Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46

Thread: Youtube Hang Glider Pilot Cloud Flying

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    The ultralight or certificated glider pilot is legal if 1200agl (above the mountain) and clear of clouds. So it's a good idea for the faster airplane pilots to avoid these glider zones. Because even though the ultralight is legally suppose to give way, it can't easily if a fast airplane comes from behind.
    The sailplane pilot has the legal right of way over the airplane pilot. So best for the airplane pilot to avoid these glider areas.
    The exception you are referencing says that a Part 103 pilot can fly closer to the clouds < Clear> of the clouds at LESS altitude than 1200 ft. AGL, regardless of MSL.
    That's not what was happening in these repeated incursions.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    Because even though the ultralight is legally suppose to give way, it can't easily if a fast airplane comes from behind.
    It can't easily get out of the way with a fast plane coming from the side or head on, either. Every plane is a fast plane compared to a hang glider.
    Has anyone ever seen three C 130s coming through at 300 ft., from the air in a hang glider at 400 ft., on a 300 ft. ridge site?
    I have, with no clouds involved. It gets your attention and as slow as they were, it would have been hard to get out of the way, if it made any difference.
    And you got a better chance of hearing a C 130 coming.

    The sailplane pilot has the legal right of way over the airplane pilot. So best for the airplane pilot to avoid these glider areas.
    Good idea, but sailplanes and 103s sometimes fly in places not marked on Sectionals.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by JBlack View Post
    The exception you are referencing says that a Part 103 pilot can fly closer to the clouds < Clear> of the clouds at LESS altitude than 1200 ft. AGL, regardless of MSL.
    That's not what was happening in these repeated incursions.
    That may be, I couldn't say either way. If the mountain was on his left, the camera wouldn't show it.
    Obviously, some will skirt or violate the VFR minimums.
    If a VFR airplane collided with that violation hang glider the airplane would be in VFR violation also.
    IFR pilots are required to remain 2000 feet above and 4 miles away from mountains. (91.177)

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,554
    Mr. Black, I find it a little hard to believe that a Cessna Caravan is flying as low as the hang gliders in that video and especially near or in a cloud. I don't know the area of Sylmar, but perhaps you do and everything you say is on the up and up, just the facts. I do think you exaggerate just a bit when you say the population of the L A Basin is endangered by them. And along with your personal insult toward me, you still don't seem to have any damage or fatals between hang gliders and airplanes.
    I was trying to be polite but use a little humor at the same time, but frankly it seems to me trying to make a problem for someone else where there is not much risk. You never have said if you fly or have flown hang gliders, perhaps that is part of the mystery.
    I used to live in San Diego, near Blacks Beach and the glider port there. It is really just a flat place on top of the hill overlooking the beach, but sailplanes have flown there and there were often half dozen hang gliders soaring right in the updraft that comes from the sea breeze. I thought they were great, and had a beauty and a freedom. If you were there perhaps you could have pointed out to everyone how they were putting the entire population at risk, but it never occurred to me to look at it in a negative way. I learned to fly both airplanes and hang gliders in San Diego, never thought to have an animosity one for the other, but what do I know, Im not a part 103 expert.
    And finally, what you say seems so negative to me, but I'm not there. You think you are right and who knows you might be and have found a problem that really exists.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 01-16-2020 at 06:51 AM.

  5. #25
    Airmutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NW. Atlanta GA
    Posts
    244
    I got the opportunity to do a lot of low level flying with the Air Force in C-141s collecting wing strain data. We were on a published low level route rocking along at 300 knots and overstressed the ship both positive and negative avoiding a Bonanza screwing around at 300 ft AGL. Right or wrong if your down in the weeds ya got to keep your head on a swivel.

    Living in NW Atlanta we get overflown by the Guard Hercs coming out of Dobbins ARB on their LL training routes every Tuesday and Thursday evening. On the ground one can hear them coming but I seriously doubt if airborne you would ever know what hit ya.
    Dave Shaw
    EAA 67180 Lifetime
    Learn to Build, Build to Fly, Fly for Fun

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,554
    Dave, as one of the Bonanza pilots who are often "screwing around" down there at 300 ft AGL when for instance I am taking off or landing, are you as a military crew aware of FAR 91.117 which says no speed above 250 knots indicated below 10,000 ft? Is a military flight subject to an FAA FAR?
    I will admit I might have fudged that speed limit a few times but most often above 10,000 at least MSL.

  7. #27
    lnuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    195
    Bill,

    Back in the 1970s, Cannon AFB invited GA pilots to the base (fly-in, even) to learn about military low-level routes. Among other things, the F-111s that were based there were often exceeding 500 kts on these low level routes, learning to use their terrain following radar (TFR) and such. So while ordinary military flights are operated within the FARs, low level routes may have extremely high speeds and extremely low altitude use (within 100-200 ft of the ground). Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
    Military training routes are aerial corridors across the United States in which military aircraft can operate below 10,000 feet faster than the maximum safe speed of 250 knots that all other aircraft are restricted to while operating below 10,000 feet. The routes are the result of a joint venture between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense to provide for high-speed, low-altitude military activities.
    The FAA's Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) ENR 5.2 section 4 discusses these routes.

    These routes are also shown on Sectionals and TACs.

    BTW, the FAR about 250 kts you refer to (91.117), paragraph 'd' says:
    (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

    Granted that's a rarely used exception.

    Larry N.

  8. #28
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Dave, as one of the Bonanza pilots who are often "screwing around" down there at 300 ft AGL when for instance I am taking off or landing, are you as a military crew aware of FAR 91.117 which says no speed above 250 knots indicated below 10,000 ft? Is a military flight subject to an FAA FAR?
    Actually, no, not automatically. They're considered "Public Aircraft Operations" and many aspects of the FARs don't apply to them. See Advisory Circular AC No: 00-1.1B. The military often implements aspects of the FARs into their own regs, though.

    Also, 14CFR 91.117 has the magic words, "Unless otherwise authorized by the administrator." We had a Presidential TFR over Seattle about ten or so years back; somebody in a Cessna came wandering down from the north and the sicced two F-15s on him (the Cessna, not the President). The Eagles flew over Seattle at over Mach 1; nearly knocked me out of my chair at work. You can bet the pilots weren't charged with FAR violations. In fact, the prohibition against sonic booms (14CFR 91.918) specifically excludes military aircraft...but they still were above 250 knots.

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by rwanttaja; 01-16-2020 at 11:31 AM.

  9. #29
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC26 (Catawba, NC)
    Posts
    2,322
    Actually, they're military aircraft operations. Public aircraft operations covers non-military, but still government-owned aircraft. The Maryland State Police got into some hot water for not maintaining their helicopters to FAA standards because, as a public aircraft, they weren't obliged to.

  10. #30
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,448
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingRon View Post
    Actually, they're military aircraft operations. Public aircraft operations covers non-military, but still government-owned aircraft.
    You're right, Ron...it's in the AC:

    8.4 Are All Operations by the Armed Forces PAO? Not necessarily; the U.S. Military is
    covered under a separate paragraph of the statute (49 U.S.C. 40125(c)) to include much
    of its routine operation.


    Ron Wanttaja

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •