Racing airspace "violation" question

At 17:36 08 September 2010, Mike the Strike wrote:

This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
from Tucson Soaring Club. The CD set a long and challenging task that
proved too long, mostly because of a late start. Only one contestant
completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
abandoned.

We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
safest way home from tiger country.


And since no one is mentioned it yet, it is perfectly legal to overfly a
Class C without a transponder and without being in radio contact with the
tower, as long as you are above 10000 ft MSL. This is a fairly common
move in the western half of the US...

Marc

On Sep 8, 12:08*pm, Marc Ramsey
wrote:
At 17:36 08 September 2010, Mike the Strike wrote:



This was the first day of the Southwest Soaring Championships flown
from Tucson Soaring Club. *The CD set a long and challenging task that
proved too long, mostly because of a late start. *Only one contestant
completed the task, three landed out and the rest (including me)
abandoned.

We routinely fly over Tucson Class C as it's often the quickest and
safest way home from tiger country.

And since no one is mentioned it yet, it is perfectly legal to overfly a
Class C without a transponder and without being in radio contact with the
tower, as long as you are above 10000 ft MSL. *This is a fairly common
move in the western half of the US...

Marc

Marc beat me to that. And before anybody challenges him please
carefully read 14 CFR 91.215. This seems to be a common point of
confusion. But it would be much better if people actually have
transponders near Class C or B airspace to begin with.

I am not commenting on whether what the contest rules should or should
not allow overflight. I can see a reason for now wanting contestants
to try to overfly the top of class C or 10,000 MSL and fall into it.

And personally (since John stirred the pot there) I would hope that if
the SSA is going to run contests near Class C airspace then maybe they
ought to consider the need to require transponders in gliders (ouch I
can hear keyboards being pounded out there...).


Darryl

I absolutely agree with the SSA Board's zero-tolerance attitude
towards rules violations.

On the other hand, there are controlled, restricted, and/or prohibited
areas in every contest envelope I've flown in and we routinely assign
tasks that require us to exercise our piloting abilities to remain
clear of this closed airspace. Thanks to GPS loggers, enforcement is
easy, as evidenced by Rule 10.12.1 "Tasks should be set to avoid
flight through closed airspace or areas of high-density traffic." This
somewhat nebulous guidance gives the CD the flexibility to set tasks
even when a straight line between two specific points within turn area
cylinders passes through such airspace. An airspace infraction is easy
to spot on the trace and the consequences for busting this rule are
straightforward and dire. The expansion of closed airspace to include
all airspace above it is, as our Rules Committee reps have said, a
simple way to deal with attempts to cross closed airspace that fail
due to sink or miscalculated glides.

However, I have to take issue with the reasoning that anyone
questioning whether this rule ought to be changed for flights
involving a return from an abandoned task is championing leniency for
violations. As far as I'm concerned, an FAA airspace violation during
a flight that originates from a contest launch should be penalized the
same whether it's outbound on the scorable portion or inbound on the
non-scorable return portion. What's different is the pilot's incentive
to shave the margin a little more closely in the pursuit of speed
points on the scorable portion. Yeah, one could argue that a pilot
might push a little farther before turning around and then be
compelled to fly just as aggressively to return before legal sunset
(or a storm) and thereby be incentivized to take chances with airspace
but, in the words of one of our Rules Committee guys, that seems
pretty remote.

I think we should explore allowing a pilot to overfly Class C and
other closed airspace on the way home after abandoning a task if it's
legal without a transponder or radio contact. I realize this opens the
door to "well, if it's legal for him to go over, why not let me go
through 'cause I've got the required equipment and expertise and it
doesn't give me any extra contest points." But so be it.

Let me ask a different question: would an aero retrieve be permitted
to overfly a Class C on the way back to the contest site without
penalty? I hope so. Yet that flight is also clearly in the scope of an
SSA sanctioned contest. How about a motorglider that lands part way
around, then launches again and motors back, overflying a Class C in
the process?

As long as I'm making trouble, let me offer the notion that
practically speaking, there may be a solution on days such as the one
described here in Rule 5.6.2.4 "Closed airspace is considered closed
at all times, except as specifically announced by the CD." As I read
this, a CD could announce on a questionable day that it was OK to
overfly closed airspace returning from an abandoned task.

Speaking of CDs, I'm reminded of the one a few years ago who decided
to go the extra mile, so to speak, and declared (as per Rule 5.6.2.3)
that all the airspace UNDER the overlying layers of Class C airspace
would also be closed. When queried about the fact that this excluded a
few small airports as potential landing sites, the CD breezily
informed the assembled pilots that there were plenty of fields
available in that area if they had to land out. That this CD was
related to the owner of a local fiberglass repair shop was not thought
to be a factor in this ruling.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA