Airspace Violations

[Brian Nightingale]

I just read Bob Youngblood's letter to the Editor in the new Soaring magazine. I believe he's absolutely right . Class Bravo airspace incursions during a competition is inexcusable , for whatever reason . The corridor between Orlando Class B and Avon Park Air Force base is very narrow . There are maybe 300 contest pilots out of the 8000 or so SSA members . If these things keep happening ,FAA is going to tighten restrictions and cut off the Eastern side of Florida from cross country flying for us mere mortals . SSA needs to realize that competition pilots are the minority of glider pilots in the country , supposed to be the best , and hold them to a very high standard so they don't screw it up for the erst of us .We already have the very narrow corridor to deal with , and new airspace recommendations that will cut us off from going South of Lake Okeechobee on the Eastern side . There needs to be much more egregious penalties for committing airspace violations during competitions . These guys are supposed to be the cream of the crop of glider pilots in the country , and they know better . They should have been removed from the competition immediately . 

[Brian Nightingale]

This a link to Bob's letter to Soaring
https://magazine.ssa.org/viewer?y=2026&m=8&p=6&o=0&q=#:~:text=Airspace%20Violations%20and,TO%20BELIEVE%20IT%20!

[Stéphane Vander Veken]

IGC Sporting Code penalty list:

Entering forbidden airspace vertically or horizontally
- 1st violation: Outlanded at the point of airspace entry
- Subsequent violations: Day Disqualification
- Maximum penalty: Disqualification

In today's airspace situation, logic asks to apply the maximum penalty at the third violation, I think...

[Andrzej Kobus]

Brian, I agree with Bob. This is inexcusable and class B airspace violation should mean end of flying in the contest, not just a land out scoring. With all the computers in cockpits the only reason to violate the airspace is for points, and that should be a reason for end of flying in the contest for the pilot. 

Safety first!

Andrzej

On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 10:01 AM Brian Nightingale <aaaseptic...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just read Bob Youngblood's letter to the Editor in the new Soaring magazine. I believe he's absolutely right . Class Bravo airspace incursions during a competition is inexcusable , for whatever reason . The corridor between Orlando Class B and Avon Park Air Force base is very narrow . There are maybe 300 contest pilots out of the 8000 or so SSA members . If these things keep happening ,FAA is going to tighten restrictions and cut off the Eastern side of Florida from cross country flying for us mere mortals . SSA needs to realize that competition pilots are the minority of glider pilots in the country , supposed to be the best , and hold them to a very high standard so they don't screw it up for the erst of us .We already have the very narrow corridor to deal with , and new airspace recommendations that will cut us off from going South of Lake Okeechobee on the Eastern side . There needs to be much more egregious penalties for committing airspace violations during competitions . These guys are supposed to be the cream of the crop of glider pilots in the country , and they know better . They should have been removed from the competition immediately . 

--
Thanks for using RAS_Prime!
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/4c45576d-748c-4061-924c-b03537798432n%40googlegroups.com.

[Andrzej Kobus]

Evan, the only excuse for this to happen is in a declared emergency, other than that it should never happen. I don’t care how many hours the pilot logged in command, study the charts verify your computer has the right airspace. These incursions can impact local GA pilots in a very busy Florida airspace by FAA increasing size of airspace around airports making pilots life here difficult, or impossible. Your message completely omits that. You want pilots to get a pass because of tech. What about staying away by 5 miles? Is that so difficult? The truth is it happens to gain advantage. You are defending indefensible. Keep far enough and buy a paper chart.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 1:33 PM Tango Eight <tango...@gmail.com> wrote:

We should probably just shoot them dead at the morning pilots meeting. Set a good example. Even better, we should do so retroactively!  Oh wait, that means at least three US world gliding champions.

You guys are just effing full of yourselves. Embarrassing. 

If you want to understand something maybe useful, why not contact the two pilots involved?  It took me five minutes to figure out who we are talking about. So you can, too. Be nice. Maybe they have a lesson to share. 

We had a similar incident at Perry. Good friends of mine ventured into a class D that was declared closed to the contest (North AFB).  There was at least 40,000 hrs of professional aviation experience in that cockpit and more ratings than you can shake a stick at, too tedious to recount.   I know their story and so would you if you simply asked. 

Is there a lesson?  Sure.  Is it a new lesson?  No. 

Preflight prep needs to include airspace and you need to be really really -really- certain that whatever it is in the cockpit you are relying on to illustrate the important airspace -works-.  

UNFORTUNATELY, the most common flight computers don’t give you any very good way to confirm that all the myriad warnings are properly setup and operating on the ground.  To test them, you’ll have to go approach some airspace and test.  It might be different between class A, B, C, D and restricted, in fact it almost certainly is.  Can you imagine how this could go wrong?  Can you imagine not having the right file loaded and 87 boxes on 37 pages of setup screens checked correctly (exaggerating but only slightly)?

Is there a problem here?  Sure. Is it as big a problem as stall spin accidents (That’s a gentle hint for Bob)?  No, I personally don’t think so.  Airspace incursions have a very low incidence of fatalities. 

I’m all for fixing problems, of all sorts. I do a lot of that sort of thing.  And what’s evident to me as a professional problem fixer is that you guys don’t understand the nature of the problem if you think you can fix it with stiffer penalties. 

The guys that are committing the offenses don’t know that they are out of compliance at the time that the offense occurs. That’s what needs fixing. 

Best,

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Monday, August 3, 2026 at 10:01:29 AM UTC-4 Brian Nightingale wrote:

I just read Bob Youngblood's letter to the Editor in the new Soaring magazine. I believe he's absolutely right . Class Bravo airspace incursions during a competition is inexcusable , for whatever reason . The corridor between Orlando Class B and Avon Park Air Force base is very narrow . There are maybe 300 contest pilots out of the 8000 or so SSA members . If these things keep happening ,FAA is going to tighten restrictions and cut off the Eastern side of Florida from cross country flying for us mere mortals . SSA needs to realize that competition pilots are the minority of glider pilots in the country , supposed to be the best , and hold them to a very high standard so they don't screw it up for the erst of us .We already have the very narrow corridor to deal with , and new airspace recommendations that will cut us off from going South of Lake Okeechobee on the Eastern side . There needs to be much more egregious penalties for committing airspace violations during competitions . These guys are supposed to be the cream of the crop of glider pilots in the country , and they know better . They should have been removed from the competition immediately . 

--

Thanks for using RAS_Prime!
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/b5d49dcf-22a4-458d-917b-3819ff7bbc1cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Nightingale]

Evan ,

           Thank you for pointing out how full of ourselves we are . I'll keep that in mind . Unfortunately , what you think of me or my opinion , doesn't really matter . What matters is what the FAA thinks . That's the point . I agree with Andre on this one . That should never have happened . Everyone makes mistakes , but with modern technology , this should not have been an issue . If they don't know how to use the equipment , why are they flying that close to the airspace ? This was a serious lack of judgment on their part and should they should have been penalized severely for it . I don't care how many hours they had or who they were , and neither does the FAA . By the way , Bob issued a reply to your email on Soaring Aviators Group if you'd like to read it .

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/CABhEzgzGfYPboZAEEgS%3DZvc6dPosOhOZ-DO9zd_DntTy9szMgQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tango Eight]

Hi Andrzej, Brian, 

I didn’t think I was defending -anything-.  I made a few points, one, regrettably ill considered. 

I apologize for the stall / spin remark. It was atrocious in retrospect and I won’t attempt to defend or explain it. 

Evan

[Eric Greenwell]

My Oudie N flight computer is less than $1000, but it's easy to use. It has nav boxes showing the distance to restricted airspace and warnings when I'm getting close. Airspace and TFRs download automatically in the morning when I turn it on. I can get exactly the same information  on a phone for only $60/year. These aren't new features, but have been around for a few years in the Oudie and other computers, so I'm puzzled that there are pilots - experienced, committed pilots - that are, somehow, using equipment that can't reliably deliver this important safety information. I suggest contest pilots that have problems with airspace tell us what rules we need to ensure there are no unintentional airspace violations

Here's a thought: contest penalties begin one mile from restricted airspace, ramping up to "landout" at the actual airspace boundary. An "oops" of a few hundred feet into this buffer zone maybe costs only ten points; a few thousand feet maybe costs 100 points.

Eric

On Tuesday, August 4, 2026 at 10:33:53 AM UTC-7 Tango Eight wrote:

We should probably just shoot them dead at the morning pilots meeting. Set a good example. Even better, we should do so retroactively!  Oh wait, that means at least three US world gliding champions.

You guys are just effing full of yourselves. Embarrassing. 

If you want to understand something maybe useful, why not contact the two pilots involved?  It took me five minutes to figure out who we are talking about. So you can, too. Be nice. Maybe they have a lesson to share. 

We had a similar incident at Perry. Good friends of mine ventured into a class D that was declared closed to the contest (North AFB).  There was at least 40,000 hrs of professional aviation experience in that cockpit and more ratings than you can shake a stick at, too tedious to recount.   I know their story and so would you if you simply asked. 

Is there a lesson?  Sure.  Is it a new lesson?  No. 

Preflight prep needs to include airspace and you need to be really really -really- certain that whatever it is in the cockpit you are relying on to illustrate the important airspace -works-.  

UNFORTUNATELY, the most common flight computers don’t give you any very good way to confirm that all the myriad warnings are properly setup and operating on the ground.  To test them, you’ll have to go approach some airspace and test.  It might be different between class A, B, C, D and restricted, in fact it almost certainly is.  Can you imagine how this could go wrong?  Can you imagine not having the right file loaded and 87 boxes on 37 pages of setup screens checked correctly (exaggerating but only slightly)?

Is there a problem here?  Sure. Is it as big a problem as stall spin accidents (That’s a gentle hint for Bob)?  No, I personally don’t think so.  Airspace incursions have a very low incidence of fatalities. 

I’m all for fixing problems, of all sorts. I do a lot of that sort of thing.  And what’s evident to me as a professional problem fixer is that you guys don’t understand the nature of the problem if you think you can fix it with stiffer penalties. 

The guys that are committing the offenses don’t know that they are out of compliance at the time that the offense occurs. That’s what needs fixing. 

Best,

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Monday, August 3, 2026 at 10:01:29 AM UTC-4 Brian Nightingale wrote:

[Matthew Scutter]

>Here's a thought: contest penalties begin one mile from restricted airspace, ramping up to "landout" at the actual airspace boundary. An "oops" of a few hundred feet into this buffer zone maybe costs only ten points; a few thousand feet maybe costs 100 points.

That's how it works in the IGC rules and most countries. It does help, but only with the technical violations, which I don't think most authorities actually care about much, and doesn't prevent the blatant violations which actually cause problems.

In Australia if you bust airspace at a contest you are required to report yourself to the aviation authority, which rarely results in personal consequences if you self-report.

I also have no sympathy for airspace violators, although I do believe contest organizers have a duty of care to set tasks with respect for airspace complexity and to brief on non-standard practices and clearances they may be relying on. I am sick of suffering the consequences of others airspace violations with constantly growing controlled airspace in France.

If you can't work an LX (forgivable) there are hundreds of other pieces of aviation software you can be running which are better suited to airspace navigation (i.e. ForeFlight/SkyDemon). It is our legaly responsibility as licence holders to be on top of it (and the job of our governing bodies to keep the actual airspace managable, which many are failing to achieve).

--

Thanks for using RAS_Prime!
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/c3d9ed93-295c-4e6a-94ed-47bb700c4a83n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Nightingale]

Matthew , 

                  What you say here makes absolute sense , and is an appropriate response to these kinds of airspace violation. Florida is a narrow Peninsula with Class B airspace to the East and West of Seminole Lake . It would behoove the task setters to keep people as far away from Class B as possible to avoid this .

[Sławomir PIela]

Kigo Concept (www.kigoconcept.pl)

The project starts with navigation app (Android/iOS/Linux) and will be expanded hopefully into full hardware setup that aims to provide better environment at incomparably lower cost than other systems. 

On the website you will find:

- links to download

- bugs/ideas form

- map generator

- AI help (experimental)

All comments are welcome. 

⸻ PROJECT SUMMARY. ⸻ 

One Ecosystem

Kigo Concept consists of several complementary components.

*** Kigo Nav ***

An enhanced open source navigation platform built on the proven foundations of XCSoar and TopHat2.

 

Features include:

•⁠  ⁠Task-specific high-resolution maps

•⁠  ⁠Daily airspace downloads (list of countries will be gradually expanded)

•⁠  ⁠Task and waypoint imports (via mail / usb)

•⁠  ⁠Real-time thermal visualization using FLARM and OGN data

•⁠  ⁠Flexible user interface designed for fast interpretation

•⁠  ⁠Group flying support

•⁠  ⁠GoPro integration (tested on GoPro 8)

•⁠  ⁠Takę off and Landing overlays

⸻

Kigo Services

The external online services provide pilots with tools that simplify flight preparation and data management.

Current services include:

•⁠  ⁠Task Map Generator

•⁠  ⁠AI Documentation and Help Center (experimental so far but work progresses)

*  Airspace downloader

•⁠  ⁠Community feedback portal

Additional online services are continuously being developed, including weather integration and cloud-based flight services.

⸻

*** Kigo ASR (coming soon) ***

The next step is natural voice interaction (requires dedicated hardware).

Instead of navigating menus or typing frequencies, simply speak.

Examples:

“Set Warsaw Tower.”

“Standby one one eight decimal three three zero.”

“MacCready one point seven.”

“Show nearest airports.”

Kigo ASR transforms spoken commands into cockpit actions while providing clear audio confirmation, allowing pilots to keep their attention outside the cockpit.

⸻

*** Kigo Cockpit (under development) ***

A dedicated hardware platform designed around human factors rather than traditional avionics.

Including:

•⁠  ⁠Dedicated display unit

•⁠  ⁠Stick-mounted controls

•⁠  ⁠Tactile feedback

•⁠  ⁠Audio feedback

•⁠  ⁠Integrated camera control

•⁠  ⁠Seamless interaction with Kigo Nav and Kigo ASR

The goal is not to add another screen.

The goal is to make interacting with existing systems almost effortless.

[Juliet 6]

Here is the link to the USA system for self-reporting airspace violations and other safety related situations: 

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html

Information provided in this manner is treated by NASA as confidential, and the reporting party is protected from FAA enforcement action (as I understand it....).  But the most important thing is that reporting under this system adds information to the safety database.  So, reporting will (theoretically) assist in identifying and addressing safety issues in the system.

Cheers,

Jim

[Tango Eight]

Bob Youngblood and I had an interesting and constructive phone conversation this morning which revealed agreement on all the big issues (compliance with FARs) and difference only on what one might call matters of personal taste on some lesser things like contest penalties.  For the record, I misunderstood Bob's preference as a contest DQ for any airspace related penalty and this isn't the case.  Bob states his preference is zero for the day and no launch the following contest day (I am on board with this in the case of a class B & C entry).  I really wish I'd just picked up the darned phone after reading Brian's note that started this thread, it would have saved a lot of steam.  Brian did give me the idea for a new T-shirt....

Here is what Bob and I would like to see in the contest community:

1.  Tasks available at the the daily morning briefing.  With a pictorial view that shows the task(s) and airspace that could be of concern.

2.  A few minutes at the daily briefing  to highlight potential for airspace incursions.  The presenter should be at least as theatrical as Fernando (j/k).

3.  A review board charged with debriefing any airspace violations that occur.

1 & 2  were demonstrated nicely at the recently concluded 18m Nationals at Nephi.  A hearty thank you to John Godfrey for communicating airspace and TFR updates daily and making the requirements for compliance 100% clear.  Another hearty thank you to CD Mark Keene and his task advisors for getting task and airspace info in front of us every morning at the briefing.  This is huge.  -Great job-.

What we aren't doing: we aren't (at least as far as I know) debriefing violations when they occur to understand a) what happened, b) what the root cause was and c) what corrective actions are indicated.  The current approach is protective of the pilot.  

Here's the rule:

11.1.7.4 If it is determined that a flight includes a serious airspace clearance violation: 

● The Scorer shall give the affected pilot the opportunity to withdraw the flight log for that flight. 

● This withdrawal shall be treated as a failure to submit flight documentation. 

● A withdrawn flight log is not published, and no copy is retained by the Scorer.

Note:  "serious" airspace violations imply "non-serious" violations are a thing too, and this deserves explanation.  Here's the rule:

11.1.7 Airspace procedures 

11.1.7.1 Airspace clearance requirements 

11.1.7.1.1 Horizontal: A serious violation occurs if any fix lies within closed airspace. 

11.1.7.1.2 Vertical: 

● A minor violation occurs if any fix has a vertical separation from closed airspace less than 500 ft but not less than 100 ft. 

● A serious violation occurs if any fix has a vertical separation from closed airspace less than 100 ft.

What this amounts to is any entry into class A, B, C, prohibited, restricted or other airspace designated as closed for contest purposes is treated as "major", entry into the buffer zone stipulated by SSA contest rules is "minor".

Especially in the case of Class B & C airspace violation, I don't think 11.1.7.4 washes very well.  I think we need to step it up a little.

Best regards,

Evan Ludeman "T8"

[Roy Bourgeois]

Friends

Below is a letter I have sent to the Editor of Soaring Magazine on this issue.

ROY

More on Contest Airspace Violations

This letter is further to Bob Youngblood’s letter about airspace violations at a recent contest.   Bob should be commended for giving this problem the attention that it deserves and raising it to a national level. It is just as serious as he says it is, and if we do not find a way to solve it  - somebody else will solve it for us, and very likely in a manner that we do not want.

Where I disagree with Bob is his belief that  the remedy is stiffer penalties for the offender or that tougher penalties will lead to safer activities.  I don’t think it works that way.  Nobody intends to commit an airspace violation or weighs risk/benefits before doing it. It happens because of mistakes attributable to flying in a new area (with new airspace constraints), errors in  loading the correct airspace file, and/or the complexities of modern flight computers that allow for muting of warnings or non display of airspace on selected “pages” in the display, coupled with the distractions of flying in close proximity to other gliders and the need to keep your attention outside of the glider and not on the computer screen. The muting/non display of the warning functions in the computers is essential to avoid  “warning overload” in many situations of multiple traffic warnings and airspace warnings but it is really easy to forget that you have muted a warning or are using a “page” that does not show airspace, or one that only shows lateral airspace and not altitude restrictions. 

The current penalty for such a mistake is loss of all points for the day, loss of an additional 100 points on the next day, and the possibility of FAA disciplinary actions for the violation. Making it even tougher on the pilot is not going to make the problem go away - it is just going to make pilots reluctant to enter contests at all. What will work, I believe, is a comprehensive organizational response to the problem similar to what we did with assembly errors leading to control checks/ wing tape signoffs and midair risk leading to mandatory Flarm use. Those things were once viewed as "individual pilot responsibility” but later became also organizational responsibilities. To that end I suggest the following:

1. Airspace violation information and details (not identifying the pilots) should be included in the final report of a contest to the SSA and that information should be considered carefully on the issue of future contest site selection. This will have several positive effects including motivating the contest officials to stress airspace compliance for contestants and to avoid tasking decisions that increase airspace violation risk. This also avoids a “one size fits all” approach but may mean that maybe some chronic violation sites should not have sanctioned contests at all.

2.  High risk contest sites (based on the data collected) should be required to demonstrate special steps to deal with the problem in advance of the mandatory safety meeting (usually held the evening before the first contest day). Too many airspace violations occur on practice days before the safety meeting and the safety meetings I have attended deal with airspace issues in a perfunctory manner - if at all.  It is not inappropriate to require new or non recent (at the site) pilots to attend a special airspace briefing (which can be video recorded). Pilots on the line can be required to demonstrate that they have the proper  airspace file loaded and are set to visualize both lateral and vertical airspace constraints. 

3. Tasking decisions need to be made with sensitivity to the airspace issues.  If a course line or turn area includes a controlled area or is near one - that point needs to be emphasized at either the daily pilot meeting or a special grid meeting called before launch. Tasking into high risk areas should be avoided and task selectors should also consider other distractions (such as heavy gaggle flying or low cloudbase) that may lead to airspace errors. Post launch task change into a complex airspace area should not be done. If a day has to be called off because the only available area is high risk for airspace violation - then call it off.  That seems infinitely better than the risk of an incident that jeopardizes all future contest or club flying at that site.  

4. A distinction should be maintained between FAR violation incursions and non FAR  or contest established “violations”. For example, a pilot electing to land out at a Class D airport for safety reasons is not what we are trying to discourage.  No new rule should discourage safe decision making.  We should find ways to encourage pilots to talk about how they made the mistake - so we all learn from it.

         Lastly, all of us could use a little caution and humility on this subject. The increasing complexity of our flight computers makes errors more (and not less) likely. “Warning overload” is a real problem yet eliminating warnings is also highly problematic. What you think you can do alone on a leisurely cross country flight is very different than what is happening in a contest when you are brushed up close to controlled airspace in a low level gaggle with Flarm, traffic and airspace warnings all blaring simultaneously in your ears above the audio vario.  The attitude that “It won't happen to me” is more a prayer than a certainty.  My point in all of this is to protect our sport by a team approach to the airspace violation issue. I am sure that others have more or better ideas and I hope you will share them.

ROY

Roy Bourgeois, Phoenix Arizona

[Brian Nightingale]

I'm glad to see that the Soaring Community is taking this seriously , as they should . I really think it would be beneficial if the administrators would call and invite Bob back to RAS Prime so that discussions between all parties could take place , and a consensus could be reached so recommendations could be made to the SSA .

[Eric Greenwell]

I agree the RAS would be better off with Bob participating, but it might be even better if this contest conversation where taking place on the SSA forum for "Racing & Contests" (https://www.ssa.org/forums/forum/sailplane-racing/). The subject is an SSA problem, and all members should be comfortable discussing it there, perhaps more so than on RAS_Prime, which includes a lot of people that aren't SSA contest pilots, or even SSA members.

Eric

[Dan Daly]

While the incident was in the U.S., it is of interest to glider pilots everywhere. De-identified, a discussion of this type is exactly the kind of thing that all here benefit, in my opinion.

2D 

Canada

[Roy Bourgeois]

" it might be even better if this contest conversation where taking place on the SSA forum for "Racing & Contests" 

I am not sure I can agree with that. The clubs and non racing pilots have an important stake in this discussion. Part of Bob Youngblood's (and my) 

concern is that if the FAA steps into this problem they are not just going to say "No contests allowed here". Instead, they are going to say " No GLIDERS allowed here".   Restricting the discussion to the comp pilots who follow the Racing & Contest forum allows the pretense that the problem will only impact them. That will not be the case if we don't fix this.

ROY

[Ronald Gleason]

Since no one has done it here is the link to Day 1 of 2026 20 Meter Nationals scores.  You can see who f'ed up.  No need to not to hide the obvious and what takes 47 seconds to figure out.

https://members.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?contestId=2659&ContestDetailId=35926&ContestName=2026+20+Meter+Nationals&ContestDate=3/25/2026&ResultsUpdate=True 

Also the article says that contest participants are the best of soaring pilots.  In my experiencing scoring many SSA regional and National events and FAI worlds, 2012 and 2024, and running ground operations for 10+ years at Nephi unfortunately many contests are filled with people who have the time and a check that cashes.

Ron Gleason

[Brian Nightingale]

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2026, at 6:48 PM, Roy Bourgeois <ro...@bw.legal> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/accc3ba4-add0-4d99-8e1a-59bf6879ccc7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Nightingale]

Roy , 

           Your approach to this is well thought out . Although this is competition , it’s still ostensibly pleasure flying . There is absolutely no reason for task setters to put pilots in high risk situations, whether it be airspace , terrain, or any reason for that matter . Personally I think these things should be avoided at all costs . If highly experienced contest pilots are losing situational awareness, what’s going to happen with new or less experienced pilots? It’s simply not worth the risk . Competition naturally causes people to push and do things they might not normally do. It’s human nature. Not putting pilots in these positions in the first place would alleviate 90% of the problems , and in my opinion would not degrade the competition in any way 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2026, at 11:34 AM, Roy Bourgeois <ro...@bw.legal> wrote:

Friends

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/8c2f4629-4bd5-40ad-8519-b66b8329c18fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Chip Bearden]

I, too, am glad to see us taking this subject seriously. But I can assure you that contest pilots always do. I agree they're not always the best sailplane pilots but the disparaging implication that contests are filled with pilots who have only the money and available time to recommend them is much too harsh. Yes, we all have our short lists of pilots we avoid in thermals or wonder how they seem to dodge disaster. But we also have our short lists of organizers and contest officials who aren't high up on the scale. :) Soaring has all types, just like any other activity.

All that said, I don't know anyone in the contest community who knowingly takes chances with controlled airspace. The risk vs. reward ratio doesn't make sense. Make a mistake, even by a few feet, and you're essentially out of the contest. The statement made that the only reason to violate airspace is for points reflects a woeful (or perhaps willful) ignorance of cross-country and competition flying.

Analyzing how and why airspace incursions occur at contests DOES make sense, however, and some reasons have already been advanced, though I welcome an organized, structured effort to catalog and analyze them.

One obvious one is having the wrong airspace file. There are two versions available per contest, each in multiple formats. And it's not always easy to know when you don't have the correct file, although I make it a point to zoom out on a practice day to make sure the big no-fly airspaces are showing up on my moving map.

Complicating this are the unique rules at certain sites (Perry and Harris Hill come to mind) and numerous sites that are awkwardly positioned very close to sensitive airspace (e.g., TSA just outside of the Dallas Class B) or sometimes even inside it (M-ASA inside the TFR that expands around P-40 whenever the U.S. President visits Camp David). Those complications aren't always reflected in flight computers.

Yes, we should have a mandatory briefing about potential airspace conflicts before each contest. That already occurs frequently based on my experience, though most often the night before the contest, not during the practice period that precedes it. Typically, the local glider operation is VERY WELL acquainted with the controllers and other authorities in the area and has invested a lot of time in building relationships with them and developing procedures that allow them to conduct glider ops on a day-to-day basis. Visiting contest pilots represent a potential threat to those established relationships because they have neither the history nor the awareness.

Another reason for airspace incursions is not configuring one's flight computer properly to (i) display airspace boundaries and/or (ii) provide video/audio proximity warnings. That's the pilot's responsibility but it's not always an easy task, as a helpful thread close to this one illustrates. The profusion of different navigation hardware and software (including versions) adds to the challenge.

Another reason already mentioned is the multiplicity of warnings one can receive. I agree they can be both annoying and confusing, thereby counterintuitively increasing the chance of accidental airspace violations by prompting a frustrated pilot to silence them temporarily, ironically just at the moment when they're closest to an incursion. When I was circling at the edge of the start cylinder at Harris Hill recently, I was getting simultaneous alerts about the airspace at the regional airport a few miles away, FLARM alerts about traffic a few hundred meters away in my thermal, and incessant queries about whether I wanted to accept my latest start as I exited and then re-entered the cylinder every 20 seconds.

One reason not yet mentioned is very familiar to me. I have configured my flight computer (Top Hat) so the display automatically zooms in when I stop to thermal. This allows me to see a thermal map of my path through the immediate lift/sink areas without having to manually change pages (this is in addition to the Thermal Assistant in my ClearNav vario but with a wider field of view). An unintended consequence is I can be right up against an airspace boundary before I see it come into view on my display as my circle drifts slowly towards it in the wind.

None of these reasons is an excuse for an airspace incursion, of course, but time devoted here to insulting contest and non-contest pilots alike and accusing them of various callous attitudes or ignorance is a waste. If you don't have the facts, don't be so quick to judge, presume to know what's in anyone's head, or to offer prescriptions--especially if you're basing your judgments on second-hand "knowledge" and with no contest experience. IF this were an easy problem to solve, it wouldn't be the issue it is now.

I'm particularly troubled by statements that contest organizers should not EVER put pilots in high-risk situations. It's my experience over 60 years that this rarely happens (there are exceptions; see my comment about short lists of contest officials). Yes, tasks are sometimes called that require pilots to negotiate safe passage over areas of unlandable terrain, navigate around controlled airspace, and avoid flying into hazardous weather. As our rules make clear, it is always the pilot's responsibility to be safe. Eliminating all risk factors whatsoever when calling tasks would severely limit task calling at many contest sites if not shut down contests held there: e.g., Minden, Truckee, Nephi, New Castle, Wurtsboro, Mifflin, Sugarbush, Elmira, Uvalde, and a lot more I haven't flown at.

As for allowing Bob Youngblood to participate on RAS Prime, I'm all for it--so long as he agrees to abide by the rules of this forum. In the past, it's my perception he has not been willing to do so [I frankly do not know if he has attempted to register here and been rejected]. There's a reason RAS Prime is "moderated" and open only to approved members, and it is only partly because of the overwhelming spamming that occurred in the last months of the old RAS group. In fact, much of the "noise" on RAS was from regular participants, not spammers.

Like one poster here, too, had an interaction with Bob over a thread he started on the old RAS group ("The Apology", about 6 years ago: https://groups.google.com/g/rec.aviation.soaring/c/VNUXCy814Ms/m/XpdsEx_JBAAJ). Bob disagreed with objections raised by certain women about an advertisement run by the SSA in Soaring magazine. Before the protracted drama sparked by his initial post was over, it resulted in behavior by pilots, many of whom I knew and previously respected, that was reprehensible. One egregious example (NOT from Bob, just to be clear) I've included to illustrate:

"...if you think being a childless corporate whore is better than being a stay-at-home mother, you need to talk to some honest women."

It was deeply troubling to see how many male pilots either openly or tacitly supported sentiments like this. That was not the worst of the old RAS but it didn't make us look very good as a group.

Suffice it to say that some of Bob's numerous postings generated plenty of controversy in the past. He also consumed a lot of bandwidth--much of it not especially productive, IMHO. :) Nevertheless, in my phone conversations with him about The Apology post, he struck me as a smart, fundamentally good guy. Opinionated, certainly, but, hey, that's soaring.

Even when I disagreed with him, he raised good points and forced me to think. By most accounts, he's also contributed a great deal to the sport over the years, as I agree he's done with his recent letter to Soaring. Thank you, Bob.

So I believe anyone willing to follow the rules of RAS Prime should be able to post here. Just as the pendulum often swings in politics, we've gone from having far too much low-value content on the old RAS--of the self-indulgent "I'm an American so I have to right to say anything I want because you don't have to read it if you don't want to, that's why we live in a free country" drivel--to having too little participation today. I know a lot of pilots who gave up on RAS and haven't come back to RAS Prime.

Meanwhile, I think the approach that's emerging from Bob's timely letter makes sense. NO ONE wants to see airspace incursions. They threaten all of us who share this sport, whether we are grimly obsessed contest pilots or more relaxed fun soaring enthusiasts. There's room for all of us...so long as the airspace we need remains open.

But weighing in with disparaging judgments about each other's motivations and character and demanding action without having all the facts sounds too much like what I see on social media much of the time. And despite the way many pilots used RAS in the past, I don't view RAS Prime as social media, at least not the same way I look at Facebook or Instagram or Twitter; i.e., as venues where anyone can express their opinions about anything, and the more controversy, the better. RAS Prime should be a forum where we exchange information and ideas productively for our mutual benefit, not debate whether or not MAGA or the DSA are best positioned to ensure the future of soaring in the U.S.

For this to happen, we need ALL kinds of soaring fans. And many of them abandoned the original RAS because they grew tired of the same pattern of rude, intolerant, and excessively critical comments--remarks that most of us would never make face-to-face. When I think of the old RAS, I think back to the early days of Saturday Night Live when Dan Ackroyd would respond to Jane Curtin's comments with "Jane, you ignorant slut." It was funny then because it was so shocking and, of course, being played for laughs. Such analogously rude behavior on RAS wasn't funny. 

Today, thank goodness, the era of microaggressions seems to be waning even on college campuses, but the attitude of "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" discourages many in our sport from participating. And when they choose not to contribute, that's our loss.

In today's keyboarded, semi-anonymous online world, some guardrails are unfortunately necessary. Are RAS Prime's rules perfect? Not really. But we've seen the alternative, and it wasn't pretty, either.

So as far as I'm concerned, Bob Youngblood or anyone else is welcome to join RAS Prime to help solve this and other problems, so long as they agree to abide by those guardrails. If not, well, there are always letters to Soaring, another moderated forum, albeit one that doesn't offer instant gratification.

If anyone has managed to make it this far in their reading without falling asleep, I'd be happy to take responses. :)

Chip Bearden
JB

[Andrzej Kobus]

Chip, respectfully, I think that's backwards.

Why do contest pilots get that close to the airspace in the first place? Why not keep 2 miles out as a personal minimum, abandon the thermal early, or fly through sink to avoid the airspace? The truth is contest pilots make points-driven decisions all day long. I've found myself more than once uncomfortably close to airspace, and I made a decision not to put myself in that situation. No one wants to violate airspace — when someone does, it's because they miscalculated, lost concentration, or couldn't cope with the warning overload you described. But the reason they were in that position to begin with is that it was the most advantageous place to be, not because they had no other option. Stay further from the boundary and you can tolerate some mistakes; hug it and you can't.

You've listed several "reasons" for violations — but are they really reasons, or just descriptions of how someone ended up too close? Strip it down and it's the same story every time: someone put themselves closer to the boundary than they needed to be.

We solved the problem of finish-cylinder crashes by requiring pilots to finish at higher altitudes. We should do something similar here — build in bigger margins so a moment of distraction or a bad warning doesn't turn into a violation.

AK

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/bf0ce289-521f-461c-9c4d-c22978acbdb1n%40googlegroups.com.

[christopher behm]

Maybe as suggested, the solution is to create a "penalty buffer zone" that extends beyond the airspace itself. 

Something like like -25 points for being in a band 2nm to 1nm from the actual airspace, and -50 points for being 1nm to 0nm from the airspace in the task. 

Of course, this would take some effort on the part of the contest directors and task setters, to come up with the files for this. But it could be done in advance, with several tasks setup months preceding and one picked based on the weather of the day. 

Just a thought. Could do the same with altitudes above or below airspace. 

Similar to higher finish lines. A buffer. 

Conversely, points could be awarded to pilots that stay furthest from airspaces during a task. 

Just spit-balling ideas. Some won't be good ones. 

Regards, 

Chris

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

---

From: rasp...@googlegroups.com <rasp...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Andrzej Kobus <soa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 09 August 2026 17:24:50
To: rasp...@googlegroups.com <rasp...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RAS_Prime] Re: Airspace Violations

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/CABhEzgwLpeUgg9z5EWQZuo4Qkfx59TSW5gcNVu%3DD1UfF2x0Mjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Seim]

What is missing from Youngblood's letter is a single example of an airspace violation, only that it occurred. Did a pilot blatantly fly through the middle of the airspace, or did they dip a wing into it? We do not know. Knowing Youngblood I think it is the later, rather than the former. Until you know ALL of the details it is worse than stupid to be promulgating punishments for said violations.

Tom 2G

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/SA3PR17MB718018AD75ABA877DB621EC8A1DE2%40SA3PR17MB7180.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

[Charles Mampe]

Airspace incursions I know of are typically just getting into it, not flying straight through it. Whether it was just getting into the side or trying to fly over and clipping the top after almost clearing it in length.

To avoid posted evidence, the logs are usually either not turned in (thus 0 for the day/DNC) or deleted after submission (this includes online like WeGlide or OLC). Thus, sorta hard for anyone other than the pilot to provide the info you're looking for.

[SS]

I miss the Poorist as much as I miss the Mayor (of Saskatoon), Daryl Kabatoff.  Occasionally they both had interesting takes on gliding, if you cared to wade through their respective mountain of provocative and distracting bs.  Toward the end of the old RAS, they'd earned their reputations as spammers, one internal, the other external to RAS.  Nothing has changed.  If Daryl Kabatoff had suddenly voiced some topical concern, like Canadian wildfires are bad and that something should really be done about them, I doubt that would rehabilitate his reputation and prompt some weird notion about how his re-emergence would somehow make RAS Prime better.

[Hank Nixon]

I agree with this viewpoint.

Nobody intentionally violates.

But many get close, sometimes too close.

It requires real discipline to change path from a good energy path because it may get too close.

It also requires setting up nav displays with needed warnings. This is probably not done a carefully as it should be.

Personal experience. My partner and I were on the last leg of the last day at Perry this year. The optimal path, end energy line were over North air space.

Part way across it looked as if we were "probably" going to get over OK. Maybe 200 feet to spare with 2 miles to go.

We elected to deviate right to get to a no risk situation.

The deviation off the line and energy path cost us about a minute. We missed second place by 24 seconds.

Did we make the right decision?

Yes.

But wish we didn't have to

Helpful in this situation was GIB doing tactician call while GIF drove.

FWIW

UH GIB 

[Brian Nightingale]

Chip ,

           I don't think anyone including Bob, is suggesting that competition pilots are flippant in their attitudes towards safety and airspace rules. But these incursions still happen, and the FAA has noticed.  The point is, whether anyone wants to admit or not, that competition inherently causes people to push the limits. It's human nature.  IMHO, setting tasks that tempt people to push the limits is a bad idea. All that really needs to be done, as Chris Behm suggested is to create a buffer zone to keep people well away from airspace, with some kind of penalty applying to those that get into the buffer zone. That would alleviate most of it. As far as your conversation with Bob, your read on him is absolutely correct. Bob is a good guy. Certainly opinionated, and not afraid to voice his opinion at all. Bob and his wife Eileen are the heart and soul of Treasure Coast Soaring, and no one works harder to make it a success and provide soaring to the Florida community than Bob. Half the club aircraft have been purchased and rebuilt to better than new standards by Bob and several other club members. Beneath the gruff exterior, Bob is one of the most generous, good-hearted people you'll ever want to meet. His work with our youth program and the mentoring he provides to the kids is a joy to see. I've gotten to know Bob pretty well over the last 3 years, and you can have no better friend than Bob Youngblood. I've learned and continue to learn from his aviation experience every time we talk. When I met Bob, I had a problem. I hadn't flown a glider in nearly 40 years, and to be able to do it again had to lose nearly half my body weight to do it. I told him my goal was cross country soaring.  With his encouragement and the support of the club, I did it in a year and a half, got my license, and am now working towards my cross-country goals. Bob is a credit to the sport, and if everyone worked as hard to promote it as he does, soaring in the US would be in a much better place. Bob has started a google group called Soaring Aviators Group. He responded to the various points brought up in this discussion there. All are welcome to join and discuss freely .

Brian N .  SC 

[Roderick Read]

My 2 cents are that everyone knows when near controlled airspace, and how to avoid going into that airspace. 

When I last flew competitions in Switzerland, Germany, and France, competition directors always made sure all controlled airspace such as Class A (Italy), Class B, TFR’s, and Military active/inactive, were always highlighted during briefings, and added to the daily task sheet given to each pilot.  

Using my Cambridge, Oudie, Or LX, I always knew exactly How close I was to that particular airspace. We were never given limits for breaching the airspace meant that was the end of your flight, or disqualification for the day. 

I disagree with a buffer of 1-2nm, and the could be a corridor nearby, which could potentially eliminate the necessary route to get to the turnpoint. 

It used to be an honor system until all those black boxes became popular, but now with “Big Brother watching”, I think there is a need for better communication about the issue to reinforce the dangers and consequences of entering such airspace. If not reported to the FAA, it should be, and the guilty pilots should take the time to follow-up with a “Lesson Learned” write up - during the competition. 

I think we can all do better, especially during competition flying. 

RFR 1N N301N

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 10, 2026, at 12:42, Brian Nightingale <aaaseptic...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chip ,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/464ecc54-eae9-430a-bfbc-526575dc15bdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Charles Mampe]

OK, I will add to this because it addresses my comment, multiple airspace databases (AKA, DB's) for a site.

Some may be different DB's due to logger/display types.

Some may add TFR's (my site get's hit by Trump in NJ, MASA get's it when Camp David is active), Florida gets it when Trump is there.

Different format is fine, the basics should be the same.

I fly Perry in the spring, WHY is there a special DB there? The DB on the WWexchange (thanks a ton Lynn) should be fine as would be the "all USA'.

DB commonality is paramount, a site specific should be part of "normal". I have peeps to ask about Perry (they make a big deal of getting THEIR DB file not a USA generic). Why?????

Lets stop the easy stuff, configuring your map display is hopeless for event organizers.

Just my $0.05....the USA is ditching the penny/$0.01

[Cliff Hilty]

Hmmm, Ive held off replying until I see some of the issues people are worried about. 

1st IMHO, Airspace violations are the pilot in commands responsibility. He/She is solely responsible and will face the consequences with both the FAA and the contest management. Yes those may have further reaching effects on other pilots and we do have some responsibilities as peers, fellow pilots and contest management to try and mitigate the chances of errors in judgment or equipment usage errors and this argument is just about that. How much responsibility do we put on the contest/SSA staff to mitigate the risk. I do not believe you can ever completely eliminate the risk. If we could there would be no more accidents or there would be no more flying period. 

2nd, like the idea of a larger buffer zone but one of the issues I've run into was at the seniors this year they were using a "special" airspace file that did exactly that and added space before hitting the FAA space. Unfortunately for me that file was in cup file format and my SN10B will not read it. I am using a Garmin 660Aera for current FAA and as a EFB which has a current airspace file as well as adsb in to get current TFR's. So if the SSA rules committee adds any rules or "special" airspace files they need to make it uniform additions. In others words the same around all affected airspace wether that is 1-2 or 5 miles. So that those of us using FAA approved data can easily interpret it. That was not the case in the Florida file. Thanks to KM he looked at the file on his laptop and interpreted it for me and basically gave me the furthest distance I needed to be away from that space to not get a penalty. Thanks Ken!

3rd, using the term "never" is just naive and as some have said that the pilots that violate airspace should be banned from ever flying again as unsafe is just as naive. Shit happens, and I don't believe for a minute it couldn't happen to me. Im a very conscience pilot and make every effort to comply but the airspace is a very complex environment and our computers are getting even more complex. 

3rd I also acknowledge that to keep our sport alive and well we need new people not less flying in all categories, local regional and national competitions as well as fun, OLC, local and record flights. Overburden with rules and you WILL drive pilots away. The KISS principal applies here! I do not envy the rules committee's job this year!

Cliff (CH) ASW27 CFIG C170B PSEL

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/d57d6176-ec40-4bfe-b207-c74fc8f05c03n%40googlegroups.com.

[Glenn Betzoldt]

I think you are blaming the contest pilots unfairly; the reason is we can see there IGC files and they are looked at by the scorers and violations are detected.  Nobody looks at the no-racing pilots and general aviation pilots’ files if they have them, so a lot of the airspace violations are not detected.  If you could see all the get out of jail free reports (ASRS – Aviation Safety Reporting System) you would see what’s going on, lots of violations!

GB

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

This is off-topic, but I sometimes wonder how many airspace violations are avoided because the pilot really wants to post the flight on OLC/WeGlide, so chooses the more difficult, legal soaring path instead of the easier one that crosses some excluded airspace. 

Eric

On 8/11/2026 6:00 AM, Glenn Betzoldt wrote:

I think you are blaming the contest pilots unfairly; the reason is we can see there IGC files and they are looked at by the scorers and violations are detected.  Nobody looks at the no-racing pilots and general aviation pilots’ files if they have them, so a lot of the airspace violations are not detected.  If you could see all the get out of jail free reports (ASRS – Aviation Safety Reporting System) you would see what’s going on, lots of violations!

GBn%40googlegroups.com.

[Chip Bearden]

With all due respect, several in this thread have indeed suggested that competition pilots are only focused on points to the exclusion of safety, legality, and potential FAA action. I don't think that's a productive thing to say. It isn't true and it just makes some folks lash out defensively.

I'll also push back gently against the notion that "IMHO, setting tasks that tempt people to push the limits is a bad idea." Maybe it's semantics, but I think a lot of us in soaring--and not just contest pilots--enjoy challenging ourselves, pushing our limits. Whether it's soloing or getting licensed or learning how to soar, or eventually navigating our way around the various constraints during a contest flight--including terrain, weather, other competitors, and airspace--it's all part of the challenge. There are, of course, both healthy as well as unhealthy ways of managing this.

Regarding the FAA, I have no idea whether they've noticed many glider airspace incursions, in specific locations or nationally. We're all worried they will, but my impression is the majority of contest airspace incursions are minor and some are not really incursions at all (see next paragraph). And I haven't seen data on how many airspace incursions are by gliders vs. powered aircraft, or on contest flights vs. recreational local and cross-country flights. On that subject, no one has proposed anything here that would address non-contest airspace incursions, and I suspect the FAA couldn't care less whether it's a contest pilot or not if a glider wanders into Class B airspace. If it turns out that, say, 90% of glider airspace incursions occur on non-contest flights--because, as has been noted, contest pilots represent only a tiny fraction of the SSA membership--this could be another case of a solution looking for a problem.

Back to my comment about incursions, from what I know, you can't tell from the SSA score sheets if contest penalties really represent actual FAA airspace incursions. I'm not sure everyone realizes that we already have buffer zones in contests: for vertical borders, at least. Come within 500 of an airspace floor and you're in minor penalty territory. Get within 100 feet, and it's a major penalty. You might still be legal per the FAA, but you'll incur the same crushing penalty anyway, and it's that penalty that shows up on the scoresheet, not the incursion, per se.

In the specific case one expert so helpfully and selflessly outed at the 20M Multiplace Nationals in FL, you can't tell whether the pilot was legal or not. They were allowed to withdraw the flight log (or never even submitted it), which is per the rules. Some might say that's to prevent pilots incriminating themselves for an actual violation. Others might say it's a courtesy to prevent an SSA buffer zone violation from being interpreted as a genuine FAA airspace infringement. Still others might say it's so the SSA doesn't find itself in the messy business of enforcing or sanctioning FAR violations.

Whatever actually happened that day, the scorer and CD probably know, but no one else besides the pilot may, including the FAA. I once watched a scorer ding a turnpoint claimed by a pilot because the center of his glider had missed the edge of the turn cylinder by less than half a wingspan, per GPS. I'm not being critical, just observing that GPS allows for precision we didn't have in the old days. I question whether the FAA is monitoring every piece of controlled airspace that precisely today, even for those who carry transponders, though that may well change in the future.

So adding a buffer to the horizontal limit of an airspace might make sense in some (not all) cases, if that's where the problem lies. I don't know if that's true because I haven't seen data on specifics. In the case of the 20M Nationals, I counted one penalty that looks like airspace in 7 days with 17 pilots flying most days. That's one out of 117 flights I totaled, or less than 1%. THAT'S ONE FLIGHT TOO MANY, but it's not the image portrayed of reckless contest pilots pouring wildly into the FAA's controlled airspace seeking an advantage.

So, again, I take issue with accusations from those not on the SSA pilot ranking list that "contest pilots make points-driven decisions all day long," and the implication that points are the only criterion they blindly employ, with frequent dangerous outcomes.

Yes, we contest pilots do pay attention to points. It's kinda how we keep score. But ironically, if points were ALL we paid attention to, we wouldn't bust airspace because the points penalty is far too severe to justify taking risks. Like another poster here, I also deviated slightly when overflying the North airspace at Perry this spring to avoid even the small chance I'd penetrate the ceiling.

But even if this kind of incursion doesn't happen often, why does it occur at all? I agree that contest (and non-contest) pilots make mistakes. We all do. Learning what those mistakes are (including how serious they are) and why they occur can help us adjust the rules proportionately. I think that's what the cooler heads in this thread are proposing. I'm all for it. But we need data, not more loud opinions.

Some excellent suggestions have been made. But I wish we worked harder on the process of cooperating, communicating, and trying to understand each other to reach a happy conclusion. It's easier to cast aspersions, question motives and competence, pontificate, and preach. That was the style of the old RAS. Back then, a few folks loved to see themselves loudly championing causes, which resulted in many others losing patience and leaving. We don't need that here now. The problem we've all seen is that sometimes good people turn into provocateurs when they're at their keyboards.

Want to make our airspace problem go away? Stop flying gliders in the U.S. That fixes everything.

But between that extreme, on the one hand, and business as usual, on the other hand, there are myriad compromises. Where we set the limits of any compromise is the question. Some good ideas have been put forth. Let's stop accusing, generalizing, and over simplifying things and come up with a solution we can all live with.

It's even possible that when we examine the data, we may find we don't need to change anything, although the disparity between the current buffer zone in vertical distance and lack of a horizontal buffer begs a question. Perhaps the Rules Committee, never ones to shrink from controversy, can weigh in with their thinking. :) Adding horizontal buffer zones around some airspace is not difficult technically; it's just another airspace file, or a modification to the existing SSA version of the file we now use. Setting up a graduated penalty structure would require more work.

In the meantime, let's get to work gathering de-identified data on SSA airspace-related penalties and find out as much as we can about them. And if data on airspace violations are available more widely, let's look at them, too. Someday we might be well served by being able to show analytically that gliders, even contest gliders, aren't the real problem..

Now back to Facebook, Instagram, and X, where people are reasonable and laid back and want simply to live quietly in harmony. LOL

Chip Bearden
JB

[*Eric Greenwell1*]

Many gliders now have ADSB-out, which produces a public flight trace automatically. It might be possible to find airspace intrusions by reviewing the files of those ADSB equipped gliders (all gliders, not just contest gliders) flying out of Seminole, Perry, etc. That might give some quantification to the frequency of intrusions, and the number of contest vs recreational flights involved.

Eric

--

Thanks for using RAS_Prime!
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rasprime/lEZc2msBtuI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/c717fac3-7b0e-4477-a277-d5d30126e401n%40googlegroups.com.

[Lynn Alley]

Hello Cliff,

You said:

at the seniors this year they were using a "special" airspace file that did exactly that and added space before hitting the FAA space. Unfortunately for me that file was in cup file format and my SN10B will not read it.

For future reference for you or for any SN10 user or contest official, please contact me by email if you need a file converted into the NDB format for the SN10.  I'll be happy to do it for you.  You can reply to me directly here or send it to the "Questions and Comments" link on my website at http://www.soaringdata.info.

In this case though, I believe John Leibacher had already done it.  The Soaring Turnpoint Exchange for the Florida Seniors has the combined turnpoint and airspace file for the SN10. One of the great things about the Turnpoint Exchange is that John does a truly amazing job in delivering the files in formats that support nearly all of the glide computers that are currently in use, and for many that aren't ;-)  Look at https://soaringweb.org/TP/Seminole/files.html, and then search for  "Ilec SN-10® with restricted airspace".  I think the word "restricted" here means all airspace closed to the contest, not just Restricted airspace in the strict sense.

Also, you did make a very minor error in your statement above.  Most glide computers use separate files for defining turnpoints and airspace.  CUP the lingua franca of  turnpoint-only formats, while OpenAir has become the most popular format for airspace.  The SN10 uses a combined turnpoint and airspace format originally defined by Dave Nadler called NDB.  For the Seniors contest as well as for most others published on the Turnpoint Exchange, John provided the airspace info in multiple formats including OpenAir, SeeYou Binary (CUB), Tim Newport-Peace (SUA), as well as Nadler's NDB format for the SN10.

Yup, this stuff is a little complicated for sure.  But John and I are both here to help with file format issues.

Lynn Alley

"2KA"

[Chip Bearden]

Good point re ADS-B Out. I've been assuming the adoption rate is still fairly low based on what I see at contests, but it is increasing and that changes the picture a bit.

As for self-reported airspace violations, just for kicks, I did a few searches of the ASRS database with de-identified data. I only found 20 reported "Airspace Violation" events involving the word "glider" in the past 25 years. That's compared with over 7000 total such reports.

That's hard to believe but the ASRS DB UI is a little confusing so I may not have been seeing all the reports. There seems to be no way to filter by aircraft type on the basis of glider or specific make/model (the latter of which seems to include only powered aircraft). I had to use a text filter for the word "glider" in the report narrative. More than half of those 20 results involved drones (with power pilots reporting they saw an object that looked like a glider or a drone, but that turned out to be a drone) or hang gliders, not us. I didn't find any additional reports when I expanded the search terms to "sailplane", "sail plane", "motorglider", or "motor glider." Perhaps someone with more familiarity with this system can do a better job. Twenty just sounds unbelievably low, less than 1 per year on average.

So either our contest pilots are not self reporting (possible, though not advisable), or the contest airspace penalties might, indeed, represent mostly SSA airspace incursions and not genuine FAA airspace violations. I'll repeat my call for better data so we can make informed decisions.

Thoughts?

Chip Bearden
JB

[Cliff Hilty]

Thanks Lynn, I stand corrected. I also got a direct email from John. I just looked at wwtpe and see that ther is a file with the airspace. Im not sure when that was created and put on the site but IIRC when I downloaded the file I used, about a month before the contest, it wasn't there. I tend to do that alot and should have looked after I arrived. It only takes a few minutes to change files. My bad! As I told John, I use my Garmin Aera 660 as my primary moving map and faa airspace. It uses .gpx files for turnpoints but has its own faa airspace data. I am not sure anyone would be able to amend or change that data on the Aera. So I would stand by my statement that should the SSA rules committee decide to make special airspace files for contests, that they make it uniform to the existing faa data such as 1sm or 2 or whatever they decide. This will make it easier to set up alarms ect. In off the shelf products. Thanks for all you work on this stuff!

Cliff

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/9b20c77c-bdbf-4dbc-a8ec-094198e26f54n%40googlegroups.com.

Cliff

[Chip Bearden]

Correction: it turns out the ASRS DB does, in fact, have a Miscelleneous category under Aircraft Make/Model, a subcategory of which is "Sail Plane". A search by that attribute for Airspace Violations returned an even smaller list of 13, however, nearly all of which were a subset of the 20 returned based on a text search for the word "glider" in the narrative.

So either I'm still doing something wrong, or pilots aren't filing reports when they violate airspace, or they simply aren't violating airspace that frequently.

The other category of airspace violitions, of course, is actual FAA enforcement actions that aren't accompanied by voluntary reports. I made an attempt to query the FAA's ASIAS through their ASIP portal with no success. I suspect there are actual enforcement actions for airspace violations out there but I couldn't find any.

So I'm still at the "show me the evidence" stage, as several other posters have commented. Just how big a problem is this? 

Chip Bearden
JB

[John Godfrey]

OK campers, here is some real information.

This season, I have been party to three contests where there were airspace violations:

   - the 20m nationals (I was the CD and task setter - mea culpa, more later)

   - Perry, where I was the scorer

   - 18M nationals, where I was the scorer

It is clear to me that in all three cases, the main issue was a temporary loss of situational awareness on the part of the pilot.

In all three cases, turn areas overlapped restricted airspace. Pre launch caveats and briefeings not withstanding, the violations happened.

We should be concerned about airspace incursions, but humans do not bat 1000. Plus, data is clear that capital punishment does not reduce crime.

So what to do to improve things?

One item is for task setters (see mea culpa above) to not set tasks where turn areas overlap restricted airspace. This just invites incursions. This requires that we adopt and use the idea that turn areas are not circles, they need to be pie or semi-circle based. Our flight computers support this. Training pilots is a challange. When the last three clouds have not worked and you are trying to sort out your optimum flight path, airspace awareness starts to fade.

A second item is that pilots need to be much better at configuring their flight computers to give clearly unique warnings about forbidden airspace vs. "be careful" airspace (e.g. MOAs). This is not easy, but it is necessary. Im my experience, most pilots have a lot to learn in this area. Not sure how to address or monitor this. In one case the pilots clearly did not know how to configure their computer. The others were more murky situations.

Villifying and disqualifiying pilots for mistakes does not promote our sport. Paying attention to not setting up situations that invite mistakes is IMO a much better approach. Getting sent home for a mistake after spending thousands of dollars to come will dissuade attending again. 

So there.

[Tony Condon]

"One item is for task setters (see mea culpa above) to not set tasks where turn areas overlap restricted airspace. This just invites incursions. This requires that we adopt and use the idea that turn areas are not circles, they need to be pie or semi-circle based. Our flight computers support this."

YES! Please lets get this rule fixed this year. Write your local RC member. Comment on the poll.

[Chip Bearden]

I'm not sure this new real information helps us resolve the question that's emerged: do we have a serious problem with airspace incursions in contests? So far, the conclusion I've reached based on the evidence I've seen is that we don't. Don't misunderstand. I'm not dismissing or minimizing the harm that could result from such incursions. I want us to be safe and legal. But we're making a lot of noise about something that may not be true. And, trust me, the Feds read our posts real time (speaking from experience). So the more we say we're encroaching on their controlled airspace, the worse we look, even if we're not actually doing it.
 
I understand a scorer may not feel comfortable in identifying which airspace violations were real FAA violations, but without those data, it's impossible to arrive at informed conclusions. At least the recent post pointed me in the direction of three contests where "airspace violations" (broadly defined) occurred. I did a quick analysis of those contests: 20M Multi-Place Nationals, 18M Nationals, and the Perry Regional (far larger than either of the two national contests).

Of a total of 779 flights (i.e., activity for which either a log file was submitted or an airspace penalty was levied with no log file available), I counted 7 minor airspace penalties (5, not coincidentally, on a practice day presumably before the mandatory safety briefing), 1 major airspace 100 point penalty with a log file, and 2 "incomplete flight documentation" 100 point penalties, one with a log file and one without.

It's been 20 years since I did any scoring but my interpretation of the incomplete flight documentation penalties is that the pilot with the log file likely did not encroach on FAA controlled airspace (else why would he have risked submitting/not withdrawing the log?). Conversely, the 20M team who withdrew or did not submit their log file may have. It's also entirely possible that the pilots in question simply didn't submit a log file for other reasons. I'm sure the officials involved at these contests know what actually happened but they may be reluctant to speak up, at least publicly.

My interpretation of the single major airspace violation penalty, for which there is a log file, is that the pilot probably came within 100 feet of the floor of controlled airspace (a major violation under SSA rules) but did not encroach on that airspace (else, again, why risk submitting/not withdrawing a log file, though I have not examined the log file in question).

My interpretation of the 7 minor airspace violation 25 point penalties is that the pilots came within 500 feet of the floor of controlled airspace but not within 100 feet. Again, I didn't examine the log files themselves.

So if my interpretations are correct, of the 779 flights involving 8 airspace penalties, there were no FAA violations, plus one situation that may or may not have involved an FAA violation. The incident I cited earlier at the 20M Nationals that initially looked like an airspace violation because it involved a 100 point penalty was actually labeled incomplete flight documentation (which is allowed if the pilot chooses to withdraw a log file). For argument's sake, if I count this as a potential FAA violation, that would be the only FAA airspace violation in almost 800 flights, or about 0.1%.

Now, that's still too many. As with major accidents, our goal should be zero percent. But it's far fewer than the alarmist talk would have us believe. And it hardly justifies some of the more heavy-handed remedies proposed here.

In that category, I would include the idea of non-circular turn areas (ignoring traditonal FAI-type sectors). I don't know whether to laugh out loud or cry, but if pilots are having problems loading airspace files and configuring their displays because they don't understand their technical gadgets now, we should hesitate long and hard before we decide the remedy is even more technical complexity. I can imagine the confusion (and points penalties) that will erupt if we start having to enter tasks with new and variable types of turn areas. Because a 30 mile radius turn area centered on a turnpoint that's 20 miles from the edge of a Class B airspace would require reshaping whereas a 10 mile radius area centered on the same turnpoint would not. An easier remedy, if one is actually required, would be to limit the size of turn areas so they don't overlap, not design custom shapes to carve out around controlled airspace.

And on the subject of non-circular turn areas, I suspect that although we're assured that our flight computers can handle them (at least those pilots with $4,000 to $8,000 invested in their full-race LX9xxx boxes), my flight computer cannot, at least not without significant limitations that will not conveniently coincide with specific controlled airspaces. So this "simple" technical modification could be another situation where a rules change triggers the need for more investment on the part of the contest community, one I've been through multiple times already. Thanks, but at age 75, if I have to spend that kind of money on a new flight computer and learn a new UI to fly contests, I'm out.

Yes, having turn areas overlapping controlled airspace is a potential problem, but then so are course lines that overlap or pass close by such airspace. So how much overlap or proximity is too much/too close, especially course lines that can vary widely given 5 mile radius start cylinders and large turn areas? Now we're back to how much of a buffer zone do we need: 1 mile? 2 miles? 5 miles? 10 miles?

Do we prohibit ALL turn areas that overlap, even for a 35 mile circle that barely touches controlled airspace on the farthest corner of the task? I could argue that a very small turn area that's right up against a Class B or restricted area represents a greater risk even when it doesn't overlap, simply because it brings pilots closer to the controlled airspace.

And then there are the inevitable off-course excursions prompted by local weather. Years ago, I turned more than 90 degrees and ran for some clouds in a desperate (and successful) attempt to get high enough to finish late one day flying out of Fairfield, PA and ended up very close to the edge of the Harrisburg controlled airspace, even though I was far off course.

As I said earlier, if this were easy, it wouldn't be a problem. Well, you know what I mean.

So I admit I still don't see much evidence in our contest scores that airspace violations are rampant at contests. Yes, ANY FAA airspace incursion is serious and could result in our losing more airspace. But the violations I'm seeing (OK, inferring) from the score sheets appear to be nearly all SSA airspace violations, not ones the FAA cares about. I appears that genuine FAA incursions are very small and quite infrequent. That matches what I learned from querying the ASRS database of voluntary reports and the FAA incident database. This doesn't mean it couldn't happen. There's just not a lot of data that say it IS happening.

I'm honestly trying to be analytical, not argumentative. Someone please offer evidence, even de-identified to protect the pilots involved, that my conclusion is substantially wrong.

Chip Bearden
JB 

[Brian Nightingale]

I agree with John Godfrey on this . No one has a vendetta for contest pilots . Yet , these airspace violations are real and happen all too frequently . Loss of situational awareness is going to happen . Do not set tasks that overlap airspace . That's the first thing that must be set in stone . Second , an education program needs to be initiated on navigation devices. All of us would benefit from that . I don't know about clearnav , but LXsim is excellent for learning how to use LX based navigation products. Dave Springfords Foxonecorp youtube channel has dozens of tutorials you can learn a lot from . Buy CondorXC and fly with the LX in it until you know it by heart . It uses the actual LXsim software and is exactly like the real thing . But sticking our heads in the sand on this is a bad idea . The FAA IS actively looking at this . Have no doubt . SSA needs to immediately address this with the FAA and work out a solution , before they do it for us. It would be a sad state of affairs to ignore this and have it adversely effect our sport . 

[Ronald Gleason]

Does WINSCORE support any other type of turnpoint geometry other than a circle?

[Cliff Hilty]

Good question Ron, Guy are you watching?😜

Cliff

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/4ea29ab7-ffcf-444e-9605-ade867c9d9a7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Cliff Hilty]

According to AI: No, the [Winscore] soaring contest scoring software does not natively support non-circular or alternative complex shapes for turn areas. [1]

Turn Area Limitations

• • Circular Cylinders Only: Winscore evaluates turnpoint and turn area distances using standard circular radius parameters (cylinders) rather than specialized or custom geometric sector shapes. [1, 2]
  • Alternative Software Needed: For complex task types utilizing non-circular or advanced FAI/SSA assigned area boundary shapes, scorers typically have to rely on dedicated flight analysis software like SeeYou rather than Winscore. []

Cliff

[John Godfrey (QT)]

No, Winscore does not currently support non-circular turn areas.

 

BTW, have a look at page 8 of the Aug Soaring Magazine, seems Guy has been “Managed Out”

 

John Godfrey (QT), CFI-G, SSAI

International Gliding Commission (IGC), Alternate USA Delegate

+1 412 759 5145 Mobile

mailto:quebec...@gmail.com

 

From: rasp...@googlegroups.com <rasp...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Cliff Hilty
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 7:35 PM
To: rasp...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [RAS_Prime] Re: Airspace Violations

 

According to AI: No, the [Winscore] soaring contest scoring software does not natively support non-circular or alternative complex shapes for turn areas. [1]

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rasprime/lEZc2msBtuI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/CAFuiY75QEUREL3PBL9GL%3Dnj3S0YD2n6xgc_a%2B%3D3YQSpObJwNpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ryszard Krolikowski]

I met Bob Youngblood.

He  is a good guy but never I heard he would fly competitions.

So his view is as an outsider of the competition pilots.

Last March in Florida we used "shields" SUA.

Nobody explained why we have extra, I think 0.5 mile buffers. I didn't hear an alarm before.

I had many flights without shields because I could not find SUA file for my computer until Rick Sheppe came to rescue. And I'm only 68 yrs old!

We have many older pilots.

When loaded is file is visible in the cockpit on the ground. So fiend can prove you have it.

In the past when somebody comes to new site he would have a helping body on the first safety meeting.

Let's ask our fellow pilots if they need a friend to resolve proper airspace setting before we fly competition.

I just flew 3 Polish competitions.

Airspace is crazy restricted and with daily and hourly changes.

But like in other competitions organizers spend a lot of time to teach you at this day briefing, how to avoid forbitten space.

They also print map on the task sheet.

Some do colors , some black ink.

I will try to attack a copy of the European task sheets below.

The last thing is the shape of our SUA in the US:

There is no more commercial turbocharged twin radials cruising between FL 200 to FL 290.

Turboprops fly above FL28 I think..

So who we are protecting with FL180?

Why we have Airspace Class A at 18000 feet?

I flew for 24 yrs in Seminole , many times close to both class B.

Why I never could see jetliner?

Is class bravo also relic  if the forgotten navigation era?

Last point: we all are terrible with a distance judgment.

Nothing on the left and street on the right.

To the right , there is forbidden space.

How we compare our eye view to our computer distance? 

Our brain lies.

Clouds are closer than the forbidden space?

Flying close to the wall gives you only 50% of the safe or fast options, stay away from the wall .

We all are terrible with the distance.

We are doing our best.

In Poland unintentional( very small and visible corrections) incursion is just land out at the point.

At the World's you are going home, last time when I was flying.

1.So awareness raised by Bob is good.

2.Making sure everybody gets help with their computers by fly bodies would help.

3.Task not overlapping(not easy in FL), map of danger on the task and extra talk at briefing would help.

4. Rethinking of today's airliners needs for airspace versus old days to make us all safer.

Our class B mushrooms are not matching today's FAA approach and depart procedures spaces.

I know this one will be swept under the carpet.

Maybe we sweep them all?

Ryszard

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/b9b13887-7759-4844-9f59-db45cc72cf62n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Godfrey]

Of the three airspace penalties I cited, two were incursions into FAA Class B and R, one was on overflight of Class C.

I am also aware of an additional major airspace penalty at Region 10 that was within 100' of the base of airspace but not into it.

[Craig Reinholt]

As a percentage of overall glider incursions the competition numbers are trivial. I can't count the number of times glider pilots tell me they busted Class A, B, C etc airspace and, guess what, they usually don't post those flights on OLC / WeGlide. Therefore, no record to for us to review and discuss. Then lets take a look at overall GA incursions and the glider infractions are just a pittance of the total numbers. As far as the FAA is concerned, gliding competition numbers are absolutely trivial and they should understand we are cognizant of the issue and dealing with it.

Craig

[Chip Bearden]

Thanks, John! Now we're getting somewhere. For the three penalties cited, which would the FAA consider to be airspace incursions?

- Entry into a Class B is a clear airspace violation by any definition, SSA's or the FAA. No question that one is cause for concern. The numbers may be trivial compared to overall glider flights and especially compared with general aviation, but that doesn't mean we can ignore them. It's also likely that for a specific area (e.g., Tampa), once-a-year contests with visiting pilots is more of a problem than local pilots who are familiar with the airspace and very careful to avoid it.

- Overflight of a Class C is an SSA airspace violation only. The FAA doesn't care. The violation demonstrates a lack of awareness and/or a serious error on the part of the pilot, so one could logically argue that it's not cause for concern because it could portend future true airspace violations. But in this case it's not an FAA issue. It could also indicate that the pilot's flight computer didn't warn of the looming breach because it was set up to use the FAA, not the SSA airspace file. If so, the same thing could happen if the course line lies close to a Class C airspace regardless of whether the turn area overlaps it.

- Now about the R[estricted] area violation: was this what we refer to as the North restricted area near Perry, which is restricted only in the SSA's airspace file? Or the National Security Area over the Savannah River nuclear facility southeast of Augusta, also referred to locally as a restricted area but only truly restricted in the SSA's airspace file? Or was it another FAA-defined Restricted area? And, if so, was it "hot" at the time? If so, that would represent a true FAA airspace violation and a cause for concern comparable to that of a Class A/B/C or Prohibited area incursion. Conversely, if the area wasn't hot, it's an SSA violation only, a cause for concern because of what it says about the pilot's mistake but not an actionable offense to the FAA.

As I understand it, the penalty in Region 10 was a violation under the SSA rules but not per the FAA (barely). Again, a cause for concern but not because of how the FAA perceived it.

So it appears we're down to one, possibly two FAA airspace violations. Do you recall how serious they were: briefly dipping a wing into controlled airspace, or blundering several miles or several hundred feet into it?

Bob led off his letter with "Once again, competition gliders violated Tampa, FL airspace..." strongly implying this has happened before. You have a lot of history at Seminole. Are you aware of prior violations, especially Class B or other genuine FAA airspace violations? You and others have commented that it's a special problem down there because of the narrow corridor and proximity of the airspace to certain turnpoints/course lines. What is the trend: have the violations increased or decreased over the years? Do they occur only when certain turns are used to set tasks?

In other words, is this problem of FAA airspace violations unique to Seminole and, if so, has it responded to remedial actions to date? I ask that because one poster commented that one airspace file appeared to add 1/2 mile to the airspace, possibly as a horizontal buffer. And if the trend in violations has changed, does that correlate with the frequency with which certain tasks have been called?

On that point, you also commented in your post that the CD could do more to avoid potential conflicts through task setting. Is that likely to reduce or eliminate this specific problem? Your remedy is semi-circular turn areas. Is there another potential remedy in this specific case--e.g., smaller turn areas around the affected turns? I realize smaller turn areas partially defeats the goal of AATs by reducing the amount a pilot can "flex" the task to suit that day's weather, but is moving the flex to a different turn area a reasonable price to pay to avoid a very localized risk of airspace encroachment?  

Again, I'm trying to be analytical, not argumentative. It's one thing if true FAA airspace violations are occurring frequently and we must act immediately to head off imminent intervention by the FAA, as some have said. It's another thing if the vast majority of the airspace-related penalties are violations only of SSA's more stringent airspace rules but not ones the FAA pays any attention to. If the latter, it still means we have a problem with pilots making mistakes involving airspace, but it's not the same problem as if contest pilots were busting all sorts of controlled airspace and attracting the ire of the FAA.

Ironically, the latter case might also confirm that the SSA's concept of buffer zones is working to limit true FAA airspace violations to a tiny number. And it begs the question: do pilots behave differently because they're worried less about losing points than they are about potentially losing flying privileges in an FAA enforcement action? This would undercut the "contest pilots are only interested in one thing: points" argument that was used to villify our competition pilots (not that I took that personally, of course--hahaha).

It would also be useful to classify the violations (as defined by the SSA and by the FAA) according to horizontal or vertical breaches of airspace, and by degree. If nearly all airspace violations involve vertical errors, it tends to make the concerns raised about overlapping turn areas and controlled airspace less of an issue and, incidentally, justify the current lack of horizontal buffer zones. That said, I assume Class B violations are usually horizontal, but obviously I don't know.

Chip Bearden
JB

[John Godfrey]

The R violation was not at Perry and was a real active restriced area.

Over the years, I am personally aware of maybe 4 or 5 Class B incursions in FL (one mine). All of these have been "nicks." Of course, in our US soaring culture we tend to bury and hide not only airspace incursions but accidents, rather than use them for improvement lessons.

I am very sympathetic to OBTP's concerns, even if I do think it comes across as a bit of crying wolf. He operates in a very difficult airspace environment that with very little additional restriction could completely shut him down. He has worked very closely with local authorities to mediate traffic conflits around Vero Beach. So it is not surprising that he feels most at risk. 

How close that risk is to resuliting if FAA action is hard to know.

What is true is that the FAA does not publish (or even seem to currently collect) a database of airspace incursions - let alone organized by aircraft type, amount of incursion, and whether a clearance deviation for another aircraft was necessary. That may be a measure of how they currently view the "problem" but DOES NOT deal with sensitivity in a specific local area.

One thing we could look for is the history of actual enforcement actions plus NASA reports. That might help calibrate the issue.

[John Godfrey]

"one poster commented that one airspace file appeared to add 1/2 mile to the airspace, possibly as a horizontal buffer."

I admit to being totally baffled about how this approach is to be effective. This "buffer" was in effect at the 20M Nats and had no impact.

It is easy to see why. The effectiveness of such a buffer relies on awareness of where you are, and the basic problem is that awareness is what is missing in the first place. It is not a case of barrelling toward the boundary at Mach 1 and realizing too late you can't turn in time. Every case I have seen is drifting in a thermal.

On Thursday, August 13, 2026 at 9:52:47 AM UTC-4 Chip Bearden wrote:

[Chip Bearden]

Thanks, John, good points all. And you have the experience to speak to them.

I've queried the ASRS database (NASA reports) and found fewer than a dozen glider reports out of over 7,000 total airspace reports in the past 25 years. Now, that assumes that we glider pilots are diligent about filing, but perhaps we're no better or worse than GA overall. It does seem to reinforce the notion that gliders are not the problem nationally, although the folks in locales such as Vero Beach, TSA, M-ASA, and Minden no doubt have a different perspective. I didn't find any actual incidents relating to glider airspace incursions when querying FAA's ASIAS through the ASIP portal, but I'm not sure that means anything. Of course, the data-centric approach also presumes the FAA is amenable to considering actual data when they're reviewing the need for new regulations, but we have enough experience working with them to reinforce that idea.

Your comment about encroachments occurring while thermaling is a new one and VERY interesting, for two reasons.

First, when we're cruising, we're paying attention to where we're going. Assuming the airspace boundaries are on our display (OK, critical assumption), it's pretty hard to ignore, even at "Mach 1."

Second, we assume the airspace boundary is always visible in a properly configured flight computer even when we're thermaling. It's not, at least not the same way as when we're cruising.

I've never used an LX or ClearNav but on Top Hat (and I think Kigo and XCSoar are similar), you can configure the display to autozoom into thermaling view when you stop to circle so you can see your path through the thermal area with lift and sink spots highlighted (this is similar to but not the same as the thermaling assistants available on my CNv vario and other devices). As I've noted earlier, it's very difficult to see an airspace boundary until you're RIGHT ON TOP OF IT when your field of view is, say, 600 feet. I'm probably the only pilot on the grid still using a kneeboard. LOL That's because I run two tablets, each with an instance of Top Hat. One, on the kneeboard, works as described. The other, on the canopy rail, remains locked at whatever zoom level I use when flying the task: typically 5 to 15 miles. That allows me to survey the course line ahead (airspace, TPs, FLARM markers, terrain, etc.) on one display even when my primary display zooms in for a thermal. Maybe fancier glide computers allow you to deal with this a better way.

I know you've flown at M-ASA Fairfield. Years ago, I was climbing up very slowly in the only thermal at the end of the day over High Rock, trying (successfully) to get high enough to glide back over the mountain to finish. As you know, the P-40 Prohibited area that is centered on Camp David is RIGHT THERE up against the backside of the ridge. As the weak breeze came up the slope carrying the thermal, it also drifted me back toward P-40. In this case, I was close enough and VERY aware that I watched it as I came around each circle. Every few orbits, I had to open up my turn and head up into the wind for a few seconds to move my circle away from P-40. I was pretty nervous (an understatement), but because I was watching it so closely, I felt safe to continue, despite the fact that there are few controlled airspaces in the country that are as closely monitored as P-40.

In conclusion (people seem to have made up their minds regardless of the facts, so there's not much more I can say), armed with the knowledge that contest pilots cause very few true FAA airspace violations and that said violations almost always occur when thermaling, I think we're much better equipped to discuss the problem and any possible solutions. Despite the fact that even a 1 mile buffer zone at High Rock would have put me into a field that day, I'm open to the idea of horizontal SSA buffer zones (for many, though perhaps not all airspaces) to give pilots more slack and hopefully nearly eliminate serious FAA contest airspace violations. We all make mistakes, so we can never guarantee eliminating them completely, but we can get closer, and without a lot of disruptive changes. Other steps that have been proposed make sense, too, including more education re airspace at contest sites, better understanding of the obligation to and how to configure your flight computer and airspace files, and perhaps changes in tasking to reduce risk in close proximity to controlled airspace.

How to deal with non-contest violations is another question, obviously, and one on which contest rules changes will have no effect. 

Chip Bearden
JB

[Tango Eight]

"Every case I have seen is drifting in a thermal."

Am I the only one here that feels a bit misled up til now?

I think we need more data, less hot air.

-Evan

On Thursday, August 13, 2026 at 11:02:28 AM UTC-4 John Godfrey wrote:

[John Godfrey (QT)]

Misled about what exactly?

 

John Godfrey (QT), CFI-G, SSAI

International Gliding Commission (IGC), Alternate USA Delegate

+1 412 759 5145 Mobile

mailto:quebec...@gmail.com

 

From: rasp...@googlegroups.com <rasp...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Tango Eight
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 8:16 AM
To: RAS_Prime <rasp...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RAS_Prime] Re: Airspace Violations

 

"Every case I have seen is drifting in a thermal."

--

Thanks for using RAS_Prime!
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rasprime/lEZc2msBtuI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/da876d39-7e49-4769-9b7b-b7aae72fed2fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Tango Eight]

The nature of the violations. 

Drifting (slightly) into controlled airspace while thermaling isn’t at all what I envisioned from earlier statements.  

Hence the request for more data. 

Evan 

[John Godfrey]

In retrospect, I may be overstating things wrt drifting. Save for two instances I can recall, all the FAA level incursions I have seen seem to fall into the "temporary lapse of situational awareness" category.  I.e. not deep incursions. But since folks actively bury the data, it is hard to be precise.

[Tango Eight]

Thanks John. 

Again: thanks a million for busting your ass along with Mark, Rick and Bruno to get us tasking at the meeting (as opposed to on the grid) with airspace updates and graphical depictions in the task sheets. 

That restricted airspace on the west side of Sevier dry lake is a real bitch btw.  At least a couple days the airspace boundary was decorated with glorious cu… about a mile inside the airspace (argh). 

Evan

[Brian Nightingale]

The real issue is not the severity of the transgression , but that it keeps happening . For us here in Florida there are airports closed to us within our task area . Treasure Coast Soaring , all through the efforts of Bob Youngblood and his contacts with the FAA has an agreement with ATC . We call Vero Beach tower and Palm Beach Approach every day we're flying to inform them. We stay east of I-95 for 10 miles around x-52 and in return they route power traffic around us ,. It works pretty well. This is the kind of proactive approach to dealing with issues I'm referring to . Who cares if it's wind drift , loss of situational awareness , or any other reason . The FAA has taken notice , and that's not a good thing .

[John Godfrey]

The severity and type of incursion informs strategies for avoidance, not an excuse for them. You are a bit high on your horse. Wish we could all be as perfect as you.

[Brian Nightingale]

Correction . We stay WEST of I-95

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RAS_Prime" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rasprime+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/e3d3a721-2a19-41de-95e7-1f28f747ec74n%40googlegroups.com.

[Tango Eight]

Nothing like that ever happens in flight.  Right?

[John Godfrey]

Couldn’t have said it better

John Godfrey (QT)

Sent from my iPhone

"It's the fault of lying Autocorrect"

On Aug 15, 2026, at 8:52 AM, Tango Eight <tango...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nothing like that ever happens in flight.  Right?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rasprime/aa9cf0dd-671e-4e5d-9ef9-b55ed7e7dc79n%40googlegroups.com.