Gentlemen,
I suggest that we are being trolled.
Gentlemen,
I suggest that we are being trolled.
And this is where your logic fails. There are people capable of coming up with reasoned odds of an accident happening with every cloud flying incident. The odds go up with the amount of people and planes in the area. The chances go up with total time hiding in and around clouds.
One doesn't have to be a professor of probabilities to know that the chances of something bad happening with cloud flying are not zero.
Your argument hinges on the assertion that the odds of mayhem is equal to zero.
Who said they don't care?I'm not surprised the FAA doesn't care.
I don't believe that to be the case.Just proving who "Vicarious Icarus" is likely to be expensive (note I said, PROVING, not knowing).
I don't think anything anything here needs to be quantified to 'justify the expenditure'. This is the Federal Government, after all.The FAA is going to need to quantify the additional safety achieved through prosecution...and, as you say, the safety impact is "un-calculatable." Without a known near-miss, without an physical witness, without a quantifiable increase of safety to justify the expenditure, the FAA isn't going to care.
I don't think the FAA will have any of the problems you are worried about in their decision to act on these incidents. Video doesn't lie. We know who did it. We know when it happened, where it happened and the big question, why it happened.The FAA is used to going after specific N-Numbers, with aircraft logbooks and traceable ownership, and pilots with valuable certificates that can be held hostage to their own actions. The FAA enforcement process is less "American Idol" than "The Batchelorette" ... a bunch of whiny men, a bunch of exaggerated claims, and at the end, someone gets s***wed.
Ron Wanttaja
The why... it's the big ol' ME generation. Look at ME! The youtube generation!
Hang glider pilots molesting clouds for your viewing pleasure in violation of FAR 103.23.
What's the chance anything could go wrong.. ?
Bwahaha! Don't know a thing about the way Government works, do you?
The FAA gets a budget, and the budget is distributed to the various aspects of the agency. The enforcement portion of the FAA doesn't have a blank check. It designates its goals for the coming year to justify its budget.
Taking a course which (a) Attempts to prosecute someone who doesn't have an FAA license, and hence can't be "stopped" from operation, (b) Attempts to assign and collect a fine against someone whose assets are apparently limited to a few hang gliders, and (c) Can show no quantifiable improvement in safety? THAT ain't going to gain anyone promotion, at the FAA. To the contrary, it could be considered as a waste of taxpayer money, and result in DECREASED budgets, next year.
The only time the government has unlimited funds is when member of the establishment have political goals to be achieved.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited by rwanttaja; 01-27-2020 at 08:50 PM.
The stench of a deceased and badly flagellated horse is really getting strong.........
Indeed. If we're going to complain about theoretically busting cloud clearances... well, let he among us who has not sinned cast the first stone. Can you really guarantee that you've never once been 499 feet below an overcast layer? Not I.
But... immaterial. The videos mean zip. Camera angles and lenses can easily be used to make things look bigger or smaller, closer or farther away, all for dramatic effect. If you want someone to file a formal complaint with the FAA (which will very likely be summarily ignored), I'd advise doing it yourself. Or perhaps get the hang glider pilot to do it. There is apparently now only one actual witness.
(From Wikipedia)One of the most famous stories in the book is Don Quixote's fight with the windmills. He sees some windmills and thinks they are giants. When he rides to fight with them, he is knocked off his horse. Sancho tells him they are only windmills, but Don Quixote does not believe him. He is sure a magician changed windmills into the giants to hurt him.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
I have always believed that trolls are like stray alley cats - if one feeds them, they will keep coming back - lol
"Don't believe everything you see or read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln
It's not a theory.
I've been sucked up into a cloud once, but not on purpose.Can you really guarantee that you've never once been 499 feet below an overcast layer?
It was nowhere near the approach areas of any airport or city of any size. I did not seek to repeat the accidental incursion a minimum of 18 times.
It's clear that the horizontal clearance was less than 2000 ft. a minimum of 18 times. The cloud flying incursions were planned. They did not thermal up below cumulus clouds in turbulence. They glided down from a higher altitude to these smooth air, convergence/condensation clouds. Their altitude was not hard earned. There was nothing noble in how they got there.The videos mean zip. Camera angles and lenses can easily be used to make things look bigger or smaller, closer or farther away, all for dramatic effect. If you want someone to file a formal complaint with the FAA (which will very likely be summarily ignored), I'd advise doing it yourself.
The hang glider pilot doesn't think he did anything wrong or unsafe. He is probably still doing it.Or perhaps get the hang glider pilot to do it.
There are about 1500 witnesses, last time I checked youtube.There is apparently now only one actual witness.
Wolfgang Siess: Morning Coffee
Niederhorn to Interlaken /Switzerland
Raw and uncut. No music.
This is the same place as the American tourist took the infamous 'unhooked' flight, hanging from the control bar.
(I would like to shake that guys hand but I'm afraid he might crush mine.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMZsFGIOkA0
Last edited by JBlack; 01-29-2020 at 03:10 PM.