![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Carrying flight gear on the airlines | Peter MacPherson | Piloting | 20 | November 25th 04 12:29 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |