High Speed Passes & the FAA

Whoops, sorry John. I thought I was in another thread.

Damn, you've become so much the defacto "rules pariah," that I just
assumed you were on another contest safety rant.

I see now it is a more general safety rant... which I find completely
appropriate. Apologies again for jumping too quick.

High speed passes have their time and place and should be practiced by
competent pilots in a controlled environment. There's a need for
practice... but this too should be carefully controlled.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between contest/speed finishes
and showboat finishes, the prior used to optimize speed and the latter
to serve the pilot's ego. I've found that it's usually showboat
finishes by competent pilots that inspire less experienced pilots to
embark on a program of self-managed education, occasionally with dire
results.

Earlier, "George William Peter Reinhart" wrote:

...same way as busting 18K?

I most certainly take exception to that. I have never been "busted."



Bob "one eight" K.

But I have not paid you for your care and advice and I don't want you
imposing it on me! You are really reaching here as your message doesn't
qualify as an analogy.

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
Casey,
I am NOT questioning your qualifications or conduct as a doctor. I, AM
trying
to get you to admit that you would bring to the attention of those in
charge of
your hospital, ANY practice or procedure that could be harmful to your
patience.

That is EXACTLY what I am doing by bringing this to the attention of the
BOD
and Rules Committee.
JJ Sinclair

"Owain Walters" wrote in
message ...
Quite frankly I think you guys are using the rules
like a drunk uses a streetlamp. For leaning on rather
than illumination.

snip.

Chill out and let everyone do what they enjoy.


It is very disappointing me to that, as a group, I have noted that glider
pilots don't understand the FARs as well as they should, nor do they take
them seriously. The 500' foot rule being discussed here is not optional, nor
is that pesky 91.155 which requires us to stay 500' or 1,000' below cloud
bases, nor are a host of other FARs that are typically ignored You can try
all you want to invent excuses, but you are just being lousy pilots.

How about showing a some pride and professionalism! And with apologies to
those who do, is that too much to expect from glider pilots?

Ivan Kahn
ATP, CFI

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Casey,
I am NOT questioning your qualifications or conduct as a doctor. I, AM
trying
to get you to admit that you would bring to the attention of those in
charge of
your hospital, ANY practice or procedure that could be harmful to your
patience.

That is EXACTLY what I am doing by bringing this to the attention of the
BOD
and Rules Committee.
JJ Sinclair

I guess that my point wasn't clear enough from the earlier post. Let's try
this....my patients are my responsibility so when in my care they should
expect superb service. Now if they chose to get home from the hospital by
flying their ultralight through an a approaching gust front then it is their
business, not mine. Would I chose to say to them that it is my opinion that
they are doing the wrong thing...sure, but I would leave it at that.
Therein lies the nature of our disagreement.

It is your opinion, nothing more, that these things are unsafe. If it were
simply a parental type concern for all of us that would be fine with me.
But what I honestly think is happening with all of these discussions lately
is that you are exhibiting something called projection. That means that a
few people are projecting their own fears upon the rest of us and attempting
to regulate the sport based upon them. I know that at least one of the
stronger voices in these debates has a wife that lives in constant fear of
his racing.

I am quite honestly a big chicken JJ. That is no BS. I am a conservative
pilot that actually finds it hard to believe that anyone would push the
limits on final glide so hard that it would risk their life. Especially for
the result of potentially receiving a little trophy in a sport that 95% of
the US doesn't even know exists. The way I look at it all is that I love
this sport too much to allow one stupid decision to make it so that I don't
ever get to fly again. But this is not really about the sport, it is about
your fears and your attempt to keep me from getting to chose how I should
live my life. I have a family that loves me and depends upon my coming home
and I very much resent being painted as some type of death-wish maniac that
is a Hell's Angel of the skies. But even more than that I resent being
painted as someone willing to risk others lives to get a rush.

Re the FAR's I would say that first of all we have an aerobatic box at Turf
that allows us to have the waiver. 99% of my passes are pretty much
straight down a runway. Nevertheless my guess is that if it were as much of
an issue as you argue it is and that your interpretation of the regs were
correct, that in 50 years of racing some fed would have put a stop to it. I
also think that the reg you quote is one that has broad interpretation. You
talk as if there is no room for interpretation at all and are absolutely
certain that we are all breaking it. There are few laws that have such
clear borders. The way they get clearer is when the courts review it time
and time again. But do you really wish to take the chance that it might
potentially ground someone by whistleblowing on your friends and compadres?
What a way to prove a point.

It is sad that you view this all so strongly that you would risk destroying
the sport in order to force others to be like you.

KC

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Andy,
The FAR's say you can't go within 500 feet of people, places or things.
This
means you can't come down the tie-down ramp at 10 feet for all 3 reasons.
There
are people there, it is a place (airport) and there are things there
(motorhomes, etc)

You can go right down to the deck, anywhere that there isn't people,
places or
things, like ridge tops, ridge soaring, etc.

That brings me to another buzz-job, story. A friend came down the tie-down
area
at 10 feet and 145 knots, pulled up, made a pattern and landed. Looked
good,
everyone thought it was REAL SPECIAL. Later that evening, he asked me to
take a
look at his instruments, because he thought they weren't working right. I
found
several massive leaks in his static system caused by him nicking the tubes
with
a drill he used to install a new GPS in the rear seat of his ASH-25. What
happens when we have slightly pressurized cockpit air entering nicked
static
lines? The airspeed indicators will drop. I have seen a 10 knot drop in
G-103
at pattern airspeed.What does the pilot do when he sees his airspeed is 10
knots below desired airspeed? He lowers the nose to obtain the desired
airspeed. How much OVER RED-LINE did my friend go when the airspeed
indicated
145 knots? FLUTTER anyone?

I have made my case that I think in SSA sanctioned contests, we should
have a
mandatory 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder. I am NOT trying to tell pilots
not
flying in a SSA sanctioned contest what they should be doing. That's
between
you and the FAA.
Please no more hate mail, I have a package with an Ephrata post-mark on it
and
I'm afraid to open it.
JJ Sinclair

This 500 ft/ 1 miile finish would in no way prevent subsequent low passes
over the airport, and the idea's originator doesn't claim it will. I
personally always plan for a 700 ft surplus on my final glides, which is
quite consistent with the proposed finish gate, and I when I choose to I
have no trouble doing a nice low pass from this set-up.

Now I personally don't have a problem with people doing all the low passes
they want, but I don't accept that people should do them over my head
without my permission in advance. While most of the people where I fly are
very skilled pilots, there are a few who give me some doubts; the problem is
that those few don't know who they are. Stay over the runway, or an
unihabited area of the field, make appropriate radio calls, and do whatever
you choose. I believe that this is consistent with the FARs, safety, and
personal responsibility.

Andy,
Thank you for your reasonable response that deals with the issues. You
mentioned Minden and thought that a 50 foot, finish line could be safely
employed there. I was asked to be the CD at the first Sports Class Nationals,
held at Minden, some 20 yeasr ago. We employed a finish line on the Eastern
edge of the main N-S runway and it extended on out East for 3300 feet along the
edge of the closed runway. That closed runway is now glider tie-downs on both
sides of the N-S runway. If we extended the finish line, another 3300 feet on
out to the East, any low and slow finishers would be a minimum of half a mile
away from any runway. Clearly not a safe situation. I don't know anywhere that
a f 50 foot high, 3300 foot long finish line could be safely used at Minden
today. That is why we used the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder at this years
Regionals and will use it again if we get the 18 meter nationals in 2004.

A couple of years ago, I was again asked to be the CD at the 18 meter and
Sports Nationals held at Montague. In the Regionals that immediately preceded
the nationals, we used a finish line with 50 foot minimum altitude. The airport
lay-out is similar to Minden with a main N-S runway and glider tie-downs on
both sides of an intersecting closed runway. When it was pointed out to me,
that finishers were coming in very low, right over people in the tie-down area,
I decided to employ the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder in the Nationals. The
same situation as Minden exists at Montague. If we moved the finish line
another 3300 feet on East, a low and slow finisher would be a minimum of half a
mile from any runway. We could move the finish line to the North end of the
main runway, but finishers would find themselves over a mile away from the
glider tie-down area. This would result in some low finishers, rolling to a
stop, thousands of feet short of the southern tie-down area and consequently,
blocking the runway. I don't know anywhere the finish line could be safely used
at Montague.

The 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder eliminates all conflicts with FAR
violations and allows for a safe and efficient way to deal with finishers that
may be facing head-on situations as they come in from all directions, at the
end of a MAT task. Any head-on traffic has a full 2 mile separation. The
contestants, pull-up and slow-up at 1 mile and then enter the pattern in a
relaxed and orderly manner.

I believe the 50 foot, finish line will disappear from US competition, whether
or not it is removed from our rules, simply because no prudent Contest Manager
would employ it due to the conflicts it presents with violation of several
FAR's,
JJ Sinclair

Andy has proposed that Minden place a finish line 1000 feet sout east of the
approach end of 30, that extends 3300 feet to the north east. Let's look at a
finisher on a MAT type task that is coming in from the north, say Dayton.The
finisher would be forced to fly right past the safety of the airport, leaving
its runways behind, and to continue on past the end of 30, on out another 1000
feet and then HOOK the GATE. Because he is "Hooking the gate", he is also
forced to be another 3300 feet to the east, in order stay out of the gate, so
as to avoid hesd-on traffic in the gate. Some would say, The a low finisher,
that found himself in this situation, could be allowad to make a rolling finish
on any runway. That brings up the penalty for making a rolling finish. It
should be substantial, because our finisher has just cut off at least 2 miles
from the rask a similar finisher must fly.

Am I the ONLY one that sees what's happening here? We have moved the gate way
out in the weeds (Band-Aid no.1). We have made the finisher stay out of
opposing head-on traffic by forcing him to stay 3300 feet farther to the east
(Band-Aid no.2).We have given him a big rolling finish penalty (Band-Aid no.
3). I think it's time to count the Band-Aids on the Finish Line. I count 3, all
right on top of a massive wound. JJ recommends amputation. What do you think,
Doctor?
JJ Sinclair

JJ - Do you ever make your landing touchdown within 500' of a person,
trailer or runway light, even if it is not necessary?

Is that legal?

I'm thinking of turning you in to, or at least threatening you with,
the FAA to advance my contest rules agenda, but I wanted to point out
your lawless behavior to you privately first.

And no more of that abnormal pulling up into thermals from 110 kts!
You've been warned.

Jonathan Gere

P.S. Is a concrete runway with rebar a composite STRUCTURE? Should
power traffic divert to grass strip alternates, rather than make
UNNECESSARY landings on hard surface runways?

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Andy,
Thank you for your reasonable response that deals with the issues. You
mentioned Minden and thought that a 50 foot, finish line could be safely
employed there. I was asked to be the CD at the first Sports Class Nationals,
held at Minden, some 20 yeasr ago. We employed a finish line on the Eastern
edge of the main N-S runway and it extended on out East for 3300 feet along the
edge of the closed runway. That closed runway is now glider tie-downs on both
sides of the N-S runway. If we extended the finish line, another 3300 feet on
out to the East, any low and slow finishers would be a minimum of half a mile
away from any runway. Clearly not a safe situation. I don't know anywhere that
a f 50 foot high, 3300 foot long finish line could be safely used at Minden
today. That is why we used the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder at this years
Regionals and will use it again if we get the 18 meter nationals in 2004.

A couple of years ago, I was again asked to be the CD at the 18 meter and
Sports Nationals held at Montague. In the Regionals that immediately preceded
the nationals, we used a finish line with 50 foot minimum altitude. The airport
lay-out is similar to Minden with a main N-S runway and glider tie-downs on
both sides of an intersecting closed runway. When it was pointed out to me,
that finishers were coming in very low, right over people in the tie-down area,
I decided to employ the 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder in the Nationals. The
same situation as Minden exists at Montague. If we moved the finish line
another 3300 feet on East, a low and slow finisher would be a minimum of half a
mile from any runway. We could move the finish line to the North end of the
main runway, but finishers would find themselves over a mile away from the
glider tie-down area. This would result in some low finishers, rolling to a
stop, thousands of feet short of the southern tie-down area and consequently,
blocking the runway. I don't know anywhere the finish line could be safely used
at Montague.

The 500 foot, 1 mile finish cylinder eliminates all conflicts with FAR
violations and allows for a safe and efficient way to deal with finishers that
may be facing head-on situations as they come in from all directions, at the
end of a MAT task. Any head-on traffic has a full 2 mile separation. The
contestants, pull-up and slow-up at 1 mile and then enter the pattern in a
relaxed and orderly manner.

I believe the 50 foot, finish line will disappear from US competition, whether
or not it is removed from our rules, simply because no prudent Contest Manager
would employ it due to the conflicts it presents with violation of several
FAR's,
JJ Sinclair

Not sure I'd use a gate for MATs - for the 'hook the
gate' reason you describe. Having finishers coming
from all directions strikes me as a poor idea irrespective
of type of finish. But, in any scenario were the gate
lines up with the finish direction you'd be pulling
up right into a downwind for Runway 30. If coming
from the north you'd have to stay clear of people/vehicles
on the closed runway.

I won't belabor the point about Minden any further
as I think it should be CD discretion on how to organize
finishes based on the local environment (and out of
concern over further boring readers who don't fly there).
Certainly I didn't mean to criticize your discretion
in how you set it up as CD, just that it would be possible
without being in violation of FARs - which was the
original question on this thread. Speaking personally
I prefer the cylinder to the gate because it reduces
pilot workload (I just don't like the 500' part).

Oh, and thanks for not making it personal - a relative
rarity on ras.

9B

At 15:24 04 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Andy has proposed that Minden place a finish line 1000
feet sout east of the
approach end of 30, that extends 3300 feet to the north
east. Let's look at a
finisher on a MAT type task that is coming in from
the north, say Dayton.The
finisher would be forced to fly right past the safety
of the airport, leaving
its runways behind, and to continue on past the end
of 30, on out another 1000
feet and then HOOK the GATE. Because he is 'Hooking
the gate', he is also
forced to be another 3300 feet to the east, in order
stay out of the gate, so
as to avoid hesd-on traffic in the gate. Some would
say, The a low finisher,
that found himself in this situation, could be allowad
to make a rolling finish
on any runway. That brings up the penalty for making
a rolling finish. It
should be substantial, because our finisher has just
cut off at least 2 miles
from the rask a similar finisher must fly.

Am I the ONLY one that sees what's happening here?
We have moved the gate way
out in the weeds (Band-Aid no.1). We have made the
finisher stay out of
opposing head-on traffic by forcing him to stay 3300
feet farther to the east
(Band-Aid no.2).We have given him a big rolling finish
penalty (Band-Aid no.
3). I think it's time to count the Band-Aids on the
Finish Line. I count 3, all
right on top of a massive wound. JJ recommends amputation.
What do you think,
Doctor?
JJ Sinclair