Youtube Hang Glider Pilot Cloud Flying

[JBlack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVI26Vm_uY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVI26Vm_uY)

[JBlack]

The pilot in that video doesn't think he is doing anything wrong in cloud flying. In reality, he puts many people at risk. The city you can glimpse below is a northern suburb of Los Angeles, Sylmer California.

[Bill Greenwood]

First of all, he's near the clouds, not in them. He seems to have ground contact at all times, even if misty and judging by the sunny blue skies in most views, he has good vfr that way also. You can see a number of other hang gliders bellow him in the background also. So who is he putting at risk? Perhaps you are thinking of an ifr airplane coming through the clouds and hitting him. I dont know the exact area, but unliklely that ifr traffic, in real imc is that low in that spot or is going to insist on going in a cloud when it is blue skie a thousnd feet or so above. And as for as minimum clearanced distances from clouds, those regs may apply to airplanes and and hang glider is not withing those regs. I'll bet he knows where local plane traffic is, just like the hand and para gliders who come off the mountain here, and stay over and near town, not out where planes fly.
I used to hang glide a little, its really fun and I can't ever recall even one accident of a person on the ground being injured by a falling hang glider or parachute. Probably about as common as getting rabies from a Bigfoot bite.

[Mayhemxpc]

I agree with Bill. Note that the film is a compilation of nine different fights taken over several years. MVA is typically 2000 feet above charted obstacle height. Even though he may have been closer to the clouds that VFR rules would allow (it is hard to tell and mist is not a cloud), he doesn't appear to have been anywhere close to 2000 feet above the terrain in the areas depicted. Therefore, I do not believe that "he puts many people at risk." Please note that I have never done any hang gliding and have never had any desire to do so, but I firmly support those who choose that as their aviation activity.

[JBlack]

Part 103.23 says 1000 over, 500 under and 2000 horizontal. Hang gliders fly under Part 103.
There is a reason the FAA doesn't want uls flying in clouds. These were repeated infractions to get youtube video and not accidental.

[Sam Buchanan]

I suspect the FAA will not attempt to violate this hang glider pilot now.............

[Dana]

Part 103.23 says 1000 over, 500 under and 2000 horizontal. Hang gliders fly under Part 103.
There is a reason the FAA doesn't want uls flying in clouds. These were repeated infractions to get youtube video and not accidental.

In class G it's 1 mile viz and cost of clouds. As low as they look they're almost certainly in G.

[FlyingRon]

i disagree. He's in controlled airspace, he's higher than 1200 feet. I also believe he is actually in the clouds (and certainly loses ground contact) at several points.

[JBlack]

i disagree. He's in controlled airspace, he's higher than 1200 feet. I also believe he is actually in the clouds (and certainly loses ground contact) at several points.

If this had been a test question on a FAA exam, Ron was the only one to get it right. I suspect others didn't take it seriously.
For Bill: If bird strikes can bring down an airliner, a 400 lb. meat sack wrapped in dacron and aluminium surely will.
No comment on big foot but if someone says they saw one, who am I to disagree?

[JBlack]

I suspect the FAA will not attempt to violate this hang glider pilot now.............

There were two pilots involved in this ongoing exploitation of these small convergence/condensation clouds. A predictable, local phenomenon, it seems.
One of them gets a pass because something else killed him but the other pilot is still flying and still believes no harm was done.

[JBlack]

I agree with Bill. Note that the film is a compilation of nine different fights taken over several years. MVA is typically 2000 feet above charted obstacle height. Even though he may have been closer to the clouds that VFR rules would allow (it is hard to tell and mist is not a cloud), he doesn't appear to have been anywhere close to 2000 feet above the terrain in the areas depicted. Therefore, I do not believe that "he puts many people at risk." Please note that I have never done any hang gliding and have never had any desire to do so, but I firmly support those who choose that as their aviation activity.

Mist is a cloud when you can't see through it. These guys thermaled up nearby and glided down to 'explore' these convergence/condensation clouds probably more than 9 times to get their highly edited video. If they actually went into the mist/clouds, which they undoubtedly did, it was edited out because white out does not make good youtube video. They are clearly closer than 2000 ft. horizontal to these clouds.

As it is, 9 flights busting FAR 103.23 each flight, is not as forgivable as someone getting sucked up in a thermal and accidentally getting in the mist. It happens.

If any plane happened to punch through the cloud, (you never know) a hang glider is not going to be able to get out of the way. They are slow and slow to deviate even if they knew which way to go.
The population of the whole Los Angeles basin was put at risk every time these hang gliding exploiters went to La La Land, exploring the mist.

[Bill Greenwood]

"If a plane were to punch trough the cloud". I would guess that a hang glider has the same right of way as a glider, or sailplane thus has right of way over a powered plane.
If you really are bothered about a few dozen folks in a 50 lb glider, you could go to your local FAA, FSDO and make a complaint.
Alternately you could contact an attorney and ask about them filing a civil class action suit for damages on behalf of " the population of the whole Los Angeles basin" . The population of just LA is 4 million, and likely 10 million for the whole area, and if you did make it to court, the opposing attorney is going to ask you to show facts of how many of those 10 million who have actually been injured by a hang glider? Got any facts?
Do you or have you ever hang glided yourself?

[rwanttaja]

"If a plane were to punch trough the cloud". I would guess that a hang glider has the same right of way as a glider, or sailplane thus has right of way over a powered plane.

Wrong, Bill.

§103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

Also:

§103.21 Visual reference with the surface.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except by visual reference with the surface.

Take a look at ultralight history. They boomed for a while...then tanked when they started getting a bunch of bad press after accidents occurred. Having a Bonanza run into a hang glider while flying IFR would certainly reflect badly on the sport.

Getting the press on your side for that would be kind of tough. For instance, the FAA is trying to require that all RC aircraft heavier than 0.55 pounds carry, essentially, ADS-B. Not too long ago, a news helicopter in the LA area was clipped by a small UAV. What side of the issue do you think THAT station is going to take?

For that matter...why should a 1-pound RC aircraft flying over Montana be required by the FAA to have a tracker while a ~300-pound hang glider (including pilot weight) operating at the fringe of the LA Class B *not*?

Next step for the FAA will be to require the same systems on all Part 103 aircraft...including hang gliders. This is not the time to tick off the FAA about hang gliders.


If you really are bothered about a few dozen folks in a 50 lb glider...

Damn! That's an impressive glider!

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

In your FArs that you quote, where does it say "hang glider". I think and most pilots likely also that an ultralight is something with an engine, which a hang glider does not have. In the video shown it looks like there is visual contack with the surface. In mist you can often see down through it to the ground if not horizontally just like you might see up toward the sun.

Ron , you could be the expert witness in his class action suit against all those deviate and dangerous hang glider pilots. And if you really want to gather lots of video evidence come out here this spring, and there will be dozens of paragliders, non powered, and even a few hang gliders over the mountain a half mile from me. I have never seen an ultralight up there, that is not anything with a wing or a chute that also has an engine.

PS while you are righting such major wrongs you might want to also go over to the hiking trail 1/4 mile away where some deviates are reputed to hike up and not have their dogs dragging a leash. Do you know the damage that could ensue should one of these dogs jump up and bite an airplane in the bottom of a cloud?
If you do have an actual NTSB accident report of an collision between a hang glider, ( without engine) and an airplane in flight, I would love to see it and would pay $25 for your trouble. Or I will trade you a Big foot sighting report for it.

[rwanttaja]

In your FArs that you quote, where does it say "hang glider". I think and most pilots likely also that an ultralight is something with an engine, which a hang glider does not have.

§103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

(e) If powered....

Sounds like hang gliders are *exactly* what it's describing.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

Don't know where that 155lb limit comes from, it sure doesn't fit the hang gliders I have flown, which are a set of hollow aluminum tubes with a nylon fabric cover, and since you mostly launch by lifting the glider off the ground and running downhill with it, it would take an awfully strong person to do that with anywhere near 155 lbs. I have never weighed one, but just a guess a normal hang glider might weigh 30 lbs?

As for one occupant, well paragliders, ( parachutes) are often flown here tandem and I think sometimes though rarer, hang gliders may be also. If that FAR means hang gliders then they should say it in plain English.

[rwanttaja]

If that FAR means hang gliders then they should say it in plain English.
What's the legal definition of "hang glider"? YOU know what it means, and *I* know what it means, but that doesn't mean our definitions match. It's like "Assault Rifle"; a term that can mean different things to different people.

You don't write regulations using ambiguous terms. If Part 103 said "hang glider," someone might claim the regulation didn't apply to a particular vehicle since it had a seat and the occupant didn't "hang" in it. You might recall this exact situation came up before the implementation of Part 103. The "ultralights" back then had to be "foot launchable" to qualify as "hang gliders."

So the Feds ignore descriptive terms such as "hang glider" and describe "ultralight vehicle" in simple terms that are easy to verify such as weight or number of occupants, and don't restrict the design. If you use the term "hang glider," you're actually limiting the types of air vehicles that might qualify under Part 103. The FAA was smart to avoid the term.

One thing to remember is that Part 103 describes the LOWEST POSSIBLE category of manned air vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's a hang glider, a "sit glider", a rogallo wing, or a fully cantilevered structure using carbon fiber and spider webs. If it doesn't have an engine, only carries one person, and weighs less than 155 pounds, Part 103 applies. Put an engine on it, obey the 255 pound limit, obey the fuel restriction, and you're still good. But if it violates any aspect of the Part 103 rules, then Parts 21/23/43/45/65/91 come into play and the owner's situation is far more complex.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dana]

Hang gliders and paragliders, both powered and unpowered, are ultralights. Unlike most fixed wing ultralights they're actually part 103 compliant. Paragliders didn't even exist when part 103 was written. As for the 155# limit for unpowered ultralights, yes, most modern hang gliders are much lighter, but some designs, like Volmer Jensen's VJ-23 Swingwing of the 1970s as well as the modern ATOS, are 100# or more.

The USHPA has a training exemption for tandem hang gliders and parachutes. BTW, paragliders and parachutes, while somewhat similar in appearance, are very different things, under different regulations (parachutes are part 105).

[JBlack]

In your FArs that you quote, where does it say "hang glider". I think and most pilots likely also that an ultralight is something with an engine, which a hang glider does not have. In the video shown it looks like there is visual contack with the surface. In mist you can often see down through it to the ground if not horizontally just like you might see up toward the sun.

Ron , you could be the expert witness in his class action suit against all those deviate and dangerous hang glider pilots. And if you really want to gather lots of video evidence come out here this spring, and there will be dozens of paragliders, non powered, and even a few hang gliders over the mountain a half mile from me. I have never seen an ultralight up there, that is not anything with a wing or a chute that also has an engine.

PS while you are righting such major wrongs you might want to also go over to the hiking trail 1/4 mile away where some deviates are reputed to hike up and not have their dogs dragging a leash. Do you know the damage that could ensue should one of these dogs jump up and bite an airplane in the bottom of a cloud?
If you do have an actual NTSB accident report of an collision between a hang glider, ( without engine) and an airplane in flight, I would love to see it and would pay $25 for your trouble. Or I will trade you a Big foot sighting report for it.

Again with the Big Foot reference.. and dogs.. Mr. Greenwood, you should quit while you are just behind. You keep digging deeper and deeper.
On the Sylmer hang gliding forum, the maker of the cloud flying video in question pens this thread: "Aircraft Proximity Alertness Reminder"
http://shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4785&sid=802b16c145412e92f12d000491a60767

Aircraft Proximity Alertness Reminder (http://shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4785&sid=802b16c145412e92f12d000491a60767#p19770)



Quote (http://shga.com/forum/phpBB3/posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=19770&sid=802b16c145412e92f12d000491a60767)

Post (http://shga.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=19770&sid=802b16c145412e92f12d000491a60767#p19770) by JD (http://shga.com/forum/phpBB3/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=309&sid=802b16c145412e92f12d000491a60767) » Thu May 14, 2015 5:04 pm
The following encounter occurred on Tuesday. The Cessna Grand Caravan EX that flew past us was approximately 475' from the first glider and 1000' from the second. I have had helicopters come a lot closer than this but not at Sylmar. In two of three encounters I never even heard or saw the helicopter until I was 1/2 second from the closest point. That is simply not enough time to react in a meaningful way. It is a good idea to occasionally turn your body from side to side in order to look behind you. Don't rely on other pilots to tell you where an approaching aircraft is. There are perspective illusions with moving objects when viewed from a third location.
FAR 103.13 requires our vigilance but you already knew that, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_h7DCYzu88

The video has been taken down.
Note that the Grand Caravan incursion happened in May 2015, and yet this same hang glider pilot 'cloud flew' again in December 2015, in the same area.
He also posts the cloud flying video on the Sylmer site where he gets 80 some views and one comment on how great it is.
Hang glider pilots don't know the FARs they fly under. I hope more than Ron gets it here.

What I want to do with this topic is come up with a plan to correct the ignorance of all that need to know better, make it safer for everybody in the air and on the ground and protect Part 103 pilots from people working their best to unwittingly revoke that privilege.

This may be a hard task but should be easier than proving Big Foot exists.

[Bill Berson]

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.

[JBlack]

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.

[JBlack]

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.

[Bill Berson]

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)

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[Airmutt]

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.

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[lnuss]

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 (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aip_html/part2_enr_section_5.2.html) 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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[FlyingRon]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[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 (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?9361-Youtube-Hang-Glider-Pilot-Cloud-Flying/page4)"




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.

[rwanttaja]

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.
Thanks, Dave. I was a satellite driver in the Air Force, we usually just said "Aw, crap," did a bit of analysis of the pre-failure telemetry, and went on to the next bird.

Ron "Looks good to TAG" Wanttaja

[FlyingRon]

There was a big fiasco when the NRO was found to be stockpiling cash in their basement. It was their insurance policy against a launch (or other) catastrophic failure and they had to call up Martin and get another bird quick. When your agency doesn't exist (when I started in the business you couldn't even say NRO in a public forum), you can't go out quickly and get contingency funds or buy insurance from Lloyds. (This leads to another amusing story about one of the commercial satellite companies that had two successive launch failures but were insured, making more money NOT getting the satellites into orbit than if they'd succeed).

[rwanttaja]

There was a big fiasco when the NRO was found to be stockpiling cash in their basement. It was their insurance policy against a launch (or other) catastrophic failure and they had to call up Martin and get another bird quick. When your agency doesn't exist (when I started in the business you couldn't even say NRO in a public forum), you can't go out quickly and get contingency funds or buy insurance from Lloyds.

The US Government always self-insures its launches, but it's sure easier to go to Mutual of Dulles or Lloyds of Chantilly than to submit to the entire acquisition circus again.

A while back we had a launch party for a satellite program I was on. Practically the whole team, plus key Government folks, were there to watch live video of the launch. I was there, with a horrific cold, feeling like death microwaved. Everybody else was excited and jabbering, and I was slumped in the corner looking like Jabba the Hut with the clap.

My sinuses were stuffed, my nose was running, my head was pounding. I had been lead engineer...but my job wasn't over yet. I was going to have to come in at 4 AM the next day, as I was Test Conductor for the first acquisition and initialization of the new satellite.

I was not looking forward to that.

I was actually half-hoping that the launch WOULD fail, that the satellite would end up in the drink, and I'd be able to take a couple days off as sick leave. We had additional satellites in the pipeline, and it'd been easy to restart production to replace a missing bird. I'd be able to sack in, dose up, and try to get over the bug.

No such luck...or rather, good luck and the launch was flawless. Came in at 4 AM for first acquisition. Funny how Sudafed and adrenaline will perk you up.


(This leads to another amusing story about one of the commercial satellite companies that had two successive launch failures but were insured, making more money NOT getting the satellites into orbit than if they'd succeed).

A civilian satellite program I worked in the '90s was working to a hard deadline, to get a satellite into orbit to demonstrate technology prior to a particular international conference. This was scheduled for a launch on Pegasus, the rocket carried by an L-1011 and launched at ~40,000 feet.

Unfortunately, Pegasus suffered a failure on an earlier launch and our launch got delayed until past the date of the conference. We'd lost the primary reason for the launch.

But when the time finally came, the satellite solar arrays didn't deploy. There had been some rare rains in the Mojave, and apparently, water got into the launch fairing and froze, locking the arrays in the stowed position.

The company instantly filed for the insurance, and they had their money back again.

However....about 30 days after launch, the solar arrays opened and the satellite activated. Best guess is that the ice had sublimated away. The insurance company now owned the bird, though, and instructed the operators to shut it down. We did learn that our payload *did* activate normally, but there never was any testing or demonstration performed.

Ron Wanttaja

[FlyingRon]

I'm familiar with Pegasus. There's one in the Udvar-Hazy center with the name "Maggie" on it named after the daughter of Orbital's founder David Thompson. I went down on a tour with a bunch of Smithsonian docents to see various things in the Phoenix/Tuscon area (Davis Monthan, the Titan and PIMA museums) which included one of Orbital's facilities. Catherine Thompson was along on the trip. We got a great tour of the Orbital facility after Catherine modestly says "My husband works for Orbital."

[rwanttaja]

I'm familiar with Pegasus. There's one in the Udvar-Hazy center with the name "Maggie" on it named after the daughter of Orbital's founder David Thompson. I went down on a tour with a bunch of Smithsonian docents to see various things in the Phoenix/Tuscon area (Davis Monthan, the Titan and PIMA museums) which included one of Orbital's facilities. Catherine Thompson was along on the trip. We got a great tour of the Orbital facility after Catherine modestly says "My husband works for Orbital."
Orbital was the spacecraft integrator on the civilian program I mentioned, and we integrated our Boeing payload with their bus at the facility north of Dulles. I always was impressed with Orbital...less bureaucratic, younger engineers, more willing to take risks.

Strangely enough, on THAT program, I never saw a Pegasus rocket myself. But about five years earlier, we'd been investigating using a Pegasus for a Government program I was on, and me and a fellow engineer (eventually we were partners in a Stinson) traveled to Edwards to visit the Pegasus folks there. Got a view of a vehicle getting ready to have the payload(s) integrated....
http://www.wanttaja.com/pegasus.jpg
Top picture shows the overall vehicle, bottom picture shows Stage 3 and the payload attachment plate. The fairing covers Stage 3 as well as the payloads. Payloads on a Pegasus are integrated horizontally, rather than vertically like most US rockets. Russians tend to do horizontal integration, too.

And, of course, Scaled Composites built the wing.

Ron Wanttaja

[dougbush]

IFR pilots are required to remain 2000 feet above and 4 miles away from mountains. (91.177)
Except as necessary for takeoff and landing.