep
me on glide slope. Even though it might require a few more glances than
going to the ground at the finish line, the few times I've used this
kind of finish, there was less traffic because we were spread out more.

I'd like to continue using the 1 or 2 mile finish until I've had more
experience with it, because it seemed to work well.
--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
...
Andy Blackburn wrote:
...
This is correct - the shortest distance to the cylinder
is on a radial from the center.
...

Not correct if there is some cross wind.

I can understand a crosswind changing the required heading, and even the
optimum speed to fly, but how does it change the distance?

Tim Ward

Andy Blackburn wrote:
...
This is correct - the shortest distance to the cylinder
is on a radial from the center.
...

Not correct if there is some cross wind.