On 4/4/2010 1:18 PM, kd6veb wrote:
Hi Gang and Cindy
To me this is a classic example of lack of communications and follow
up. Who's to blame? Both the gliding community (SAA and Pasco) and the
FAA! Could there have been better communications? Absolutely. But
maybe there is little motivation to communicate.
A story. A couple of years ago I thoroughly researched what I should
do with the SparrowHawk. Should I register it experimental, ELSA or
just fly it under Part 103 with no registration. To make sure I got my
facts straight I contacted the local FSDO and had an FAA agent come
and inspect my SparrowHawk to determine if I would be legal under Part
103 and whether I was doing anything that might constitute a danger or
a liability. Nothing negative was found. At the same time I researched
who were the personnel at the FAA in Oklahoma who composed the rules
and regs around the then new LSA class of aircraft. I located the
authors and posed the question of why for a LSA glider was there a VNE
limitation of 120knots whereas for all other LSAs including balloons
there was not this limit? There was no answer and, of course, there is
no rational answer to that question. I then asked the question in
putting together the LSA rules for gliders had they worked with any
glider group such as the SSA or Pasco. No was the answer. So Cindy we
are now in 2010 and things have not changed. There is still no
meaningful dialog between the SSA and the FAA in the generation of
regs and rules. I stand by my original criticism of the SSA. The SSA
has shown itself to be a poor representative of the gliding community
over the years. As agreed by you there is a contradiction in what code
to use for a motor glider - 1200 or 1201. A little thought and better
communications might have avoided this contradiction and also the LSA
glider VNE spec.
Dave

PS If anyone is interested in my full writeup on the SparrowHawk and
the questions and answers whether to register it or not please email
me. If sufficient of you think it would be of interest I could post it
here on RAS.


Does the SSA have any national goals and strategies in its dealings with
the FAA? What are they? How does the SSA keep its members up to date
on what we are trying to accomplish.

To be effective in lobbying, do we have any regularly scheduled meetings
with top officials at the FAA to discuss our concerns and review the
status of initiatives? Do we invite any key FAA officials to our
meetings or our conventions? If so, do we do so in a timely manner, so
we actually have a chance on getting on their busy schedules?

In case we don't have any clearly defined objectives, here are some good
starting points:

1. Finalize and publicize the implementation of the 1201 squawk code,
including updates to the AIM and all related documentation, updates to
computers, training ATC personnel on what behaviors to expect from 1201
aircraft, etc.....

2. Establish certification standards to permit the commercialization of
MITRE's low cost ADS-B technology.

3. Permit pilots and their crews to use ground based fixed, handheld,
and mobile radios in support of glider operations without requiring FCC
ground station licenses (or obtain a blanket FCC license that covers all
SSA members).

One big issue is the lack of any transparency to the SSA membership of
what is going on. If you look at the governmental affairs homepage
(http://ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=8671991229&show=blog), it doesn't look
like there is much happening. Maybe that's not accurate. If there is
stuff going on behind the scenes, it should be made visible to the
membership (meeting schedules, minutes, correspondence, etc....), so
that SSA members who are interested in this area have the chance to
participate in the process.

--
Mike Schumann