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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
On Feb 15, 7:00 am, John Sinclair
wrote: to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer? The finish line does not force the pilot to violate FARs, and the cylinder also allows pilots to violate FARs. Using the finish line, a pilot must cross no lower than 50' (1000' is allowed, as is 5000') and within the lateral confines of the gate. Using the cylinder, the pilot may choose to cross it at 500' and redline, then dive at the airport and make a pass down the runway at 50'.... So bottom line, there is nothing in the rules that REQUIRES the organizers or pilots to do anything stupid. But there is plenty of freedom available for the organizers to set up local field rules. So set some up! IIRC, you are free to increase the minimum height of the finish line. There's noting in the rules to prohibit you adding some limits such as described in another thread about new BGA rules. Just be sure all pilots are aware of these in a clear an unambiguous way. For example, at Hobbs, we were to avoid low patterns above the prison at the far end of the field. -Tom Who likes to check for obstructions on the runway up close on the first approach, then pull up for a normal pattern |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next
year? JJ Sounds like you answered your own question, JJ - by all means use a 500' at one mile finish - it's one of your options, and a perfectly good one. Now let's see - I'm finishing from the direction opposite the pattern side, so have to cross the field midfield to enter downwind. I fly a perfect final glide after a tough day with 2 knot thermals, and nail my MC 2 final glide to cross the finish at 501 ft and 68 knots. The crowd roars! Then I tiptoe across the crowd, parked cars, campers, runways, parked gliders, derigging crews, and assorted dogs and cats and turn downwind at 300 ft or so, at the approved FAA downwind location. Hmm, I just violated the FAR, since I wasn't in the landing pattern, and was below 500' AGL most of the time, over people and their stuff! But I won't tell anyone... Seriously, JJ, what site are you looking at? Wouldn't that make a difference in what the safest finish and landing pattern would be? Kirk 66 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
66, didn't someone have an incident similar to what you suggest at
Hobbs a year or two ago? Iirc he had to pull up at the edge of the cylinder to make the minimum finish height, stalled his glider, and nearly bought the ranch ... |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
Same thing has happened at at least one other US contest that I know
of... Pilot managed to walk away from it. Larry "zero one" "Tuno" wrote in message oups.com: 66, didn't someone have an incident similar to what you suggest at Hobbs a year or two ago? Iirc he had to pull up at the edge of the cylinder to make the minimum finish height, stalled his glider, and nearly bought the ranch ... |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
I don't know, sounds like there are some contest pilots out there that
need to go into remedial training on energy management and safe pattern use. If someone "runs out" of energy getting back to the finish line haven't they violated all kinds of FAR's! If any of my instructors (and the glider "Gods") in our club saw you enter the pattern with a minimum energy issue they might just have a little chat with you. So folks, sounds to me like you are describing bad airmanship problems and not a rule issue. If the finish is at 500' you should have no problem with a safe pattern entry, no matter what! What do these folks do when they get low on course? A wingover into the ground? If you have an energy management problem then you shouldn't be flying! JMHO and I just increased my "Fire" insurance so flame away! Bob 01-- Zero One wrote: Same thing has happened at at least one other US contest that I know of... Pilot managed to walk away from it. Larry "zero one" "Tuno" wrote in message oups.com: 66, didn't someone have an incident similar to what you suggest at Hobbs a year or two ago? Iirc he had to pull up at the edge of the cylinder to make the minimum finish height, stalled his glider, and nearly bought the ranch ... -4FFC-B848-E246E3868A98-- |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
There have been two accidents that I know of involving pilots with low
energy at a 500 foot finish. One reportedly tried to thermal up to the finish height with partial water on board, while in gliding range of the airport. The answer is simple: if you're not going to make a 500 foot finish, you have lots of energy for a rolling finish. Put the nose down, aim for the end of the runway. RIsking anything to avoid the 2-3 minute penalty for rolling finishes really is stupid. The sooner you commit to the rolling finish, the faster you will get there, so it's even in your racing interest to commit early. I'm usually on the side of writing rules that avoid the temptation for risky behavior, but this is an exception. The cost in points of a rolling finish is so small that a well-prepared pilot really has no excuse for screwing this one up. It's not like the awful decisions we face when we are right on MacCready zero to make it over the last stand of trees to the airport, where 600 points lie waiting. Some more detailed advice on how to safely fly contest finishes under US rules: (From a recent Soaring "contest corner") http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...t_finishes.mht John Cochrane |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
5Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:00 am, John Sinclair wrote: to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer? The finish line does not force the pilot to violate FARs, and the cylinder also allows pilots to violate FARs. Using the finish line, a pilot must cross no lower than 50' (1000' is allowed, as is 5000') and within the lateral confines of the gate. Using the cylinder, the pilot may choose to cross it at 500' and redline, then dive at the airport and make a pass down the runway at 50'.... So bottom line, there is nothing in the rules that REQUIRES the organizers or pilots to do anything stupid. But there is plenty of freedom available for the organizers to set up local field rules. So set some up! IIRC, you are free to increase the minimum height of the finish line. There's noting in the rules to prohibit you adding some limits such as described in another thread about new BGA rules. Just be sure all pilots are aware of these in a clear an unambiguous way. For example, at Hobbs, we were to avoid low patterns above the prison at the far end of the field. -Tom Who likes to check for obstructions on the runway up close on the first approach, then pull up for a normal pattern Minimum safe attitude is what's needed. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
Let's see; I think I've figured out how to win a contest,
though I've never flown one. Bring along an FAA safety officer to observe and persuade him to violate everyone who makes a low pass and to collect their pilot's certificate for 90 days. Be sure I stay high and dry and then fly the rest of the contest in comparative ease in the absence of the hot shots. [Written in the aftermath of a blizzard, where I'm holed up] At 18:48 16 February 2007, Bruce Greef wrote: 5Z wrote: On Feb 15, 7:00 am, John Sinclair wrote: to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer? The finish line does not force the pilot to violate FARs, and the cylinder also allows pilots to violate FARs. Using the finish line, a pilot must cross no lower than 50' (1000' is allowed, as is 5000') and within the lateral confines of the gate. Using the cylinder, the pilot may choose to cross it at 500' and redline, then dive at the airport and make a pass down the runway at 50'.... So bottom line, there is nothing in the rules that REQUIRES the organizers or pilots to do anything stupid. But there is plenty of freedom available for the organizers to set up local field rules. So set some up! IIRC, you are free to increase the minimum height of the finish line. There's noting in the rules to prohibit you adding some limits such as described in another thread about new BGA rules. Just be sure all pilots are aware of these in a clear an unambiguous way. For example, at Hobbs, we were to avoid low patterns above the prison at the far end of the field. -Tom Who likes to check for obstructions on the runway up close on the first approach, then pull up for a normal pattern Minimum safe attitude is what's needed. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In Australia they have found what I think is a very good answer to low finishes. A sort of middle way. You have to have a ticket to do them. That is; you fly with a instructor who teaches you to do them properly and safely.Than you get a ticket and are allowed to do them during contests where they allow them. At the last nationals at Benalla they weren't allowed because the airport is too busy. If a pilot shows unsafe behaviour doing a low finish they can simply take away his license to do them. This is a good deterrent to have safe fun.
I watched to worlds in St Auban where pilots few a circuit. The public was greatly disappointed with those boring landings. The organisation tried to make it exiting but a lot of people just walked away. They come to see exitment. The public at that comp in England were there especially for that exitment.Take that away and they will stay away and gliding dies. Try and do the Aussie middleway with safe exitment and everybody will be happy. mart |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Minimum Safe Altitude
John Sinclair wrote:
Nice little chat about how things should be, Jack. Now lets talk about how things are. Lets get right down where the rubber meets the road. I'm involved with running a national contest, next year and I need to decide which finish gate to use. Do I choose the one that violates the FAR's, has had numerous accidents and several fatalities, OR do I choose the finish cylinder which violates no rules and has proven to be much safer? Remember that I live in sue-happy California where they'll sue you because the coffee you were served was too hot! Who's liable if we should have a finish line accident? The pilot because he did what we told him to do? How about the SSA who continued to sanction a procedure that violates FAR's. Next, my club.........good luck, they haven't got a dime, but then they'll come after me. I haven't got much, but it took me 72 years to collect it and I'd kind'a like to keep what I got. So, you tell me, Jack. Which finish gate do I use next year? Does the fatal accident rate in recent years, show a major statistical connection with contest finishes? Is it the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most frequent context? Given the amount of misunderstanding in the pilot community (power and glider) about just what constitutes a legal approach to a landing at an uncontrolled field, it's obviously a bucket of worms that the FAA believes is best dealt with after the fact. For them, 91.13 -- "careless and reckless" -- is adequate when attention must be paid. Some of us obviously would do it the same way if they were in FAA's shoes. In the meantime, down there where the rubber meets the runway, each individual takes responsibility for the things he can control, whether camera position, glider flight path, or contest rules. If the sport is to benefit from keeping the low fast finish, then it's up to the SSA to shore up the worm-burner's acceptability, because that is a crusade on multiple fronts (legal, venue, pilot competence, etc.) which is more than any single contest boss can be expected to take on alone. Because the solution is bigger than the problem -- like all things political -- I suppose the odds are on the side of the nanny-state approach and not with that of the robust individualists who prefer to let the ignorant/incompetent fall where they may. Best of luck, JJ. I know you'll do the right thing. Jack --------------------------------------- At 03:36 14 February 2007, Jack wrote: John Sinclair wrote: 1. I whine for my friend who lost his life in the finish line at Cal City. Remind us who are late arrivals of the details, please. 2. I whine for the fellow who lost his life in the Uvalde finish line. He wasn't in the contest, but saw what we were doing and thought he'd give it a try. From this short description it sounds more like a Darwin award situation. A boy, having seen pictures of the Hiroshima detonation, decides to build a small explosive device of his own. Its yield falls somewhat short of kilotons, but if he uses the appropriate safety precautions, he may advance beyond the age of twelve with all his parts, and learn to behave more appropriately. Some do, some don't. We move on. 3. I whine for the British photographer who probably didn't know the risk he was taking and didn't realize his actions influenced others to take unnecessary risks. I think it is unreasonable to assume he did not understand the risk. There is ample evidence to the contrary. I am also quite confident that at least some pilots were accommodating him in order to become the subject of a stunning photo. The temptation to do so is undeniable, whether one submits to it or not. That the photographer would not have understood this gives him too little credit, and ignores his career achievements in the process. 4. I whine for the young British lad whose life is forever altered. I regret the facts of every loss among my friends to one form of aviation or another, and there have been so many. That doesn't change the fact that they chose -- and I believe they would choose again, as I would -- the life we've lived, and the risks we take. We who are left have the great advantage of learning from their mistakes, and I believe it would be as disrespectful to learn the wrong lessons as to ignore their passing. The responsibility for this most recent fatality must lie with the organizers, the pilot, and the photographer -- all three. But we err if we believe that our task is to determine degree of fault or proportion of blame, rather than to see the connection between desire and destruction, and to sever that link whenever we have an opportunity to do so -- _as individuals_. It seems there are so many ways that things can go wrong, and yet there are only permutations of a very few basic truths. And no matter how many rules we promulgate to contain these devious truths, they will leak through whenever we provide an avenue. The organic punishment to each of the three entities concerned in the most recent case is adequate. To spread that burden to the wider community through restrictions to flight only compounds the tragedy. The answer is education, and training, and some pride to be taken in what we can do, rather than in so much that we may not. Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vector altitude for ILS below GS intercept altitude? | M | Instrument Flight Rules | 23 | May 20th 06 07:41 PM |
How safe is it, really? | June | Piloting | 227 | December 10th 04 06:01 AM |
What's minimum safe O2 level? | PaulH | Piloting | 29 | November 9th 04 08:35 PM |
Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude | john smith | Piloting | 3 | July 22nd 04 10:48 AM |
Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) Standards | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 23 | April 6th 04 03:28 AM |