Flyfunston

Discussion topics for the July Fellow Feathers meeting. Please let me know if you have anything to add!



- Should T-1 and T-2 pilots be allowed to fly tandem at the Fort under the direct supervision of a Tandem Instructor?

Note: I negotiated our GGNRA use permit to expand the FF tandem program to allow this T-1 and T-2 provision. Tandem pilots would still have to be approved by the FF Tandem Director, comply with all current FF Tandem Rules, and in addition, would be directly supervised by a FF Tandem Instructor. This can’t go into effect without club support and modification of our rules. I recommend voting to change the FF tandem rules to allow this.




- Should H-2’s be allowed to fly from the cliff to the bowl, instead of going directly to the beach?

Note; I’ve witnessed a qualified H-2 soaring the bowl safely and I recommend a change to the FF rules to allow this. Parameters could be set in regard to acceptable wind conditions, pilot experience, etc. One standard flight to the beach would be a pre-requisite.



- Should the 25’ rule be strictly enforced or can an officer’s judgment be used if no danger was posed?

Note; My understanding is that the 25’ rule was created after a particularly bad “Diving for Dollars” incident to allow the club to prohibit pilots from doing things that would endanger themselves or the public. While this is a very useful provision, I have witnessed accomplished pilots fly within 25’ of another person with total control and posing no hazard what so ever. I feel the FF officers should have some latitude in deciding whether or not an incident warrant’s a suspension or not, and be able to suspend a pilot for a particularly dangerous incident without being accused of bias.



- Should rigid wings be prohibited from landing west of the sand trail?

Note; Yes, there was a very close call recently but I didn’t suspend the pilot on the spot because he pointed out that other pilots had violated the rule that day and had not been suspended. The fact of the matter is that the other pilots did NOT pose a safety threat but I didn’t want to appear biased so I’ve postponed the suspension pending club feed back. (Yes, I am a little gun shy after the last debacle involving a suspension.)
The pilot in question pointed out that his Millennium did not have the maneuverability of a flex wing, and that once on final had no other option, even when a pedestrian “came out of nowhere”. Given the mass and hard structure of the air craft, I feel this is unacceptable.
Even though other rigid wing pilots land east of the sand trail, I recommend that we add a rule to enforce this.
PS; After some personal deliberation, I suspended the pilot three days later.



One last hot button topic is around the 25’ rule.
If a pilot violates the 25’ rule and creates a safety hazard while trying to land west of the sand trail (on the chips), should they be restricted to landing east of the sand trail for an appropriate length of time? (3 weeks, 3 months, the remainder of the year, etc.)

This is a discussion board so let’s kick these topics around before the meeting!

With regard to the 25' rule...

It's a rule that is not fairly enforced...But, I agree with the fact that pilots have flown closer than 25' and not posed a hazard to life and limb of pedestrians, puppies, etc. I think there needs to be some leeway in that regard.

However, if pedestrians are running for their lives, or having to duck for cover, then I feel there has been an error in judgment on the part of the pilot and action should be taken, either by a fellow pilot or club officer.

Our ability to judge distance between pilot and pilot or pilot and pedestrain can be skewed at best. Everyone judges distance(s) differently and that is why I feel the 25-foot rule needs to be readdressed.

Chris

Maybe we should drop the 25' specification and re-word the rule to "prohibit unsafe flying in close proximity to other pilots or pedestrians" (or something to this effect).
This way if you get less than 25' but are safe is OK. Any unsafe flying regardless of distance would be suspension material.

The good thing about the 25 foot rule is that it doesn't leave the call about what's safe up to an officer who may or may not be qualified to judge "hazard free", and it isn't a subjective thing.

Being an officer is a thankless job. People will question your motives and call you power hungry, despite the fact that you've volunteered to help keep Funston going at risk of your flying frienships. I think those people should be ashamed of their behavior when they pull that attitude. Nevertheless, when something is left to a judgment call, the offender may think you have it in for him/her. Like the sticker rule, there is less opportunity with this rule for the officer to be blamed for being vindictive against one person. You were within 25 ft., you cut it too close, you get stung.

I would disagree with Chris, ever so slightly. Someone flying within 25 ft of a pedestrian may have landed without taking someone out. But that doesn't mean it was hazard free. Like the incidents with Dollar Bill or Chris Mueller, sometimes a little bump or gust or distraction can end up in an otherwise safe pass ending badly.

My big thing is this - what's the safety zone for the person on the ground who has not made the choice where to land? If the pilot wants to scrape the bushes at high speed, then go for it. The purpose of this rule is to provide a safe zone for those who are not pilot-in-command.

As for it being "unfairly" enforced, too many pilots are totally taking advantage. What would you do if a bunch of guys decided they didn't want to fly with stickers? Nobody wants to bust a dozen of their buddies, but that doesn't mean we'd be willing to relax the sticker rule.

In my mind this is the cleanest, simplest and best of the safety-oriented rules in the club, and it should be left as is.

Daniel

Steve Rodrigues wrote:Maybe we should drop the 25' specification and re-word the rule to "prohibit unsafe flying in close proximity to other pilots or pedestrians" (or something to this effect).
This way if you get less than 25' but are safe is OK. Any unsafe flying regardless of distance would be suspension material.

Hey Steve,

There's already a rule about unsafe flying:

"Pilots must fly safely and courteously" (http://flyfunston.org/rules.php.html )

We don't need to change anything to hit the mark.

Daniel

Hi Steve,
I'm gonna try to come to the meeting this month, but that's what I said last month, too...
I never got a new key to the clubhouse this year. Can I get one at the meeting?
Jason

Rafie,
Here is yet another member whom you didn't send a key to like you were supposed to. Please send him a key now.

Jason,
Please contact Clubhouse Manager Rafael Lavin if he does not respond to this post.

I am opposed to a rule that penalizes good pilots just to try and control bad ones. Since the "safe and courteous" rule covers everything, it is my opinion that we don't need the 25' rule!

flyfun2 wrote:

Steve Rodrigues wrote:Maybe we should drop the 25' specification and re-word the rule to "prohibit unsafe flying in close proximity to other pilots or pedestrians" (or something to this effect).
This way if you get less than 25' but are safe is OK. Any unsafe flying regardless of distance would be suspension material.

Hey Steve,

There's already a rule about unsafe flying:

"Pilots must fly safely and courteously" (http://flyfunston.org/rules.php.html )

We don't need to change anything to hit the mark.

Daniel

I believe the 25’ rule should stand for these reasons

1. 25’ is intended to be a buffer beyond the pilots’ skill. That way if something unexpected happens, a pedestrian is not likely to get hurt. Yes, there are lots of pilots who can fly 5’ over a pedestrians head without hitting them. They can pull it off every time until they don’t. The 25’ rule helps keep pedestrians safe even if a pilot makes a mistake.

2. A rule that does not have non-arbitrary parameters is useless. Are people challenging suspensions now going to argue about how qualified they were to fly within 10’ of a pedestrian? If you take away the 25’ rule the result will be that pilots are only penalized for extremely close calls or collisions with pedestrians. I think pilots should be encouraged to stay well clear of pedestrians.

3. Pedestrians don’t realize what exceptionally good pilots we all are. Another purpose of the 25’ rule is to assure the pedestrians FEEL safe. Most pedestrians can not tell the difference between a glider that is about to fly 10’ over there head and a glider that is about to hit them. It is not in our best interests to have pedestrians complaining to the park about gliders that (in their opinion) nearly hit them.

4. It is REALLY EASY to stay 25' away from pedestrians at Funston.

Brian Foster

I don't have a current copy of the GGNRA Permit but if the rule is in the permit, we do not have discretion to change.

The rule was instituted because years ago a member stood at launch holding up a dollar bill for the pilot of a diving glider to grab. The pilot miscalculated nearly decapitating the member.

The pilot was the Club President. The member's name was Bill and thereafter he was called "Dollar Bill".

I'm actually fine with keeping the 25' rule, and intend to follow the portion of the FF rules that states;

"5. Enforcement of Rule Violations:
Any violation of established rules as determined by the National Park Service or Fellow Feathers Officers will result in disciplinary actions or suspensions as may be appropriate."

I feel that it's appropriate to suspend anyone who does something unsafe, and I don't hesitate to do so. In fact, I issued a suspension for violating the 25' rule just two weeks ago.

I feel that sometimes a warning is appropriate and a suspension is not. I don't believe that just because we don't suspend everyone by rote we can't suspend someone else for an excessive violation.

This seems just to me. If anyone disagrees and wants to play police officer, I will be happy to put them on a safety committee. Otherwise, I will continue to be as fair as possible in protecting life and limb, and of course our flying site!