Youtube Hang Glider Pilot Cloud Flying

[FlyingRon]

And for those who are digging in the US Code, Public Aircraft is defined in 40102 and 40105.. It's not enough that it be owned by a government agency, you have to use it for a government function (and no selling rides or other commercial activity).

[WLIU]

I have not looked at the minutia of those sections, but my understanding is that aircraft on contract to a government agency also qualify as public use aircraft. I believe that the air tanker fleet operates that way, contracted to USFS, BLM, and CDF.

Best of luck,

Wes

[Bill Greenwood]

It would be borderline insanity for a F 111 or any other to be flying 500k at ground level in traffic. If they are going to do that, it should be in one of the many military restricted areas than can extend from ground to 18,000 feet. Anyone who designs one of these low level routes to go through an area where there is a lot of other traffic at low level would be foolish.
I don't think military planes flying at high speeds have anything to do with this topic of hang glider flying. I flew hang gliders in 3 locations in California in the middle of military bases and never saw a military plane anywhere near.
If you were in command of a B-52 and the plane and crew were lost because you ran over a hang glider at low level and high speed Ithink it would be major strike against one.

[rwanttaja]

If you were in command of a B-52 and the plane and crew were lost because you ran over a hang glider at low level and high speed Ithink it would be major strike against one.

Not if the low-level, high-speed flight were authorized and within the designated area.

Ron "What was that?" Wanttaja

[Airmutt]

Hey Bill, you can sleep well tonight knowing that you and your Bonanza won’t get run over by an F-111 doing 500 knots...,they’ve been out of the inventory for 20 plus years.

I didn’t see this thread as strictly about hang gliders but more about stupid people doing stupid things and potentially threatening other aviators.

[Bill Greenwood]

Dave, you may see it as anyway you chose. but the title in the first post on the topic said "hang gliders flying in clouds."
And Ron if you lose a valuable plane like a B-52 not to mention the crew and the likely public relations fall out and possible legal trouble from running into a hang glider at high speed and low altitude without being in restricted and protected airspace and no way to identify and avoid traffic, there is going to be " hell to pay" to quote one officer to a pilot. They are not going to pat the pilot if he lives or the commander above that crew on the back and say, "tough luck, heres a promotion for you", and let's hope than none of the reporters for the major media ask what you were doing at that speed and that low in an area known to be heavy with civilian flying activity. Do you think one of the widows or parents of the crew lost on the B-52 might contact their Senator and get an investigation. Might see it on "60 minutes" or do you think it would just blow over?
Sully in the airliner into the Hudson didn't lose a single life, but they still had a heck of an inquisition to try to pin the blame on the pilots.

[JBlack]

Dave, you may see it as anyway you chose. but the title in the first post on the topic said "hang gliders flying in clouds."

Actually it said "Youtube Hang Glider Pilot Cloud Flying"

And Ron if you lose a valuable plane like a B-52 not to mention the crew and the likely public relations fall out and possible legal trouble from running into a hang glider at high speed and low altitude without being in restricted and protected airspace and no way to identify and avoid traffic, there is going to be " hell to pay" to quote one officer to a pilot. They are not going to pat the pilot if he lives or the commander above that crew on the back and say, "tough luck, heres a promotion for you", and let's hope than none of the reporters for the major media ask what you were doing at that speed and that low in an area known to be heavy with civilian flying activity. Do you think one of the widows or parents of the crew lost on the B-52 might contact their Senator and get an investigation. Might see it on "60 minutes" or do you think it would just blow over?
Sully in the airliner into the Hudson didn't lose a single life, but they still had a heck of an inquisition to try to pin the blame on the pilots.

Now I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you changing your previous opinion that the cloud flying is no big deal? Do you still think it is not a violation of 103.23?

[JBlack]

Hey Bill, you can sleep well tonight knowing that you and your Bonanza won’t get run over by an F-111 doing 500 knots...,they’ve been out of the inventory for 20 plus years.

I didn’t see this thread as strictly about hang gliders but more about stupid people doing stupid things and potentially threatening other aviators.

These pilots were stupid. Then they post the video evidence as proof of their ignorance.
To do so and not expect to be called on their ignorance, is arrogance.
Over the years it has been made clear to me that ignorance and arrogance often go together.

The hang glider pilot that posted the video has admitted he broke FAR 103.23.
He should have just pleaded ignorance but then again, arrogance.

The goal in bringing all of this up here is to form a consensus among enough people to correct the ongoing dismissal of these repeated cloud infractions.
Two pilots X minimum 9 incursions X 12 million people put at risk per second of total time hiding behind and in the clouds. What are the odds something bad could happen?
Bill doesn't think the odds of a collision are high enough to worry about.
I think the odds of a collision happening are inevitable, given enough time hiding in the clouds.
The video is very edited. How many seconds in time are actually flown in violation of 103.23?
How much raw video exists and why does this pilot pull down a video of a close encounter with a Caravan?
Did it show violations of 103.23 or was that just a common clear sky near miss?
A near miss when someone is in the wrong place is nearly the same as a collision.
A drunk driver in a collision is always at fault, even if he didn't actually cause the collision.

I would like to see a letter of rebuke from a real flying organization to the USHPA and to this pilot, and all hang gliding pilots, seeking correction of this ongoing ignorance.
USHPA is run like a mafia organization. Keep that in mind as this project develops.
It's pretty much run by one lawyer and a puppet or two.
They have a history of cover-up and FAR violations.

[rwanttaja]

And Ron if you lose a valuable plane like a B-52 not to mention the crew and the likely public relations fall out and possible legal trouble from running into a hang glider at high speed and low altitude without being in restricted and protected airspace and no way to identify and avoid traffic, there is going to be " hell to pay" to quote one officer to a pilot.

Read what I said: It wouldn't be a major strike against the pilot if the low-level flight WAS authorized, and in a designated area for low-level operations. There wouldn't be an offense to charge the pilot with, if he or she was following legitimate orders. But with your spotty understanding of the FARs, expecting you to know anything about the UCMJ is a bit too much to ask.

.... let's hope than none of the reporters for the major media ask what you were doing at that speed and that low in an area known to be heavy with civilian flying activity. Do you think one of the widows or parents of the crew lost on the B-52 might contact their Senator and get an investigation. Might see it on "60 minutes" or do you think it would just blow over?

Oh, there are those some wishing to gain some political fallout over any military accident. There certainly might be ramifications, politically, for the Air Force. But, again, not for the crew...not if they were operating per orders.

A reverse example might be when a Marine A-6 crew struck a cable-car wire and resulted in the deaths of 20 people. The crew were operating contrary to orders, flying too low in an area they weren't cleared for. They were acquitted of the deaths, but were cashiered for destroying evidence. Not a good PR day for the Marines.

Accidents have to be investigated, and the process is not enjoyable to anyone involved in the process. But that doesn't mean all pilots involved get reamed. You ought to know that better than anyone, Bill.

Ron Wanttaja

[Airmutt]

Ron the way I remembered it was if there was a military aircraft involved in a accident or incident there was a non-punitive safety investigation. This typically looked at procedures, manuals, material defects etc and recommended changes to prevent future occurrences. Then there was an Accident Investigation Board which determined cause and fault. Best case scenario the crew is cleared of fault and returned to flight status. Worst case one lost their wings which is essentially a career killer. If the cause of the event was found to be due to misconduct or gross negligence then a court martial could be recommended. If I recall correctly an investigation to determine that there is sufficient finding of facts to proceed to a CM was required before a court could be convened as prescribed the UCMJ.