Class A airspace

Atmospheric pressure, temp difference from the ICAO std atmosphere(ISA)
(4 feet per degree of ISA deviation times the number of thousands of
feet, if I recall correctly - bigger than the pressure differences),
and logger pressure sensor errors all play. My Volkslogger, on the
last 3 calibrations, reads several hundred feet higher than the
calibrated sensor at 18k. Logger pressure sensors are not accurate,
but are repeatably precise... the reason you do the altitude correction
on altitude gain badge applications in most cases. I imagine that a
sensor which was accurate would cost a lot more, which is not something
most folks want with loggers!

So, in my case, if I fly close to 17,999', it can appear I'm in class
A. My OLC claims, however, offer to send a copy of the baro cal
certificate to whoever wants it, to show I was legal on the flight...
Jumping to the conclusion that there is an infraction without the facts
is dangerous. I'm sure that few would post a similar flight without a
reason like mine.

GPS altitude is above the GPS ellipsoid; it is also subject to bigger
errors than the horizontal errors (due to system design). Comparing
pressure and GPS altitude is problematic.

Dan

hans wrote:
In the past there was a function in the OLC that marked every flight
with a possible airspace infringement. The result of the airspace check
was made available to the pilot before the flight was claimable for the
OLC. But the peer pressure was too strong for some of the buddies of Mr.
Rose and so first this feature and later the person that had implemented
this feature were removed from the OLC.


flying_monkey schrieb:
SAM 303a wrote:
What is your point? That we need another set of watchdogs?
We shouldn't condone or copy the behaviour you've identified, but I don't
see how it benefits the sport to point it out to the authorities or make a
stink on RAS.
I bet with a little Googling you could find contact info for The Offender.
If you feel so strongly why don't you contact The Offender?

Geez! I'm not trying to point this out to the authorities, or make any
kind of stink. Oh, yeah, I know that the FAA folks probably read this,
but I bet they'd be a lot more impressed if we started policing this
widely ourselves as a group. We all need to police ourselves so that
we don't break the rules, and on the remote chance that we do, we don't
advertise it to the world. A little peer pressure would work wonders
here. Contacting the offender directly wouldn't do this. It might
correct this one instance, and get that one flight claim retracted, but
if the word is spread wider, maybe people will think before they
infringe or post.

Ed

there are known errors between GPS reported altitude and pressure set
altitude..
BT

"5Z" wrote in message
oups.com...

flying_monkey wrote:
But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
a violation when that function is activated.

I may be wrong, but I don't think SeeYou has a set of rules for pure
altitude based violations. If you define a SUA that covers your area
of interest and has a base of 18K, then it might trigger. I typically
look at the statistics as those show a max altitude.

-Tom

flying_monkey wrote:
The flights I'm talking about both show that they have pressure
altitude sensors. The two airports I checked in the area both showed
baro readings of around 29.82 at the time being examined in the flight,
which could account for 100' of error. But, the takeoff altitudes
match the takeoff airport elevation within 57' at most. The GPS
altitudes reported were as high as 19,000 ft, while the highest
pressure altitude reported was near 18,500. I'm removing one of those
particular flights from my consideration, as the overage was probably
only about 34 feet, and I could easily imagine that his altimeter was
off by that much. The other flight, though, would have almost
certainly indicated as high as 18,400. That's an obvious violation.
But what I'm really curious about is why SeeYou doesn't report this as
a violation when that function is activated.

1. Do you know the pilot didn't have clearance?

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference could easily
have indicated 400' lower than the baro reference you see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.

The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
enjoy.
I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
from further flight.
For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
That should have been included in the remarks section
of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
it with ATC.

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
could easily
have indicated 400' lower than the baro reference you
see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

heck, 6000 ft isn't even pattern altitude where I live! That would really
make it a rotten summer.

dave in boulder


"flying_monkey" wrote in message
ups.com...
OK, I'm puzzled. Maybe you folks can help me understand this. I
looked up the definition of Class A airspace, which is "from 18,000
feet MSL to and including FL600" with few exceptions that don't apply
to the area I'm looking at. I've seen more than one flight posted on
OLC which have a high point above 18,000 feet, up to 18,500 feet. Is
there some fine point I'm not understanding which makes this legal?

Heck, I think it should be illegal to fly in conditions where you could
thermal into the stratosphere. Unless they can make conditions like
that back here in the east, where about 6,000 is the highest I've
gotten all summer.

Thanks in advance,
Ed

flying_monkey wrote:

I don't see how any glider I've seen could be cleared into Class A.

It can be done, however, and a waiver is one way to do it.

Even if the controller says it's OK and gives a clearance, the fact
that the pilot is probably not instrument rated and current, and the
glider is certainly not legally equipped for IFR flight would prevent
you from accepting the clearance. A wave window is different, I think.
That's actually a modification of the airspace, so that where you're
flying isn't Class A.

It is still Class A, but the pilot(s) have been given waivers from the
Class A requirements. A minor point, but important because only pilots
with waivers are allowed into the airspace, not just anybody, even if
the wave window is in operation.


Looking further into the FARs, they could have had traffic assigned to
FL185 that day. The flight under discussion certainly penetrated that
airspace.

I believe, but can't site a regulation or procedure, that ATC keeps at
least 1000' between FL assignments and 18,000 msl. Still, I agree it's
bad behavior, and even if there is a 1000' margin, the glider pilot
should not be using it. It's not a margin anymore, then, is it?

Might not be normal for IFR traffic to be there, but it's
possible. I think I'll set my personal limit to maybe 17,500 (like
I'll ever get a chance to do that. Hah!).

Wave exists back East. Go for it!


Regarding getting the attention of the feds, it doesn't seem smart to
post any flight to OLC which shows a pressure altitude that penetrates
18,000 for even one data point, or a GPS altitude that penetrates that
when corrected for the difference between surface barometric pressure
and 29.92.

It is not possible to do the correction using surface barometric
pressure, because the altimeter and the GPS are measuring two different
things (altimeter-pressure, GPS-height). You would have to know the
atmospheric pressure and temperature from the surface to the glider
before you could convert the GPS measurement to an altimeter reading.
So, we need to stick with the pressure log for these discussions,
because the 18,000 msl is a pressure number.

Also, do you suppose
the pilot changed from the nasal cannula he was probably using for
oxygen to a mask for the time above 18,000'?

Since this isn't part of the logger record, I don't think we have to
worry about stuff like this affecting our "reputation". If he was
getting enough oxygen at 18,000, he's still getting enough even at
19,000, so it's not a safety concern, just a "regulatory" infraction.

I do worry about pilots posting flights that seem to break the rules,
for just the reasons you mention.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration for a Peter
Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt claims from a Peter
Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint, or if the pilot
removed all his flights and registration in protest.

Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s is not the proper
way to addres this. There is a partner check function in the OLC which
should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
olcatssadotorg. We have access to the pilot's email and can contact
them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.

As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can be quite large,
especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace shows a large
unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best to add a note
addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.

The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
enjoy.
I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
from further flight.
For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
That should have been included in the remarks section
of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
it with ATC.

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
could easily
have indicated 400' lower than the baro reference you
see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

Does anyone have links to posted copies of LOA's for wave windows, or
electronic copies they can forward to me via email? I have been looking
into get a wave window set up in PA, but Cleveland Center is not
familiar with the existing wavers set up with other centers. So this
would help me move the process forward.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
A wave window is different

It is still Class A, but the pilot(s) have been given waivers from the
Class A requirements. A minor point, but important because only pilots
with waivers are allowed into the airspace, not just anybody, even if
the wave window is in operation.

A related point is that the waiver is granted through a
Letter of Agreement between the ATC and some other party
(club, commercial operation, etc.). Typically, the LOA
requires that anyone operating under the waiver granted in
that document read the LOA and understand/comply with the
requirements set forth therein. Sometimes this step is
glossed over.

--
T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Doug Haluza wrote:
Does anyone have links to posted copies of LOA's for wave windows, or
electronic copies they can forward to me via email? I have been looking
into get a wave window set up in PA, but Cleveland Center is not
familiar with the existing wavers set up with other centers. So this
would help me move the process forward.

Couple LOAs he http://soarbfss.org/flying.php

I agree, we do NOT need to test the limits of our airspace rules
because the only reason we are allowed to fly in all the airpsace that
we have is because we have not presented ourselves as a threat to other
more important air traffic.

It will just take one downed airliner, or even a close call, to change
all that overnight!!!

Perhaps there was not enough oxygen getting to this individuals brain
at the time either, when 19,000 on the Altimeter did not register
anything significant for him.

If we do this and not manage ourselves our future might be limited to
12,500.

Lets not!

I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact cause
letter from the locally responsible governing organization to reprimand
any pilot that violates important airspace.

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves.

Ray