Is 2,000 AGL Enough?

[CharlieTango]

...the notion of climbing high well in advance for the purpose of clearing some pinnacle is just not a common practice nor, for us, a practical one. Nor are you busting a FAR by clearing that pinnacle at less than 2,000' AGL...

I think you'll find the circling-to-climb to fly mountain-top summit-clearing routes is a theoretical notion but not a description of how the real world works out West.

Jack,

Mountain flying means different things to different pilots and the mountains to be flown vary dramatically. To best put this question in context (Is 2,000 AGL Enough?) you need to apply it to specific areas.

It takes relatively high terrain (above 10,000') and a relatively large amount of it for the issue to come into play. It is the ridges and passes that need to be crossed, crossing over pinnacles makes little sense.

We have 3 choices, climb well in advance ( perhaps to 10,000 until the terrain is within 2,000 under you) , circle to climb, follow ridges to stay within 2,000' as you climb.

Below is a photo of the terrain in my backyard, the terrain in the photo ranges from 10,000+ to 13,000+ When crossing terrain like this I'm far more concerned with the lee side turbulence than I am with the sport pilot ceiling, staying legal here might not be worth it. When that is the case it becomes an emergency and the obligation becomes one of safety not compliance.

[drseti]

I'm curious, is there a case where the FAA changed regs in response to large numbers of filed ASRS forms?

There is an action path, Andy, but it's not quite as direct as that. Typically, a researcher will mine the ASRS database, searching keywords for incidents involving a specific concern or research topic. Gathering tons of data, he or she will do data-crunching in search of correlations and trends. If a strong pattern emerges, the researcher will write a journal article or three. (In the case of a graduate student doing the research, a doctoral dissertation or masters thesis may be published). Now, if someone from AOPA, or EAA, or the Air Safety Foundation happens to read that article, thesis, or dissertation, that organization may decide to champion a petition for rulemaking before the FAA. In time, the FAA may initiate an NPRM process, from which changes may emerge. This whole process typically takes years to run its course.

An issue can sometimes be fast-tracked, if the FAA's Chief Scientist happens to read the journal article and take a personal interest in the issue. This happened with me in the 1980s, when I was doing research into near midair collisions. I used ASRS data, found a bunch of trends and correlations, and published numerous articles in the professional literature proposing airspace changes. Prof. Robert Machol (known in academia as the father of Operations Research) was FAA chief Scientist then. He read my articles, met with me in Washington, and started in motion a rulemaking process which ultimately resulted in the redesign of airways and airspace. Score one for ASRS data!

(unfortunately, many of those positive changes went out the window a decade and a half later, with 9/11 and the advent of TSA. )

[drseti]

I was under the impression that these reports were anonymous. That the report was dissociated from the reporter early on in the process.

Correct, Eddie. Here's how that works:

The top part of the ASRS form contains your identifying data, and contact information. (You must fill that out to take advantage of the limited immunity that can come from timely filing). The NASA ASRS office in Mountain View date-stamps that top strip, so there is a record of when the report was received. The contact data is especially important so the NASA data analyst who receives your report can call you for clarification during the data entry phase, if anything in your report is unclear, incomplete, or requires elaboration.

After the data entry is done, the analyst cuts off the top part of the form and mails it back to you. At this point, there is no identifying information left in the file, so the report can't be used for enforcement evidence.

Let's say FAA finds out about a violation through independent means, and begins enforcement action. You will of course cooperate fully with their investigation, and tell them that, yes, you know there was a problem, and you filed an ASRS report. That slip which you received back in the mail is your proof of compliance. Enforcement action can still continue, but FAA policy says that timely filing of an ASRS report is "indicative of a constructive attitude", which will be taken into account during any enforcement proceedings.

It's not exactly "get out of jail free", but it comes close.

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

for whatever reason, they decided that Sport Pilots should not fly above 10,000 feet MSL. To allow flight above mountainous terrain, they came up with 2,000 feet AGL or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is higher.

That pretty well sums it up. The "whatever" reason is that this was how the Recreational Pilot restrictions were framed a couple of decades earlier. In fact, the FAA screwed up when they wrote the Sport Pilot rules. They stipulated the 10,000 foot MSL limitation, but forgot to include the 2,000 foot AGL exemption. So, at first, a Sport Pilot just plain couldn't fly in the Rockies. This was an oversight, which was corrected when the FARs were updated in April 2010. So, now the SP FAR coincides exactly with the RP restriction (which was itself rather arbitrary, and didn't address the safety issues of flying in mountainous terrain).

So, why did the safety issue not get addressed in all the years pre-SP? That's because there were so few RP licenses ever issued that the subject just never came up.

[MrMorden]

How about an endorsement for ops above 10,000 feet? That would solve the problems of FAA liability, proper training, and pilots that can't go certain places safely. Making us get some hypoxia and high alt performance training could be a good thing. PPs acting under SP rules could be exempted.

I think when the rules were drafted most did not comprehend that LSA would be as capable as they are, leading to restrictions those at FAA might have thought would very rarely ever come up.

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

if they did away with the 3rd class physical, they could do away with the Sport Pilot and Recreational Pilot certificate

The RP license has pretty well done away with itself (does anyone know the number issued since Sport Pilot was enacted? Hint: you can count them on the thimbs of one hand.). However, even with the elimination of the 3rd Class medical requirement, SP would remain useful as an easy and affordable portal of entry into GA. With a properly designed curriculum, one can fly with a passenger in half the time, at half the cost, and upgrade very easily to PP when ready. I. Other words, I don't accept that lack of a medical is the only reason for SP - quite a few of my students (with a medical certificate) have used it as a stepping-stone to Private. Eliminating the medical requirement will make this path attractive to even more pilots.

[MovingOn]

.......

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

Well, now that you mention it... Yes. I thought it was at my end, but will certainly look into it. Thanks for the heads-up.

[3Dreaming]

Maybe big brother is slowing it down because of all the talk about TFR's, dams, and powerplants.

[CharlieTango]

Confirm, site is slow and sometimes I get error messages instead of home page

[N918KT]

Hello everyone, yes the Internet on this forum is for some reason slow these past few days. I have been getting the same problem as some of you guys.

[CTLSi]

......