Help From The EAA to Save FAR Part 103

[JBlack]

Please watch this video of cloud flying with the sound off and comment here if you see a violation of FAR Part 103.23, ... or not.
I would like to get a few pilots that understand, as I do, that this cloud flying on the fringe of LAX airport is a danger to pilots, passengers and people that live in the Los Angeles area
and is a danger to our privilege to fly under the rules and regulations of FAR Part 103.

Please turn the sound off on the video and be cognizant of the fact that 2 hang glider pilots made this video, edited from a minimum of nine different flights.
Thus, a minimum of 18 infractions.
Tell us what you think.
Signed, Concerned hang glider pilot

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

[FlyingRon]

How is this thread likely to be any different than the last one you started on this subject? http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?9361-Youtube-Hang-Glider-Pilot-Cloud-Flying&p=79592#post79592

[JBlack]

How is this thread likely to be any different than the last one you started on this subject? http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?9361-Youtube-Hang-Glider-Pilot-Cloud-Flying&p=79592#post79592
I would hope that it will not be hijacked. by extraneous subjects such as happened on the other thread. Should have spelled that out more clearly?
Also, this thread is more specific. It asks for a specific action.

[Sam Buchanan]

I would hope that it will not be hijacked. by extraneous subjects such as happened on the other thread. Should have spelled that out more clearly?
Also, this thread is more specific. It asks for a specific action.

What is the specific action you wish to see occur?

[JBlack]

What is the specific action you wish to see occur?

Thank you for asking for clarification.
Because of a history of USHPA oversight in not responding to pilot's concerns regarding illegal and unsafe practices, and because these repeated cloud flying infractions put people, property and Part 103 at serious risk, I am asking for a quorum of pilots to come together to force action against this dangerous practice.

Part of this would entail an educational aspect for all pilots to benefit in knowledge and purpose of cloud separation FARs.

These rules are constructed for a purpose and it seems a lot of people don't understand their importance to the safety of everyone.
The video invokes an unreal dream state consciousness that belies a true danger that can not be calculated or justified in order to get a youtube following of uninformed people.

This is why I asked that the video be watched without the mesmerizing musical accompaniment. Do not be lulled into the La La Land mentality that goes with this video. These pilots repeatedly conspired to dive down on these semi-stationary convergence clouds that happen to occur predictably on the fringes of LAX airport.

It may be one thing if they did this in the middle of nowhere, still illegal, but the risk taken would be much less. As it is, they did it in about as bad a location as possible.

So perhaps at this level, something in the form of a grassroots petition could start action against this ill considered 'selfie' (selfish) video taping as it sends the wrong message to the uninformed, who may seek to emulate the practice.

To leave the video up is a disservice to safe flying practice. To take it down without remedy to the damage it may cause, is also a concern.

The ' Vicarious Icarius' youtuber knows he has broken FARs but does not recognize the continuing harm he is doing by leaving the video up.
I believe the only way to reverse some of the damage done is to make an educational public example of these infractions.
Something more than a slap on the wrist.

Beyond a pilot's petition from the grassroots, staging up, a letter of rebuke from the EAA organization to the USHPA organization would be informational, educational and very effective. As I said, the USHPA is not responsive to the safety concerns of ordinary hang glider pilots.
They are more a corporation for the milking of profit out of what use to be a true non profit organization. (USHGA)
Maybe their legal team might take notice if a representative organization such as the EAA, sent them an informational letter.

I hope this clears up where I'm coming from.
At this point I would like to get comments on how to move forward, in order to save people, property and Part 103.
I don't need USHPA in order to fly.
Part 103, is another story..

[JBlack]

Here is an excerpt from the comment section of the video we are talking about.
Knowing that some negative comments have been deleted, I am surprised that Jonathan D. has let this one through.


Add a public comment...
Joseph Lorenz

7 hours ago
How the heck do you safely maintain visual separation from powered aircraft flying in and around clouds like that?? If you're not careful, I fear you'll be prematurely joining your friends who now fly in spirit, or worse, causing it for someone else...
----------

Vicarious Icarus (Jonathan D.)

7 hours ago
There are never any powered aircraft in any of the locations flown in this video except when it is clear and cloud free. Why? Because I'm in the mountains and without combat aircraft terrain following radar autopilot they'd all strike either the mountains or high tension wires. It's a fair a reasonable question and merits a factual answer.

[Sam Buchanan]

So why would these 'free spirits' who see no need to comply with common sense and/or FARs react favorable to a hand-slap from some profit-oriented organization??

I understand your frustration....but I think your time would be better spent enjoying your hang glider in a responsible manner rather than fretting over folks who are going to do what they want to do regardless.......

Part 103 shenanigans have been occurring since its institution, its very nature can be attractive to those who possess an anti-authority attitude. Trying to bring more enforcement because of a few rebels will not end well for the multitude who enjoy the liberties of 103 responsibly.

[JBlack]

So why would these 'free spirits' who see no need to comply with common sense and/or FARs react favorable to a hand-slap from some profit-oriented organization??

It should be more than a hand slap. Losing their membership in USHPA is not enough but it is the minimum that the crack legal team at USHPA should impose.



I understand your frustration....but I think your time would be better spent enjoying your hang glider in a responsible manner rather than fretting over folks who are going to do what they want to do regardless.......

Part 103 shenanigans have been occurring since its institution, its very nature can be attractive to those who possess an anti-authority attitude. Trying to bring more enforcement because of a few rebels will not end well for the multitude who enjoy the liberties of 103 responsibly.

18 violations/sanctions/fines from the FAA will send the correct message to the rebels that put Part 103 at risk to the multitude.
Why ignore these repeated offenses to all of us?

[JBlack]

The USHPA sells it's importance to hang glider pilots as the self regulating go-between with the FAA.
They don't seem to be able to carry out their mission.
The Executive Officer pays himself about $130,000 a year.
The corporate lawyer surely does better, but we are not privy to that info.

[JBlack]

I understand your frustration....but I think your time would be better spent enjoying your hang glider in a responsible manner rather than fretting over folks who are going to do what they want to do regardless.......

So if your neighbor and his friend show up one day and they say, hey, we've been sneaking into your children's rooms at night and stealing things from your home, what would your response be?
Let it go, because they are probably just going to do what they want, regardless?
Wait, your other neighbor says. There is video. They broke in 18 times and it is all recorded!
They are bragging about it on youtube to all their fans! You aren't going to do anything about it, because....




Part 103 shenanigans have been occurring since its institution,
Well, that settles that..


its very nature can be attractive to those who possess an anti-authority attitude.
Anti-authority types.. got it.
Wait! I'm kinda anti-authority!


Trying to bring more enforcement because of a few rebels will not end well for the multitude who enjoy the liberties of 103 responsibly.
Asking criminals to answer for their acts is too much to ask for in such a lawless society that we have become?
Rebels without a cause get to do whatever they want or else the multitude that obeys the law will suffer.
Who needs 103, anyway? .... I can think of a few.
If only they would speak up while there is still time..

[Mayhemxpc]

You do realize that the group of people who read this thread will be the same group of people who read the other thread you started. Personally, I didn't think that was "hijacked" at all. That is, unless by "hikjacked" you mean it had responses other than what you hoped for. If you are looking for people to get up in arms and demand FAA action against a pilot based on a video, you are probably on the wrong forum. Some of us may say something was stupid and probably dangerous and an equal number of us will reserve judgement or point out mitigating circumstances. I don't think anyone here is going to call the Feds over something posted in a forum.

But if you want to call the feds and demand action against someone who is already dead and another person who may or may not have been an accomplice, go ahead. Just don't expect the people on this forum to encourage you or participate. But I could be wrong, you may convince one or two.

[Sam Buchanan]

So if your neighbor and his friend show up one day and they say, hey, we've been sneaking into your children's rooms at night and stealing things from your home, what would your response be?
Let it go, because they are probably just going to do what they want, regardless?
Wait, your other neighbor says. There is video. They broke in 18 times and it is all recorded!
They are bragging about it on youtube to all their fans! You aren't going to do anything about it, because....

What was it you said earlier about hijacking threads???? You've jumped from cowboy hang glider pilots to terrorizing children......

P.S. I have built and flown two Part 103 aircraft.....responsibly. I like Part 103, and as long as we don't try to push the FAA into enforcing outlier incidents 103 should be with us for a long time.

[JBlack]

If you are looking for people to get up in arms and demand FAA action against a pilot based on a video, you are probably on the wrong forum.
The first question I asked was, is this a legal act or an illegal act?
Would you like to correct your previous answer?



Some of us may say something was stupid and probably dangerous
Most of these should also be able to admit that it was illegal. 103.23


and an equal number of us will reserve judgement or point out mitigating circumstances.
The biggest mitigating circumstance to point out is that the crime was committed a minimum of 18 times.



But if you want to call the feds and demand action against someone who is already dead and another person who may or may not have been an accomplice, go ahead.
How about just a letter to the USHPA Safety Committee, to put them on notice to clean up their act and comply with Part 103?
Also the Sylmar Hang Gliding Association, the local club that controls the launch areas where this occurred, a minimum of 18 times.
Realize that the youtuber that posted the video still has not accepted responsibility for any wrongdoing.

As far as we know, it is still going on.

[Bill Greenwood]

I am watching a bit of the Farmers Insurance tournament and you can see a hang glider flying just off the cliffs at the background at La Jolla, a pretty place.

[CHICAGORANDY]

An 'interesting' exchange to be sure.

I am not 100% clear about what the new poster JBlack expects the FAA to do to the remaining living pilot for what 'might' be transgressions of the FARs that 'may' be documented in videos 4-8 years old.

Even less clear is what he expects me (us) to do? I did read all 5 pages of posts from the OP's initial post a few days ago and the reasoned responses it garnered. I did not read what actions the OP has already taken on this issue which obviously is causing them some personal distress. I am aware that many times the actions of those engaged in relatively 'self-regulated' hobby pursuits are adjudicated more by Messrs. Darwin and Murphy than by the public at large.

[FlyingRon]

He should go watch the Jerry Wagner videos if he really wants to have fun.

[JBlack]

An 'interesting' exchange to be sure. Thank you.


I am not 100% clear about what the new poster JBlack expects the FAA to do to the remaining living pilot for what 'might' be transgressions of the FARs that 'may' be documented in videos 4-8 years old.
I am not 100% clear of what you mean by 'might be transgressions' or 'may be documented'. I believe those questions are self evident. As far as what the FAA will do is up to them.


Even less clear is what he expects me (us) to do? I would like you to form an opinion and voice that opinion. Judge whether unsafe cloud clearances were maintained in repeated infractions of FAR 103.23, or not.
It's a yes or no question.


I am aware that many times the actions of those engaged in relatively 'self-regulated' hobby pursuits are adjudicated more by Messrs. Darwin and Murphy than by the public at large.
The FAA is the regulating authority of all aeronautical endeavors in the USA. They entrust organizations such as the USHGA, USHPA, EAA and others to organize, educate and supervise members of those organizations in compliance with the rules and authority designated to the FAA by the Government of the USA.

We are the Government. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
We have delegated ourselves the ability to self regulate to great extent, within compliance of Rules and Regulations, set forth by the authority designated to the FAA.
We have all been delegated a personal responsibility in the matter of aeronautical endeavor. That is a fact.
We can either use it responsibly, or lose it irresponsibly.

Accountability. Everyone owes it. Everyone deserves it.

Was the flying depicted in the video safe or unsafe? Legal or illegal?
Answer those questions and we can go from there.

[JBlack]

He should go watch the Jerry Wagner videos if he really wants to have fun.
I looked up Jerry Wagner and saw that he does a lot of IFR flying. Are you implying that he is doing it in violation of FARs?
Wonder what he thinks about illegal cloud flying of the rebel cowboy variety?

[CHICAGORANDY]

"
Thank you."


No need to thank me for using the least controversial word that came to mind - lol - 'interesting' does not IMHO convey a pro or con position on a subject about which I have no personal vested interest. I do not have sufficient information on these past events to give a yes or no answer.

FWIW I suppose Rap and Hip-Hop are 'interesting' forms of what some would call 'music'? I find abstract art interesting too.

Since YOU are the one whingeing about the alleged infractions from years ago, YOU need to run with the ball and initiate action. What have you done locally interacting with the remaining participant in question out there to avoid duplicating any attempts now..... beyond complaining online to us of course? Those here with FAR knowledge have already provided you with their input.

[FlyingRon]

I looked up Jerry Wagner and saw that he does a lot of IFR flying. Are you implying that he is doing it in violation of FARs?
Wonder what he thinks about illegal cloud flying of the rebel cowboy variety?
No, he just proudly displays his poor piloting technique on youtube. Everything from stuff which is just stupid to showing a near complete loss of control on approach and flying a route contrary to his clearance because he's too thick to understand departure procedures. He doesn't even realize he's done wrong in the video until the minions of people who follow on start nit picking on the comments section of his posts.

[rwanttaja]

Was the flying depicted in the video safe or unsafe? Legal or illegal?
Answer those questions and we can go from there.

OK, I'll bite. The operations in the video were unsafe, and a violation of Part 103.

So...where are we going from here? Are we expected to, en masse, contact the FAA and complain?

The pilot community is, to a large extent, composed of conservative law-and-order types. Yet there's a curious dichotomy in our make-up: We have a powerful reluctance to "drop the dime" to the FAA about rules violations by other pilots. The FAA enforcement folks are generally looked on with fear and loathing; in the words of friend of mine, "I wouldn't [urinate] on him if he was on fire."

Pithy expressions aside, it takes a very, VERY high bar before we call in the FAA. I've known guys who have removed a generator to avoid installing a transponder, who have removed the spinner and wheel pants of an RV-6-class homebuilt and declares it now qualifies as an LSA (he had developed diabetes and knew they wouldn't renew his medical), and those who crashed their airplanes and hid the wreckage before the FAA or NTSB found out about it.

I didn't report any of these people, despite knowing the actual dates of the transgressions and the ability to point at specific rule violations. Why should I call the FAA about a violation that I only know about FROM A YOUTUBE VIDEO, and where I can't give them any more information (names, places, dates) than is contained in the video itself?

I presume you informed the FAA about the video, yourself. What would be added by me giving them the same information?

And if you haven't...why not?

Ron Wanttaja

[Airmutt]

Just to be clear.....EAA does not supervise its membership. EAA provides resources for the education, recreation and safety of its members. Volunteer assistance programs such as Technical Counselors and First Flight Advisor do not meet the standard of supervision. Supervision implies liability and I can unequivocally state EAA does not want or assume the liability of its individual members.

The FAA is the sole authority to regulate and enforce aeronautical activity in this country. The various aviation alphabet organizations can provide policy input to the FAA and even help craft policy but enforcement authority is not delegated. So you’re out of luck there.

If you and maybe others are unhappy with your association, then vote with your feet and your wallet. If your association is broke then it’s up to the membership to fix it themselves; don’t ask others.

You seem to have a lot of passion on this issue and even some personal knowledge of past and current activities in that area. Like others, I would like to know have you contacted the local FSDO or FAST office? If yes, what was their response? If no, why are you asking others to do what you yourself have not done?

[Sam Buchanan]

Uhhh.....are we being trolled???

(I can't believe I'm responding to this thread again......:eek:)

[Bill Greenwood]

JBlack, if the hang glider pilots flew inside a cloud as you allege, how did they control it without any artificial horizon instruments like an attitude indicator. How did they avoid losing control without visual reference to the horizon?

[JBlack]

JBlack, if the hang glider pilots flew inside a cloud as you allege,
Never said that. Said they violated 103.23. Separation from clouds. 1000 ft over, 500 ft under, 2000 ft horizontal cloud clearance.
They didn't have to go into the clouds to repeatedly, (18 times minimally), to violate 103.23, but I guarantee you they went in the clouds.
That video footage was edited out. Whiteout is not make good youtube fodder.



how did they control it without any artificial horizon instruments like an attitude indicator. How did they avoid losing control without visual reference to the horizon?

To get perfectly technical with you, it's the much studied 'lawn dart' equation.
The pointy end has most the weight. You pull in hard and you go down.
This is why it is so dangerous for stick pilots to take up hang gliding in their waning years.:D

[JBlack]

OK, I'll bite. The operations in the video were unsafe, and a violation of Part 103.
And they did it a minumum of 18 times.



So...where are we going from here? Are we expected to, en masse, contact the FAA and complain?

Well not yet.
How about a strongly worded letter to the USHPA or the SHGA to get them to do their duty to correct these blatant, dangerous violations?


The pilot community is, to a large extent, composed of conservative law-and-order types. Yet there's a curious dichotomy in our make-up: We have a powerful reluctance to "drop the dime" to the FAA about rules violations by other pilots. The FAA enforcement folks are generally looked on with fear and loathing; in the words of friend of mine, "I wouldn't [urinate] on him if he was on fire."

Pithy expressions aside, it takes a very, VERY high bar before we call in the FAA. I've known guys who have removed a generator to avoid installing a transponder, who have removed the spinner and wheel pants of an RV-6-class homebuilt and declares it now qualifies as an LSA (he had developed diabetes and knew they wouldn't renew his medical), and those who crashed their airplanes and hid the wreckage before the FAA or NTSB found out about it.

I didn't report any of these people, despite knowing the actual dates of the transgressions and the ability to point at specific rule violations. Why should I call the FAA about a violation that I only know about FROM A YOUTUBE VIDEO, and where I can't give them any more information (names, places, dates) than is contained in the video itself?

Your examples were more like parking tickets. Were any lives put at risk in your assertion of violations?

The 103.23 violations, I assert, were dangerous to an un-calculable measure, to people, property and Part 103.
And they were documented, on video, in the pilot's own words and deeds.
See the difference?



I presume you informed the FAA about the video, yourself.
That's classified information at this time.

What would be added by me giving them the same information?
The power of numbers.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Many hands make light work.
The safety of our children makes it worth it.
To help set an example for others.
It's the right thing to do.

[Sam Buchanan]

Bizarre...but entertaining in a demented sort of way....... :rollseyes:

[Airmutt]

Hey Sam, I’m thinking more like a death spiral.
“I’m pinned forward. Goose you’ll have to punch us out. Look out for the canopy!”

[rwanttaja]

How about a strongly worded letter to the USHPA or the SHGA to get them to do their duty to correct these blatant, dangerous violations?
Have you written, and sent such a letter? Why in the world should EAA get involved in a ****** contest with other aviation groups? The groups should be beholden to their members, not other aviation entities.

EAA doesn't interject into these organizations membership, like EAA is not shoving its way between the FAA and Boeing regarding the 737 Max. Even though yes, it's all about SAFETY....


Your examples were more like parking tickets. Were any lives put at risk in your assertion of violations?
Certainly. One was operating without a transponder in airspace where a transponder was nominally required for his aircraft. The Cerritos crash LED to that requirement. The diabetic pilot was flying a 1,600-pound aircraft at ~150 MPH around a major metropolitan area.


The 103.23 violations, I assert, were dangerous to an un-calculable measure, to people, property and Part 103.

And they were documented, on video, in the pilot's own words and deeds.
See the difference?

Certainly, you got it right on the head: un-calculatable. There was a theoretical risk (like the friends I mentioned), but no actual accident or even near-accident. You can't tell me how likely an accident of this sort will be, and, given the circumstances, the actuality of a collision is extremely low.

Had this instance occurred in Class B airspace, the FAA might take notice... the public would be in danger. But the risk of mid-air collisions, ESPECIALLY AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT, is incredibly low.

I'm not surprised the FAA doesn't care.



I presume you informed the FAA about the video, yourself.
That's classified information at this time.

In other words, no. If doing so is a moral course you're pushing us to take, you should be proud to admit you've taken action.

Ironically, you could have lied and just said that you had. The fact that you equivocated, rather than state yes or no, is a pretty good sign that you didn't file your own complaint with the FAA.



What would be added by me giving them the same information?

The power of numbers.
Now THAT'S a real thigh-slapper.

This ain't "American Idol." A bunch of people (none of them actually WITNESSING the alleged violation) sending identical complaints based on the same Youtube video aren't going to affect what the FAA does here.

The first step to the FAA process will be to establish what penalties might be assessed. The FAA can suspend or cancel airman certificates relatively easily.

Not going to be the case, with a hang-glider operation. The FAA enforcement folks will need to go for the monetary fines. But that will trigger an increased level of due process. Just proving who "Vicarious Icarus" is likely to be expensive (note I said, PROVING, not knowing). 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.

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

[CHICAGORANDY]

"
Uhhh.....are we being trolled???"

Starting to sound more and more like fishing line peeling off a reel at high speed - lol

[Mayhemxpc]

Gentlemen,

I suggest that we are being trolled.

[JBlack]

Gentlemen,

I suggest that we are being trolled.

There wasn't a trick question. It was open book. You have the option to correct your answer.
Was it illegal? Was it unsafe?
I was a little surprised that a CFI with all your ratings got it wrong.

[JBlack]

You can't tell me how likely an accident of this sort will be, and, given the circumstances, the actuality of a collision is extremely low.

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.


I'm not surprised the FAA doesn't care.
Who said they don't care?



Just proving who "Vicarious Icarus" is likely to be expensive (note I said, PROVING, not knowing).
I don't believe that to be the case.


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 anything anything here needs to be quantified to 'justify the expenditure'. This is the Federal Government, after all.



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

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 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.. ?

[rwanttaja]

I don't think anything anything here needs to be quantified to 'justify the expenditure'. This is the Federal Government, after all.
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

[Sam Buchanan]

The stench of a deceased and badly flagellated horse is really getting strong......... :eek:

[DaleB]

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.


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.
(From Wikipedia)

[CHICAGORANDY]

I have always believed that trolls are like stray alley cats - if one feeds them, they will keep coming back - lol

[JBlack]

The stench of a deceased and badly flagellated horse is really getting strong......... :eek:

That horse ain't dead yet, Sam. It is at the water hole, but will it take a drink?

I'm just the new guy here. What do I know?
Was there a vote taken before I came that made you arbiter of what is posted here, or what?

[JBlack]

Indeed. If we're going to complain about theoretically busting cloud clearances...
It's not a theory.



Can you really guarantee that you've never once been 499 feet below an overcast layer? I've been sucked up into a cloud once, but not on purpose.
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.


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.
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.



Or perhaps get the hang glider pilot to do it.
The hang glider pilot doesn't think he did anything wrong or unsafe. He is probably still doing it.


There is apparently now only one actual witness.
There are about 1500 witnesses, last time I checked youtube.

[JBlack]

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


(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMZsFGIOkA0)

[JBlack]

Big Blue Sky - The history of modern hang gliding - the first extreme sport!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hRSUjJFmCc

[Sam Buchanan]

That horse ain't dead yet, Sam. It is at the water hole, but will it take a drink?

I'm just the new guy here. What do I know?
Was there a vote taken before I came that made you arbiter of what is posted here, or what?

Yes....you missed the vote.....your time is up....somebody sound the gong........ :P

[DaleB]

No kidding.

[martymayes]

Tell us what you think.
Signed, Concerned hang glider pilot

have you considered calling the FAA Safety Hotline? It triggers a mandatory investigation.

[JBlack]

Looks like I'm the one being trolled here.
Someone could have told me that Sam was the moderator? I checked my personal email and found nothing.
Thanks gang. I came here with a valid safety concern and no one wants to do anything about it. I get that.
What I don't get is just what I'm not supposed to talk about.
Can't talk about safety issues/cloud flying and the FARs that covers those?

Sam, if there was indeed a vote for you to speak for everybody, then please spell out more clearly what can, and can not be talked about.
Aim it at the hard of learning as I've had some brain trauma and a friend who is not a doctor thinks I might have a touch of aspergers.
Make it clear to all, what can and can't be said. I don't want to be in violation of any rules here.
Thank you.

[JBlack]

have you considered calling the FAA Safety Hotline?
Yes.


It triggers a mandatory investigation.
It seems to trigger something here, just not sure what that is..

[Hal Bryan]

Someone could have told me that Sam was the moderator? I checked my personal email and found nothing.

JBlack - the only moderators on this forum are EAA Staff, and you'll see that phrase, along with the word "Moderator" under their names, so I think Sam B. was just playing with you. He is definitely not a moderator.

That said, the regular full-time moderator is also named Sam, which may have caused some confusion at some point in the thread. The real moderator Sam (Sam Oleson) is out today, so it falls (back) to me to step in and declare that this thread has more than run its course.