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

Minimum Safe Altitude



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 15th 07, 05:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
5Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default 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  
Old February 15th 07, 10:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 01:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tuno
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 640
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 02:30 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
01-- Zero One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 08:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 04:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 07:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Greef
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 09:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Nyal Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default 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  
Old February 16th 07, 10:29 PM
mart mart is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 23
Default

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  
Old February 16th 07, 10:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jack[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.


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