Class A airspace

jb92563 wrote:


It will just take one downed airliner, or even a close call, to change
all that overnight!!!

Perhaps there was not enough oxygen getting to this individuals brain
at the time either, when 19,000 on the Altimeter did not register
anything significant for him.

I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact cause
letter from the locally responsible governing organization to reprimand
any pilot that violates important airspace.

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves.



We're seeing more paranoia than self-discipline in some of these posts.

Are the facts something that might of interest to you? Doug Haluza has
already indicated he is trying to track down whatever might be
instructive for the rest of us.

In the mean time you might study up on altimeter error, ATC procedures,
and maybe start an exercise program.


Jack

I am curious if all those paranoids about loosing our privileges or
taking down an airliner as a result of someone accidentally and
momentarily penetrating class A airspace by few hundred feets, are
actually flying with transponders below 18K where the likelihood for an
airliner is many time folds higher?
I am flying with TPAS, and am amazed to find out how few gliders using
transponders, and even fewer when further away from the airspace.

Ramy

jb92563 wrote:
I agree, we do NOT need to test the limits of our airspace rules
because the only reason we are allowed to fly in all the airpsace that
we have is because we have not presented ourselves as a threat to other
more important air traffic.

It will just take one downed airliner, or even a close call, to change
all that overnight!!!

Perhaps there was not enough oxygen getting to this individuals brain
at the time either, when 19,000 on the Altimeter did not register
anything significant for him.

If we do this and not manage ourselves our future might be limited to
12,500.

Lets not!

I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact cause
letter from the locally responsible governing organization to reprimand
any pilot that violates important airspace.

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves.

Ray

Doug,
I just looked at the international OLC, and sure enough there is
a Peter Klose, but from Aero Team Klix in Germany. He has no flights
posted.

I don't know if this whole episode is some kind of bad joke or not, but
perhaps you can quietly contact AT Klix and see what really happened. If he
bust the Class A and has now tried to hide the evidence then at least he may
have learned something. On the other hand, if he never did anything of the
sort, we have a malicious troublemaker on ras.

Regards,

Ian

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
"5Z" wrote:

get a wave window set up in PA, but Cleveland Center is not
familiar with the existing wavers set up with other centers. So this
would help me move the process forward.

Couple LOAs he http://soarbfss.org/flying.php

They look a lot like the one I worked on with Boston Center.
You might want to get them from a few different areas to
convince Cleveland Center that they are common and not just
an oddity of the Rockies. You can probably call up the
military desk (a.k.a. "military coordinator") at a few
different Centers and ask for copies. That's how I did it.
--
T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
Procedures
http://www.soarcsa.org/wave_operating_procedures.htm
Agreement
http://www.soarcsa.org/wave_agreement.htm

Frank Whiteley

Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

At 16:36 23 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration
for a Peter
Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt
claims from a Peter
Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint,
or if the pilot
removed all his flights and registration in protest.

Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s
is not the proper
way to addres this. There is a partner check function
in the OLC which
should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
olcssaorg. We have access to the pilot's email and
can contact
them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.

As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can
be quite large,
especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace
shows a large
unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best
to add a note
addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.

The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
enjoy.
I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
from further flight.
For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
That should have been included in the remarks section
of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
it with ATC.

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
could easily
have indicated 400' lower than the baro reference
you
see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

1 901.96 Thiele Uwe co pilot Dach Rüdiger US (BW) 1139.6
141.1 Parowan Ut Gld (US) SFV Mannheim Nimbus 3DM 1818-0222
flight file 665c3k51-190 this file when opened in SeeYou
list Peter Klos as pilot.

At 16:36 23 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration
for a Peter
Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt
claims from a Peter
Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint,
or if the pilot
removed all his flights and registration in protest.

Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s
is not the proper
way to addres this. There is a partner check function
in the OLC which
should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
olcssaorg. We have access to the pilot's email and
can contact
them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.

As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can
be quite large,
especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace
shows a large
unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best
to add a note
addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.

The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
enjoy.
I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
from further flight.
For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
That should have been included in the remarks section
of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
it with ATC.

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
could easily
have indicated 400' lower than the baro reference
you
see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
SSA policy. For more info see:

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestre...OLCSummary.htm

However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

Additionally, accusing somebody in public without giving his own real name
is disgusting.

Bert Willing

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
SSA policy. For more info see:

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestre...OLCSummary.htm

However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

An interesting US thread primarily about access to Upper airspace (in US
above 18000FT), but also about IFR flight in gliders.
In the UK we have also had much discussion last year about access to
upper airspace (variously above FL195, FL245).

The differences between the two threads seems to be that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites (OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots should be free to
fly.

Not to say that the competitive spirit has not resulted in some
"unsportsmanly" behaviour in recent UK competitions.

It is a pity some of us are deprived of access to traces of some of the
boundary-pushing flights of top pilots because these pilots have to fear
the nit-picking of their colleagues. When something appears not quite
right, often an in-depth conversation may be needed to establish the
facts rather than an immediate counter-blast.

Gliding is a small sport and doesn't need to restrict itself into
oblivion. If commercial air traffic can constantly demand control of
ever increasing amounts of airspace, what is their legal right? We have
just as much right and should constantly be pushing the boundaries,
pressing our case and establishing our need.

If you can string together a half-decent set of legal and commonsensical
reasonning why you can do something that appears safe, fun and
enjoyable, then go and do it. Don't spend the time trying to cross the
last t of the legalese. If you are not competant or motivated enough to
do that particular activity, then it is not always helpful to focus on
potential technicalities as to why others should not be allowed their
pleasure. I wonder why lawyers are so rich? If you want zero risk, don't
aviate in any form.

Rory

Thank you, Rory.


Jack

----

Rory O'Conor wrote:

An interesting US thread primarily about access to Upper airspace (in US
above 18000FT), but also about IFR flight in gliders.
In the UK we have also had much discussion last year about access to
upper airspace (variously above FL195, FL245).

The differences between the two threads seems to be that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites (OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots should be free to
fly.

Not to say that the competitive spirit has not resulted in some
"unsportsmanly" behaviour in recent UK competitions.

It is a pity some of us are deprived of access to traces of some of the
boundary-pushing flights of top pilots because these pilots have to fear
the nit-picking of their colleagues. When something appears not quite
right, often an in-depth conversation may be needed to establish the
facts rather than an immediate counter-blast.

Gliding is a small sport and doesn't need to restrict itself into
oblivion. If commercial air traffic can constantly demand control of
ever increasing amounts of airspace, what is their legal right? We have
just as much right and should constantly be pushing the boundaries,
pressing our case and establishing our need.

If you can string together a half-decent set of legal and commonsensical
reasonning why you can do something that appears safe, fun and
enjoyable, then go and do it. Don't spend the time trying to cross the
last t of the legalese. If you are not competant or motivated enough to
do that particular activity, then it is not always helpful to focus on
potential technicalities as to why others should not be allowed their
pleasure. I wonder why lawyers are so rich? If you want zero risk, don't
aviate in any form.

Rory