High Speed Passes & the FAA

As a low time glider pilot who is getting back into soaring (just
bought a 1-35), I can't believe this thread. The FAA absolutely CAN
regulate people against their own stupidity. They do it with that
thing called the FAR's.

The tone of many on this issue here seems to be that the FAR's are for
the rest of aviation to follow, not contest glider pilots. Did it
ever occur to you guys that one day the FAA might get fed up with us
glider pilots and start enforcement actions against our tiny
population? Rules are rules and you are supposed to follow them.

Soaring has a terrible safety record and most of it seems due to a bad
attitude at everything related to safety. Hans Langer's tragic
accident occurred just a few weeks ago and the NTSB site says that his
spoilers weren't hooked up. How many deaths have been caused in the
last 10 years because the glider pilot didn't assemble his aircraft
correctly?

Oneday when someone makes a low pass and hurts or kills someone on the
ground or causes a midair, then you can be sure that the FAA will step
in to do something about this stupid practice.





Owain Walters wrote in message ...
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.

When was the last time you climbed to cloudbase?

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Luke 6:41


(Peter W) wrote in message om...
As a low time glider pilot who is getting back into soaring (just
bought a 1-35), I can't believe this thread. The FAA absolutely CAN
regulate people against their own stupidity. They do it with that
thing called the FAR's.

The tone of many on this issue here seems to be that the FAR's are for
the rest of aviation to follow, not contest glider pilots. Did it
ever occur to you guys that one day the FAA might get fed up with us
glider pilots and start enforcement actions against our tiny
population? Rules are rules and you are supposed to follow them.

Soaring has a terrible safety record and most of it seems due to a bad
attitude at everything related to safety. Hans Langer's tragic
accident occurred just a few weeks ago and the NTSB site says that his
spoilers weren't hooked up. How many deaths have been caused in the
last 10 years because the glider pilot didn't assemble his aircraft
correctly?

Oneday when someone makes a low pass and hurts or kills someone on the
ground or causes a midair, then you can be sure that the FAA will step
in to do something about this stupid practice.





Owain Walters wrote in message ...
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.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation
of the FAR's is correct - that busting 500' is, without
exception, a violation in any circumstance other than
final approach to landing. It is not clear to me that
this is necessarily the case, or enforced that way
by the FAA, but put that aside for now.

If we are going to abide by the letter of the law on
FARs, then busting 500' agl ANYWHERE on course should
be grounds for penalty. This could be DQ for the day,
scoring as if you landed at the spot where the infraction
occurred, or whatever is consistent with other FAR
violations under contest rules.

I believe this would include low saves as well as ridgeline
crossings and ridge soaring, etc. In other words, we
would need to enforce a 500' agl hard deck in the scoring
programs, which would need to include an accurate terrain
elevation database. I suspect this is technically not
that hard to do since programs like SeeYou already
have it.

Before going down that path, however, I would want
to see a definitive statement from official FAA sources
that this is in fact the correct interpretation of
the FARs AND that the FAA intends to enforce these
FARs to the letter of the law, rather than only in
those instances that show some form of recklessness
beyond the technicalities alone.

It would be a pity in my view if this happened as I
really like mountain flying and ridge soaring.

9B


At 19:00 03 October 2003, George William Peter Reinhart
wrote:
JJ,
You have a very good point.
Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as
busting 18K?
No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
Rules violations used to be handled that way at the
sailboat races in times
before political correctness was so much the vogue.
Cheers!, Pete


JJ Sinclair wrote in article
...
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

Here is what the local FAA Saftey inspector from the FSDO told me less
than a month ago.
"Just about everyone likes to do a low pass once in a while. I have
even done one in a my Aeronca champ, but no one noticed. The FAR's say
500 feet from any man made object, except for takeoff and landing.
Precedince is a fence post is a man made object. However an occasional
low pass safely done over a runway will usually not get the FAA's
attention. However repeated low passes will result in a visit from you
local FAA inspector and possible certificate action"

That is right from the FAA and perhaps not word for word but you get
the idea. It may be interpreted differently at different FSDO's. But
it seems to mee that our FSDO has a very common sense approach to this
subject.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL



Andy Blackburn wrote in message ...
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation
of the FAR's is correct - that busting 500' is, without
exception, a violation in any circumstance other than
final approach to landing. It is not clear to me that
this is necessarily the case, or enforced that way
by the FAA, but put that aside for now.

If we are going to abide by the letter of the law on
FARs, then busting 500' agl ANYWHERE on course should
be grounds for penalty. This could be DQ for the day,
scoring as if you landed at the spot where the infraction
occurred, or whatever is consistent with other FAR
violations under contest rules.

I believe this would include low saves as well as ridgeline
crossings and ridge soaring, etc. In other words, we
would need to enforce a 500' agl hard deck in the scoring
programs, which would need to include an accurate terrain
elevation database. I suspect this is technically not
that hard to do since programs like SeeYou already
have it.

Before going down that path, however, I would want
to see a definitive statement from official FAA sources
that this is in fact the correct interpretation of
the FARs AND that the FAA intends to enforce these
FARs to the letter of the law, rather than only in
those instances that show some form of recklessness
beyond the technicalities alone.

It would be a pity in my view if this happened as I
really like mountain flying and ridge soaring.

9B


At 19:00 03 October 2003, George William Peter Reinhart
wrote:
JJ,
You have a very good point.
Why not handle violations of the FAR's same way as
busting 18K?
No score for the day (or maybe DSQ for the contest).
Rules violations used to be handled that way at the
sailboat races in times
before political correctness was so much the vogue.
Cheers!, Pete


JJ Sinclair wrote in article
...
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

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

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

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

91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes...

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message m...
"Jonathan Gere" wrote...
JJ - Do you ever make your landing touchdown within 500' of a person,
trailer or runway light, even if it is not necessary?

91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes...

I meant not "necessary for takeoff or landing".

The things I mentioned are not necessary for landing. Lots of people
do them as a normal part of their landing, but they could land at the
far corner of the airport (or off-field) to better follow the FAR's,
if JJ's legal opinions were correct, not ridiculous.

Lots of other people make low passes as a normal part of their
landings, right under the noses of FAA officials, the ones who get a
weekday off with pay visiting glider contests. I guess JJ is right
that low passes are illegal!

The seventh level of hell: eternity with JJ, John Cochrane, and the
guy who determined that rigging a glider required a logbook entry as
preventative maintenance, until the FAR wording was changed.

Jonathan Gere

JJ,

The finish cylinder has its place in competition. But not to the
exclusion of the finish line. Many of us still contend that it is
better to race to a visible marker rather than to a virtual point in
space requiring refernce to instruments. Heads up rather than heads
down. As for the FARs, aircraft regularly take off and land withn 500
feet of people, structures, and other aircraft at commercial airports.
This is by necessity.

An airport manager must balance proactive safety initiatives with
perceived risk versus safety history.

And finally, trailers and tie downs are mobile. Are we there to race
or to recreate? If the latter, call it a camp and dispense with the
racing altogether. Camps are fun too, but let's not confuse them with
contests.

OC

"Chris OCallaghan" wrote...
The finish cylinder has its place in competition. But not to the
exclusion of the finish line. Many of us still contend that it is
better to race to a visible marker rather than to a virtual point in
space requiring refernce to instruments. Heads up rather than heads
down.

Flying head down is never necessary. The center of the finish cylinder is
almost always close to some visible marker on the airport. If it isn't, I ask
the CD to move it so it is. My software beeps when I cross the boundary of the
cylinder, does yours? Finally, I only glance at the computer once in a while to
see if I'm falling below glide slope, which I'd also be doing with a 50 foot
gate. But then again, I'm not anal about finishing at precisely 500 feet...

As for the FARs, aircraft regularly take off and land withn 500
feet of people, structures, and other aircraft at commercial airports.
This is by necessity.

91.119 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes...