What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Once Again..."STAY AWAY FROM THE AEROSTAT!"

Status
Not open for further replies.

RonH

Active Member
I'll start this with an apology up front, but please bear with me while I rant a bit:

Do you wish to remain alive? How about your passengers? Maybe your loved ones...they'd probably like to see you on this earth a while longer. Well, if you do, and if you come down to Key West, then STAY OUT OF R-2916!!!!!

Let me tell you a story of what happened an hour ago, and maybe everyone will be able to understand my frustration and dismay. We got a small break in the weather (right now, small breaks is all we're getting, so we'll take 'em). I made the decision that we'd go out and fly the aerostat and try to get our customers some data while we could...EZPZ. So, out to the pad we go, get set up, come off the tower, begin outhauling, when one of my crew members shouts over the radio, "Airspace Violation!!!" I turned and looked up just in time to see a single engine aircraft banking left (he was on a direct path towards us) and setting a course towards Key West. Folks, this aircraft missed us by approximately 1000 ft horizontally, and no more than 1000 ft vertically. Guess what? Not only would he have killed all aboard his aircraft, but in this case, the full launch crew (including myself) were directly under the aerostat (it was at 500 ft and outhauling) and would have stood a very good chance of being severely injured or killed by falling debris.

To sum it all up, here's the deal...if you hit the aerostat, you will die, and all aboard will as well. If you hit the tether that holds the aerostat, you will die and all aboard will as well. If you hit either the aerostat or the tether, you have put many innocent folks on the ground in harms way. If you simply violate the airspace around Cudjoe Key, we will get your tail number and do everything we can to have the FAA have a chat with you (as we did in this case and with all others).

I wish I could say I'm overreacting to this incident, but I'm not. This is truly a life and death situation. I was on shift when the 182 was brought down after he hit our tether. I never, ever wish to witness anything like that again. I also don't wish to leave my 3 year old son fatherless due to a lack of judgment on someone else's part. This is all very avoidable; stay South of US1 all the way down to Key West and you will clear us. Simple, huh? That's why it makes me so crazy every time another aircraft violates the airspace...it is that simple.

Now, here's an offer I will make to anyone who's flying down here...get in touch with me. I will let you on site...I will give you a tour...I'll even give you a piece of the tether that the aerostat flies off of. It will possibly open some eyes as to what goes on here.

Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone, but if I have, I can't apologize for that. I'd rather have you offended and alive, than happy and dead.
 
Last edited:
This was one of the reasons we went to MTH instead of EYW on our Keys trip a couple years ago. Even though it's relatively simple to avoid the thing, it's even easier to just stay to the east.
 
Fat Albert

Good rant Ron,,,,, you people out there, listen to this guy, your not going to cut that tether line and it will ruin your whole day.
 
I second Ron having spent MANY hours flying purposely around his project out here.

IF, not when, you see the tether, it would likely be too late.

The airspace out here is pretty big, and dedicated to the UTTR, but we still see instances of curiosity where lives are at risk.

JLENS-1-cover1small.jpg
 
tether

You would think that a breakaway link could be installed to save lives at the least with all the traffic in the Keys .
Bob
 
You would think that a breakaway link could be installed to save lives at the least with all the traffic in the Keys .
Bob

That would be extremely difficult, if not possible, to implement. First of all, the tether is, at its core, a rope...a very strong rope, but a rope still. Second, where would you put the link? Sometimes we fly at 1K, sometimes at 10K. All the excess is rolled up on a drum. Third, normal tensions on the tether run from 3K up to over 7K, depending on altitude and winds. When the 182 was brought down, it didn't cause the tether to tension much above 4K. No, the best, and safest way is to simply remain outside of the restricted airspace. It's not like it's hidden, it is well marked on the sectional.

And, on further review, if there was a means to have a "breakaway link" what would be done with the aerostat as it's floating along, possibly coming down on someone's house (at a certain altitude, all valves will open and it WILL come down)? Having the aerostat break away would be a huge safety issue.
 
Last edited:
You would think that a breakaway link could be installed to save lives at the least with all the traffic in the Keys .
Bob

Or maybe label the airspace restricted, and chart it., and put a big warning label that says "Unmarked balloon on cable to 14,000 feet." It's on the sectional and low enroute. There are warnings in the FBOs in the area and ATC will even do their best to keep you out of it.

Ultimately, PIC responsibilities prevail. Ron's frustration isn't unwarranted. I've done a lot of flying around there and it's amazing how many people drive right through there.
 
LED

I was fishing in the flats back in Feb. and looking at the aerostat and thinking that it would be nice to have some L.E.D's on the rope.
 
Interesting that I checked the sectional on Skyvector and it said surface to 14'000. But, on WingX Pro it said it was 8500 to unlimited. Maybe there is some bad info out there somewhere?

Tim
 
Did your violation alert come from ATC or was that a visual from one of the range observers?
 
Did your violation alert come from ATC or was that a visual from one of the range observers?

It was a visual from one of the crew members with me as we were launching. We don't normally interface with ATC. We go up and down as we need to...to whichever altitude we need...when we determine it necessary to do so. R-2916 is hot 24/7/365...you never know when we'll be up (as much as possible) or at what altitude...hence the reason for the restricted airspace.

And, the restriction is from the surface to 14,000, and is printed correctly on the sectional.
 
When the 182 was brought down, it didn't cause the tether to tension much above 4K.

That's not that surprising given the elasticity, mass and inertia of the tether. 120 knots is 200 feet/s. A four foot deep wing would contact the tether for a maximum of 1/50 of a second or 20 milliseconds. Whatever spike in tension that occurred at the point of impact would be buffered by the mass of the tether and spread out over a second or more at the ground.

You would think that a breakaway link could be installed to save lives at the least with all the traffic in the Keys .
Bob

With a 10K-12k pound breakaway, even right at the point of impact, that tether would still shear off any wing short of a 747.  And even then...  I'd hate to see what 550 paracord would do to an RV wing at speed.

Ron is right; the solution is simple.  View it from outside the restriction, land, take him up on his tour offer, live happily ever after.
 
Last edited:
Break Strength

With a 10K-12k pound breakaway, that tether would still shear off any wing short of a 747. And even then... I'd hate to see what 550 paracord would do to an RV wing at speed.

Ron is right; the solution is simple. View it from outside the restriction, land, take him up on his tour offer, live happily ever after.

Believe it or not, actual break strength on the tether is, as a minimum requirement, tested to 25,000 lbs...and normally passes with a higher number. But, you are most correct...it will, and has taken a wing off with very minimal damage. All I can hope for with this thread is to get this into folks minds, and maybe they'll pass it on to friends, neighbors, etc...so nobody else ever loses their life over something that is well charted and totally avoidable. The gentleman today came closer than anyone else and survived.
 
Hey Ron,

I fly past loads of times and always look for the balloon.....

Sometimes easy, sometimes difficult as I'm usually above FL370 at the time in an A330 :D

Best time is evening coming out of Cancun going back home, but I have seen it a few times outbound and always point it out to the passengers if it easily spottable.

There were plans for a few more down in the UAE, my Bro was starting to get involved but it came to nought.

I will get in touch if heading down that way - would love to visit.

Jumped from a balloon and airship in the past..... :eek:
 
Don't understand

This thread has me puzzled! I do understand Ron’s initial post and his concern, however what part of the following Regulation am I overlooking?

§*91.133***Restricted and prohibited areas.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area (designated in part 73) contrary to the restrictions imposed, or within a prohibited area, unless that person has the permission of the using or controlling agency, as appropriate.
(b) Each person conducting, within a restricted area, an aircraft operation (approved by the using agency) that creates the same hazards as the operations for which the restricted area was designated may deviate from the rules of this subpart that are not compatible with the operation of the aircraft.


The following is copied from the AIM:
Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants. Restricted areas are published in the Federal Register and constitute 14 CFR Part 73.

What is next? Asking that artillery or missiles be designed to miss GA aircraft that bust into Restricted airspace without permission from the controlling agency?

Restricted airspace is there for a reason, our safety and the reason it should be avoided.
 
Last edited:
Hazard elimination?

One of the things they teach you in OHS&W training is that the most acceptable way of responding to a hazard is, where practical, to remove it.

So -- In 2013, what purpose is the aerostat serving?

You've just done an excellent job of convincing everyone that it's a dangerous object with fatal consequences for all kinds of people on contact, and a severe regulatory response following proximity.

So I'm convinced: it's hazardous.

So why is it there? What's it doing that can't be done with less hazard using 2013 technology?

- mark
 
Ron, I, for one, heeded your advice when we flew to KEYW in late January...stayed south of U.S. 1 and did see the balloon and took pictures of it.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Best,
 
One of the things they teach you in OHS&W training is that the most acceptable way of responding to a hazard is, where practical, to remove it.

So -- In 2013, what purpose is the aerostat serving?

You've just done an excellent job of convincing everyone that it's a dangerous object with fatal consequences for all kinds of people on contact, and a severe regulatory response following proximity.

So I'm convinced: it's hazardous.

So why is it there? What's it doing that can't be done with less hazard using 2013 technology?

- mark

Mark...what it's doing, along with 7 other sites along the Southern border, is monitoring air and marine traffic for those that attempt to enter without permission or with ill intent. Are there other sensors that could do this job with "2013 technology"?...sure there are...for a price. We are all about cost effectiveness in this day and age. That aerostat is the absolute most cost effective means to get the job done. It's one heck of a lot less expensive than satellites, drones, or manned surveillance aircraft (think AWACS). And, it's only hazardous to those who violate the regulations. Follow them and there's absolutely no hazard. How hard is that? The hazard is marked, it is advertised. The hazard isn't from the aerostat...it's created by those who bust the airspace.
 
this thing is a real hazard to aviation. it is hard to see and the small blue circle on the chart is hard to see. the small blue circle on the gps is hard to see in bright light. more planes will run into this cable if something is not done to help the 'dumb' pilots. flares, radio, lazars, anything will help. :confused:
P1000280.jpg
 
One of the things they teach you in OHS&W training is that the most acceptable way of responding to a hazard is, where practical, to remove it.

So -- In 2013, what purpose is the aerostat serving?

You've just done an excellent job of convincing everyone that it's a dangerous object with fatal consequences for all kinds of people on contact, and a severe regulatory response following proximity.

So I'm convinced: it's hazardous.

So why is it there? What's it doing that can't be done with less hazard using 2013 technology?

- mark
One purpose - is it keeps lots of federal agencies busy. Not sure it's keeping the drugs out of the US. And I know it's not keeping illegal aliens out. And it didn't keep the 2001 hijackers out.

Apparently the Texas Gulf Coast is being defended/surveilled by something other than the aerostat system that was previously located at Bay City. Not there any longer. Nor is the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group out of EFD Houston.

It is always good to ask why and what benefit these items/hazards/projects bring to the big picture. Because apparently something other than the Bay City aerostat and squadron of F-16s are defending the nation's 3rd largest port/industrial/metro area, Houston, Texas.
 
Last edited:
Texas

One purpose - is it keeps lots of federal agencies busy. Not sure it's keeping the drugs out of the US. And I know it's not keeping illegal aliens out. And it didn't keep the 2001 hijackers out.

Apparently the Texas Gulf Coast is being defended/surveilled by something other than the aerostat system that was previously located at Bay City. Not there any longer. Nor is the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group out of EFD Houston.

It is always good to ask why and what benefit these items/hazards/projects bring to the big picture. Because apparently something other than the Bay City aerostat and squadron of F-16s are defending the nation's 3rd largest port/industrial/metro area, Houston, Texas.

The Texas Gulf coast is covered by Rio Grande City, Marfa, and Eagle Pass...

And, you'd be amazed at the number of shipments that are seized each month due to the TARS system. Is the border air tight? Nope. Is any border anywhere?
 
Last edited:
The Texas Gulf coast is covered by Rio Grande City, Marfa, and Eagle Pass...
Thanks. That's good to know. Much less air traffic in those areas to potentially conflict with, and a lot closer to the border to watch the Mexican army and air force cross into the US territory/airspace.
 
Drift

Thread has drifted quite a bit. Back to my original point, just please stay out of R-2916...if not, everyone's day could easily turn out to be a nightmare.
 
And, it's only hazardous to those who violate the regulations. Follow them and there's absolutely no hazard. How hard is that? The hazard is marked, it is advertised. The hazard isn't from the aerostat...it's created by those who bust the airspace.

This does not take into account the arrogance and laziness of some pilots. As long as there are pilots there will be lazy arrogant ones in the mix and you will continue to see them violate your, and other airspace. On top of that you will see honest mistakes lead a diligent pilot to do the same. So good luck.

Good rant though.
Mark

It's not the nail... That was awesome! I'm not going to forward that to my girlfriend though, lest I might end up with one...
 
you are 100% right. I don't understand, what is so hard about staying on the south side of us 1 ?

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
This does not take into account the arrogance and laziness of some pilots. As long as there are pilots there will be lazy arrogant ones in the mix and you will continue to see them violate your, and other airspace. On top of that you will see honest mistakes lead a diligent pilot to do the same. So good luck.

Good rant though.
Mark

It's not the nail... That was awesome! I'm not going to forward that to my girlfriend though, lest I might end up with one...


I'll add stupidity to the list.

Worked as a ramp rat at a busy GA airport when I was a kid. The stories I could tell you about things people do with airplanes would blow your mind.
 
I don't even understand this discussion. It's restricted airspace. Do your due diligence in preflight, plan accordingly, stay out of places you're not supposed to be.

We're not even talking about some huge, vast area that's tremendously inconvenient to avoid. It looks like a four-mile-diameter circle on the sectional. That's it. If you can't plan a flight to avoid that, maybe you should reassess your skills as a pilot.
 
What about identification of the Aerostat and mooring cable?
Any ship, barge or major bouy is required to have an anchor light.
The aerostat and cable should be lighted with anti collision (strobe) lights as well.
If this were a commercial operation these would no doubt be required.
As an aerial vehicle, it should have identification so it can be reported if it deviates from permitted operations.
We have regulations for this sort of thing, so should Aerostats and drones.
See and avoid is the last line of defense, so lighting and markings should always be required, even on government aircraft.
 
What about identification of the Aerostat and mooring cable?
Any ship, barge or major bouy is required to have an anchor light.
The aerostat and cable should be lighted with anti collision (strobe) lights as well.
If this were a commercial operation these would no doubt be required.
As an aerial vehicle, it should have identification so it can be reported if it deviates from permitted operations.
We have regulations for this sort of thing, so should Aerostats and drones.
See and avoid is the last line of defense, so lighting and markings should always be required, even on government aircraft.
The thing is, it isn't a commercial operation, it's a military operation.

For the same reason we have restricted areas around Army and Air Force we have one around Ron's aerostat. Not everything the military does complies with civil rules, is as safe as civil rules, or is as restrictive as civil rules, so trying to mandate civil rules on the military is an exercise in futility.

I would say leaving it un-marked is probably a better opetion, if pilots know it is there and can see it, they may be tempted to fly though it and just miss it. It they can't see the tether, it's an invisible boogy-man that is out to get them if they violate the airspace.
 
Now really!
That's just baloney. Military aircraft have painted ID, anti collision lights & position lights. They operate lights in civil airspace, and don't when applicable.
People make mistakes, and this aircraft in question could be near the aerostat by a pilot error or other unforseen problem. The automatic assumption of negligence does not release responsibility from the Aerostat. See and Avoid is the last chance to prevent a disaster.
If it is Covert to catch bad guys, then it should turn on anti collision lighting when aircraft come in proximity to save the innocent and preserve a gov't asset. The Bad Guy could still be caught if he got that close before the strobes came on?
 
Aerostat

The accident report (first I was aware of this) indicates this was a night flight in clear conditions. However, the pilot had filed an IFR flight plan and had been in touch with ATC before the accident. I don't know night procedures at Key West International. Would he have filed and then planned to pick up his IFR clearance after airborne? Or could he have picked it up and been cleared for the flight through the NAS? And what was the conversation between this pilot and ATC? Why wouldn't he have seen the Aerostat on a clear night if it was well lighted? And the report notes the pilot was advised of the restricted area. Lots of questions. Apparently the Aerostats were to be decommissioned and taken down in March of this year. Was this part of the "sequester"? I guess it hasn't happened. Our tower at KMWC is still open as well, thankfully!
 
It's not in civil airspace, it's in a restricted area! The whole point of a restricted area is that there are things in there hazardous to aviation and you are required to stay out unless you want to die. Sure, you could put lights on the aerostat and its cable, but then that restricted area would be "special" in that you're supposed to stay out for your safety, but you want them to adjust things so you can still violate the restricted area and not hit anything.

Let me pose you this one: Do you suggest we put lights on the artillery rounds we fire in R-5306 so that you can see and avoid them? Flying through R-5306 when we're shooting high-angle 155mm or anti-air weaponry at Camp Lejeune is just as risky as flying through R-2916. How is one different than the other?

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
No lights? Why?

Let me pose you this one: Do you suggest we put lights on the artillery rounds we fire in R-5306 so that you can see and avoid them? Flying through R-5306 when we're shooting high-angle 155mm or anti-air weaponry at Camp Lejeune is just as risky as flying through R-2916. How is one different than the other?

I'd say there are some differences? Hanging a light on a tether/ballon seems relatively straight forward. Hanging a strobe on a 155 round might be more challenging. R-5306 is 40ish miles wide....R-2916 is much smaller...maybe the smaller restricted area gets missed more?

FWIW....most, if not all, the military balloons I've seen in Afghanistan have lights on them. Doesn't reduce the operational effectiveness of the ballon and adds to the safety margin. Guess I don't buy the no lights argument on this subject.
 
As has been pointed out, the balloon is not operating in civil airspace, it is operating in a restricted area, controlled by the USAF (I think). In exactly the same manner as happens in several other areas of the country, the military have a special toy, and they declare a restricted area to ensure its, and John Q Pilot's safety by ensuring no one can come near it.

But anyway, what are your thoughts on NVG operations in restricted areas? Should the aircraft display lights then? If not, why not?

If this aerostat was in airspace that a civil aircraft could legally fly though in everyday operations, then yes, I would agree some form of lighting would be appropriate, even pretty.

But it isn't.

It is in its own dedicated restricted area. A civil aircraft will, presumably, never be cleared through that area, and if you penetrate that restricted area in an emergency, the obligation for continued safety of flight falls on the pilot. No one is going to deny you can bust restricted, or just about any other airspace in an emergency, but in doing so, you are no longer provided protection from whatever that airspace is guarding, in this case, RonH's aerostat.

The balloon could have the cloak of invisibility on it for all I care, as it is in its own little bubble. The see-and-avoid principle applies to charts as well. I see a restricted area, and unless it is an emergency, I'll avoid it. :D
 
Re: The "automatic assumption of negligence" by the aircraft in question...

There is no "assumption" of negligence. If you, as PIC, fly into a restricted area, you are negligent. Period. You failed to do something right; maybe you couldn't be bothered to study the sectional. Maybe you intentionally flew close to the restricted area and accidentally wandered off course and busted the airspace.

Accidental or not, it's negligence. You have failed to perform your job as PIC.

Pointing out the fact that the hazard in a restricted area is hard to see is redundant. That's in the definition of a restricted area. If it was a lighted, easy-to-see-and-avoid hazard, it wouldn't fit the definition of a restricted area.

"Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles."

All the warning anyone should need as a pilot is the restricted area. It's very existence means that there is a hazard that is difficult to see and/or avoid. It's there for a reason. Stay away.
 
My point is...if it does not degrade the balloons mission and the cost is reasonable then it should have lights.

Operating lights out under NVGs is required for our training and mission...and you will likely get a KIO from the RCO if/when an unauthorized aircraft enters your operating area....then cease training and turn your lights on. You then proceed to cuss about the incompetent a-hole that just entered the restricted area...and rightfully so.

Just because it is on the map, NOTAM'd, etc, does not mean GA aircraft won't fly through it...the question is what safety margin is in place once it happens...cause it will happen...and this airspace appears to have an above number of violations.

Now....if this is a blacked-out, death laser, stealth ballon that only operates at night....the DR please delete my account.
 
Don't think lights on the aerostat would do much good. Most of the danger is the tether. The C182 accident hit the tether at 4500 feet or so and the aerostat was at 8000 that night. R2916 goes to 14000, even if you saw the balloon could you figure out where the rope is?
 
Wow

Been away from the computer all day picking up the wife at FLL from a trip to her parents up in Indiana. So, to give you all a little insight, I'll try and answer a few of the questions that have been posted so far...

What about identification of the Aerostat and mooring cable?
The aerostat and cable should be lighted with anti collision (strobe) lights as well.
See and avoid is the last line of defense, so lighting and markings should always be required, even on government aircraft.

There are three anti-collision lights (LED Strobes) on the aerostat...one on the nose, one on each side of the tail. The tether (rope, not cable, btw) is not lit and that is well documented on the charts.

The accident report (first I was aware of this) indicates this was a night flight in clear conditions. However, the pilot had filed an IFR flight plan and had been in touch with ATC before the accident. I don't know night procedures at Key West International. Would he have filed and then planned to pick up his IFR clearance after airborne? Or could he have picked it up and been cleared for the flight through the NAS? And what was the conversation between this pilot and ATC? Why wouldn't he have seen the Aerostat on a clear night if it was well lighted? And the report notes the pilot was advised of the restricted area. Lots of questions. Apparently the Aerostats were to be decommissioned and taken down in March of this year. Was this part of the "sequester"? I guess it hasn't happened. Our tower at KMWC is still open as well, thankfully!

Can't answer most of those questions intelligently. However, we were scheduled for shutdown along with all the other TARS sites in the US. That turned out to be a high stakes game of chicken between governmental agencies. Customs and Border Patrol will assume this program from the Air Force as of the beginning of the fiscal year (1 Nov).

I'd say there are some differences? Hanging a light on a tether/ballon seems relatively straight forward. Hanging a strobe on a 155 round might be more challenging. R-5306 is 40ish miles wide....R-2916 is much smaller...maybe the smaller restricted area gets missed more?

FWIW....most, if not all, the military balloons I've seen in Afghanistan have lights on them. Doesn't reduce the operational effectiveness of the ballon and adds to the safety margin. Guess I don't buy the no lights argument on this subject.

See answer above

My point is...if it does not degrade the balloons mission and the cost is reasonable then it should have lights.

Operating lights out under NVGs is required for our training and mission...and you will likely get a KIO from the RCO if/when an unauthorized aircraft enters your operating area....then cease training and turn your lights on. You then proceed to cuss about the incompetent a-hole that just entered the restricted area...and rightfully so.

Just because it is on the map, NOTAM'd, etc, does not mean GA aircraft won't fly through it...the question is what safety margin is in place once it happens...cause it will happen...and this airspace appears to have an above number of violations.

Now....if this is a blacked-out, death laser, stealth ballon that only operates at night....the DR please delete my account.

As indicated above, it has anti-collision lights installed and operating...always has. In fact, one way I see if we're up, I look out my bathroom window and search for the three blinking lights.

Don't think lights on the aerostat would do much good. Most of the danger is the tether. The C182 accident hit the tether at 4500 feet or so and the aerostat was at 8000 that night. R2916 goes to 14000, even if you saw the balloon could you figure out where the rope is?

You are absolutely correct. He hit us almost right in the middle. And, the tether does not go straight up hardly ever. Most of the time there's a pretty good catenary in it, depending on wind (think about a kite string and the curve that's in it...that's a catenary). And, one data point here...when we recovered the aerostat after the 182 incident, the only damage to the tether was a deep scuff mark...the cover was not split, the fiber was not broken. It will take a wing off in the blink of an eye. Is that dangerous, not if you heed the warnings on the sectional. Again, it states that there is an unlit tether (I believe it actually says cable) and the balloon. Whether anyone agrees with the aerostat flying there or not, that is absolutely not the intent of this thread. The intent is to try to get this in the forefront of everyone's mind so that nobody ever again has to lose their life when it's completely avoidable. I can understand differing opinions as to whether the aerostat should even be there, but that is a discussion for a different type of forum. Just do this one thing, and you will arrive alive in Key West alive and have a wonderful vacation...STAY SOUTH OF US1 WHEN PASSING CUDJOE KEY!
 
C'mon guys

I can't believe that this thread has digressed into someone ACTUALLY trying to shift the blame from one pilot's incompetence to the tether!

We learned about avoiding restricted airspace prior to solo, in most cases.

Ron's simple, good advice escalates into finger pointing...sheesh.

Outta here,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top