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

High Speed Passes & the FAA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old October 3rd 03, 03:14 PM
John Cochrane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There have been two recent fatalities in the US involving high speed
passes. In both cases, the pilot seems to have become distracted,
overloaded, etc. by the high speed pass, so the resulting crash was a
stall/spin while making the following low turn to land. (Gliders have
also fluttered apart in high speed passes in the past.)

I'm sure we'll hear soon from other posters to this thread something
like "Well those pahluts wuz just bozos. Any reehl pahlut kin handl
that there kahnd of streuhs," "Yeh kint trah to legislate commin
sinse," and so forth. (Sorry, I can't do justice to the inventive
spelling in this thread!) And it is true that everything in aviation
has limits, which pilots must respect. The limits on low passes are a
little tighter than many pilots realize. The limits are often about
traffic and what to do after the pass rather than the pass itself. But
nothing is inherently dangerous if the limits are known and observed.
OTOH, when the limits are tight, there will be an unavoidably higher
error rate of pilots who for one reason or another bust the limits.

So let's just leave the undeniable fact that there are occasional
accidents on the table. Make up your own mind whether the low passes
are worth the suffering of the "other pilot's" family and friends (of
course it will never happen to you), and whether next time the FAA or
NTSB or insurance company will start asking questions about landing
patterns and procedures.

NYC01FA071

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X00437&key=1

FTW01LA179

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...15X01694&key=1


John Cochrane
  #3  
Old October 1st 03, 10:42 PM
Andy Blackburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow - I didn't know that actually happened at Montague.
What year was that? Anyone on the ground hurt?

At 21:12 01 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Scenario

LOCATION, Montague, Ca.

EVENT, SSA National Championships

SCENE, Finish line (50 foot min) 5:00 PM

ACTION, Two sailplanes approach the finish line that
is located on the closed
runway, that intersects the active runway. The edge
of the runway has 20
motorhomes and sailplane tie-downs for all 30 contestants.
The two finishing
sailplanes are now about 100 feet high and both doing
red-line. They approach
the finish line from slightly different directions,
with an angle to each other
of about 30 degrees. The pilots have both hands on
the stick and their full
attention is focused on the finish line.

You know where I'm going with this, but let me say,
It's not just the figment
of old JJ's imagination. We had a fatal accident that
happened just this way.
The two sailplanes were at altitude, but both pilots
had their full attention
focused on Bridgeport Turn Point. THEY NEVER SAW EACH
OTHER. One landed with 3
foot of his right wing tip missing. The other pilot
got a wing tip in the
cockpit.

Back to Montague, You know what happens, they hit at
50 feet, doing 145 knots.
Two pilots will get Tagged & Bagged, later that night,
but the incident isn't
over yet. What's the debris vector of the wreckage?
It's right into a line of
motorhomes with wives, children and innocent bystanders.

QUESTIONS
Does the FAA allow this?
Does the SSA allow this?
Should the SSA allow this?

JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with
graduated penalty.
JJ Sinclair




  #4  
Old October 2nd 03, 12:17 AM
Jim Culp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Gentlefolk,

Since when wuz 120-155 mph fast
at an airport?

Not for a long long time, and it wasnt against any
airport speedin rule was it?

In fack, it aint fast at all.

Ok, agreed. 120-150mph is not fast, at an airport
for airplanes, or is it fast for gliders?

If so, so what? Ain't broke no gliderplane speed limit.
Aint none there.

Approaching an airport at a speed of 120-150mph mol
in a heavier than air craft,
and pulling up and going around or turnin back for
landing downwind or into wind depending on which direction
approach was made is known in
FAA parlance
as 'Missed Approach.' Thas whutcha do at airports.


You dont do that low over yo neighbors subdivision.


If folks iz out on airfield standin' round or parkin'
or sittin' on non-aviatin' quipments
or motorinhomes
or campin' tents
or trailers
and etseteruh,


remember where they is ....

Shonuff, it's an airport designed and put there shonuff
for aviatin' uses

and specially takin off and landin
and missin approaches
and comin by fast
or comin by slow,
an' landin' this way
and that way,
and all that.

They be aviatin' ,
and sorry to break trains of thought
at the bridge party
at the motorinhome.

Well, now.
We shall not take aim at a motorhome
wherever it may be with sojourners.
Shonuff, No.

But have some good aviatin'
and have fun.

Summary: 150mph is not fast at an airport. Not landin
at first approach is Missed Approach. Do 'em at airports.


Dancin on clouds
Keep it up!

Jim Culp USA
GatorCity Florida


  #5  
Old October 2nd 03, 06:44 AM
BTIZ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

doing low passes down the closed runway does not constitute a "missed appch"
as described by other responses.

My "guess" would be that the altitude limit would be 500ft AGL..

BT

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This

question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located

on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The

finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair



  #6  
Old October 2nd 03, 08:55 AM
Owain Walters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with
graduated penalty.
JJ Sinclair


Or move the finish point.



  #7  
Old October 3rd 03, 02:58 PM
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That's good Owain,
You question my wanting to run a safe operation by following the FAR's and then
suggest there are 3 reasons for my actions, none of which has anything to do
with safety.

I assume one of the 3 would be that I'm just too scared to do a low pass. Let
me just say, I probably have more time *on the deck* than 99 % of ras readers.
I'm talking about low level terrain following radar missions in the B-52H,
RF-4C and F-111F (8000TT)

Maybe old JJ got chicken in his old age (reason no.2 ?) I have done my share of
worm-burners, I once approached the gate from an odd angle that had me coming
in at 5 feet (old rules) and 140 knots. I spotted a contest worker walking back
from the window (remember the gate window ?) Anyway, the guy DUCKED. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ. Then there was the formation low
pass we did at Williams (my last) I was no.2 and told lead that I had my long
tips on, so don't go over my red-line of 120 knots. I had my eyes glued to
lead, only to find we are doing 145 knots as I pull from 5 feet. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ.

OK, Owain, I assume I got 2 of them, but what's my 3rd reason for not wanting
to follow the FAR's and run a SAFE operation?

Wondering in Placerville,
JJ Sinclair
  #8  
Old October 3rd 03, 03:24 PM
Owain Walters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


JJ,

I am sorry for starting this fight with you but I will
proceed with what we have started.

I dont mind how experinced you are in Fast Jets I dont
see why you want to regulate against things that might
happen. You will not stop someone hell-bent on killing
themselves by enforcing a 500' min finish height. Lets
be reminded that the guy who started this says that
the racing finish is still allowed.

You can not regulate against peoples stupidity. If
this rule goes through people will get their kicks
somewhere else and almost certainly in a more dangerous,
less regulated situation. Better the devil you know.

As I said before you can speculate to the reasons.


Owain

PS. Where did you fly your F111's. Chances are we may
have been in the same place at some point.



At 14:06 03 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
That's good Owain,
You question my wanting to run a safe operation by
following the FAR's and then
suggest there are 3 reasons for my actions, none of
which has anything to do
with safety.

I assume one of the 3 would be that I'm just too scared
to do a low pass. Let
me just say, I probably have more time *on the deck*
than 99 % of ras readers.
I'm talking about low level terrain following radar
missions in the B-52H,
RF-4C and F-111F (8000TT)

Maybe old JJ got chicken in his old age (reason no.2
?) I have done my share of
worm-burners, I once approached the gate from an odd
angle that had me coming
in at 5 feet (old rules) and 140 knots. I spotted a
contest worker walking back
from the window (remember the gate window ?) Anyway,
the guy DUCKED. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ. Then
there was the formation low
pass we did at Williams (my last) I was no.2 and told
lead that I had my long
tips on, so don't go over my red-line of 120 knots.
I had my eyes glued to
lead, only to find we are doing 145 knots as I pull
from 5 feet. I thought
later, That was a real STUPID thing to do, JJ.

OK, Owain, I assume I got 2 of them, but what's my
3rd reason for not wanting
to follow the FAR's and run a SAFE operation?

Wondering in Placerville,
JJ Sinclair




  #9  
Old October 3rd 03, 04:49 PM
Owain Walters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quite frankly I think you guys are using the rules
like a drunk uses a streetlamp. For leaning on rather
than illumination.

I have read the FAR regarding the 500' rule. The heading
itself says 'Minimum safe altitudes: General'. This
implies to me that there can be exceptions to this
rule. Why cant you guys lobby the FAA to make it legal
for gliding to participate in a world wide sport? I
am not saying it will be easy or a quick thing to do
but you must admit that it would be more beneficial
in the long term to bring the US contest rules into
line with other world competitors? If they say no,
nothing is lost. You can then carry on with your 500'
doughnut. It does seem self-defeating to give up without
a fight.

The rules are open to much interpretation for instance
gliders fly under VFR rules but do not follow the rules
by the letter. See FAR 91.159. So people quoting FAR's
need to watch their step. Otherwise you could open
a whole can of worms for everyone in ways you havent
considered.

I say that people shouldnt rock the boat. Allow people
to do what they want even if you dont like it. I dont
understand why people launch in a K8 year after year
for two hours local soaring but I do not try to stop
them. I let them get on with it. Gliding is different
things to different people, we have to accept that.
Once you do you will relax and not take everything
so seriously. I know you are about to say 'I only take
safety seriously' but we all do. But what we also take
seriously is people trying to take the fun away for
no real reason.

Chill out and let everyone do what they enjoy.

Owain

PS. Sorry but I wasnt alive in 72-74.Plattsburgh and
Heyford between 84-94


At 15:18 03 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
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




  #10  
Old October 3rd 03, 10:28 PM
Ivan Kahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


 




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
Landing and T/O distances (Was Cold War ALternate Basing) Guy Alcala Military Aviation 3 August 13th 04 12:18 PM
Va and turbulent air penetration speed. Doug Instrument Flight Rules 70 January 11th 04 08:35 PM
Jet fighter top speed at military power David L. Pulver Military Aviation 18 December 1st 03 07:13 PM
Angle of climb at Vx and glide angle when "overweight": five questions Koopas Ly Piloting 16 November 29th 03 10:01 PM
New Film: The Need For Speed - Going to war on drugs Phil Carpenter Military Aviation 0 July 23rd 03 07:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.