![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Did I miss something? When did finish gates become so dangerous?
I pretty sure JJ has used many finish gates I am surprised that they are now so dangerous he wouldn't consider using one. Brian, never finished below 800' even with a gate. (JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ... I dont believe your only concern is with a possible breach of FAR's. If it were you would sit back happy in the knowledge that you are not breaking the law and allow everyone else to make up their own mind. That was a-hell-of-a-thing to say, Owain. Didn't we learn anything from Tonapah? I think all the Directors did, time for the rest of us to get on board. Don't you know that one more serious accident could shut everything down? I'm not just talking about contests, but the SSA as well. I know one thing, I won't work in any contest that uses the macho-crotcho finish gate, just for personal liability reasons. JJ Sinclair |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with graduated penalty. JJ Sinclair Or move the finish point. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |