Class A airspace

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'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?

It appears you are talking about the USA. Flight above 18K is illegal
without ATC authorization of some sort (wave window or IFR clearance).
The clearance issues have been discussed in other threads. When
posting a flight that could be questioned, please add a comment to
indicate the extenuating circumstances involved.

See http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/OLC.htm for the SSA's
position regarding the posting of "questionable" flights. It's up to
the participants to maintain peer pressure on anyone who blatantly
violates FARs.

The altitude displayed when looking at an IGC trace, is based on
standard pressure (altimeter set to 29.92). To find the true altitude
at any point, one needs to locate an official weather reporting station
near the piont in question, and look up the actual pressure at the time
(I use http://wunderground.com). 1" of mercury is 1,000', so it is
possible to see altitudes several hundred feet about 18,000'.

Remember, soaring and the OLC are fun activities, and we don't want the
FAA to step in and add huge restrictions. We have some of the best
airspace access in the world - let's not blow it by condoning improper
and illegal behavior.

-Tom

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.

Ed

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

5Z wrote:
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


Hallooo:
WinPilot, etc warn close to Class A or Restricted, unless the
function is turned off or your airspace file is old or corrupt. (The
airspace file, not the pilot!) I don't think that any program or the
OLC would flag you for being within 500 feet of a structure on a ridge
flight though. You might find a few instances of that violation if
you're bored enough to look. (ie: it's rained for a week and you feel
like being a Fed)
Agreed, if you talk to ATC and get clearance into Class A or a
restricted area; an option we all may excercise; it would be best noted
in pilot comments of OLC flights. Not sure how to explain permission to
fly 300' over a ski lift, though!
It's nice to cruise the Whites, but sometimes I miss ridge flying.
Jim

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?


"flying_monkey" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Ed

JS wrote:
5Z wrote:
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


Hallooo:
WinPilot, etc warn close to Class A or Restricted, unless the
function is turned off or your airspace file is old or corrupt. (The
airspace file, not the pilot!) I don't think that any program or the
OLC would flag you for being within 500 feet of a structure on a ridge
flight though. You might find a few instances of that violation if
you're bored enough to look. (ie: it's rained for a week and you feel
like being a Fed)
Agreed, if you talk to ATC and get clearance into Class A or a
restricted area; an option we all may excercise; it would be best noted
in pilot comments of OLC flights. Not sure how to explain permission to
fly 300' over a ski lift, though!
It's nice to cruise the Whites, but sometimes I miss ridge flying.
Jim

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

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

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. SeeYou will certainly tell you about this if you look
carefully, and I'm sure other programs will too. 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'? If we as a community keep
giving out enough information (and rope), the public or the feds will
happily hang us with that rope.

Can you actually get permission to overfly that ski lift? And, can you
anticipate it far enough in advance to ask? Many ridges have the
occasional house along the top, you'd have to have permission for each
one of those, too. The ridge is certainly fun, but thermalling into
Class A, can you imagine that? I've got to move back out west. (Wife
says, "No chance.") Maybe I can make a deal with her for a week at
Minden or someplace. It would take too long to tow the glider out
there, so it'll have to be someplace where I can fly into and rent
something decent.

Ed

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

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

One more thing to consider is that loggers have errors as much as 500ft
at these altitudes, and without seeing the logger calibration data it
is not possible to determine if the glider was in class A airspace. We
shouldn't penetrate class A airspace, (I had to open spoilers recently
to avoid it, as flying at 120 knots wouldn't do) but no doubt anyone
who flies without a transponder, although it is legal, is posing much
higher risk to commercial traffic then someone with a transponder who
accidentally brush class A....

Ramy

flying_monkey wrote:
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