I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. Despite the fact that
the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
good, it's still rejected.

On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" I typed in "SA"
because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. Apparently I
should have typed in "N-2429". So because of this, the flight doesn't
count.

I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
register contest ID. This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
me. The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
even though it's not a handicapped claim! I only own one aircraft,
which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.


So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
claim.

Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
this claim to pass? I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
diamond flight.

On Jun 10, 9:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> good, it's still rejected.
>
> On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> count.
>
> I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> diamond flight.

Sorry, Badge rules enforcement is arbitrary, not logical. Been there.

On Jun 10, 9:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> good, it's still rejected.
>
> On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> count.
>
> I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> diamond flight.

Scott,

Bummer! The sporting code was updated last October. One of our local
pilots had a Diamond Altitude claim that was invalid for exactly the
same reason. From what I've heard Judy can have some leniency with
silver and gold claims since those are processed at the national level
but Diamond claims are international and get sent to the FAI and they
follow right down to the letter of the law.

I guess you get to go fly the flight again! :)

On Jun 10, 9:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> good, it's still rejected.
>
> On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> count.
>
> I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> diamond flight.

oh - and you DID do a Diamond Flight!! There is a difference between
a badge flight and a badge performance. the performance part means
you managed to successfully jump through all of the paperwork hoops.

On Jun 10, 10:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> good, it's still rejected.
>
> On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> count.
>
> I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> diamond flight.

Welcome to my world. I went through this a year ago. Same issue.

There is no logic to this. The N number of your glider is easily
verified by the OO, listed on the application over the OO's sig.
Simple. But because in the photo doc days the N number was on the
declaration and this had to be photographed before the flight, the igc
says that the e-declaration must contain the same info. Never mind
that many igc approved flight recorders do not specifically ask you
for this. My C-302, for instance, prompts one for the "competition
ID". And in competition, this is what the scorer wants in that field
(I've asked).

There are many in the SSA that would like to see this sorted out. The
obvious place to go is the badge and record committee chairman, who
(ahem) is probably reading this and cringing (sorry). Judy, as you
have already guessed, takes the other side of the debate.

I did eventually get my 500K approved. I had to be a bit of a pain in
the ass to see this happen, the word was that with the rules revision,
no further exceptions would be allowed.

It does take a lot of the fun out of it, doesn't it?

Good luck.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jun 10, 7:32*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:08*am, Scott Alexander >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> > rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> > the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> > good, it's still rejected.
>
> > On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> > because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> > should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> > count.
>
> > I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> > magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> > register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> > me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> > even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> > which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> > So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> > claim.
>
> > Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> > this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> > but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> > diamond flight.
>
> oh - and you DID do a Diamond Flight!! *There is a difference between
> a badge flight and a badge performance. *the performance part means
> you managed to successfully jump through all of the paperwork hoops.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Congrats on the flight Scott, regardless of the typo!
This subject came up a while back (3-4 months ago??) Your post
prompted me to look at one of my .igc files. I see that I have:
HFGIDGLIDERID:16UF
I don't recall how many characters are allowed, but I'm going to try
making it:
HFGIDGLIDERID:N16UF
just to be safe!
Again, awesome flight!
Jim

I've talked to the chairman, who by the way was very nice and
helpful. What I'm looking for more specifically is perhaps someone
that has dealt with this recently and has success dealing with the FAI
leaders. This was my 5th try at Diamond Goal in the past 12 months.
The other 4 were landouts.

I want this time to count. Glad you got it approved Evan....anyone
else have any suggestions?

Użytkownik Scott Alexander napisał:

> I want this time to count. Glad you got it approved Evan....anyone
> else have any suggestions?
SC3 (valid 2009 AL0 edition), para 4.2.1.c (declaration content):
- glider type, and its registration _or_ serial number _or_ unique
NAC-assigned contest number.

Are SSA contest IDs unique?


Also, SC3 Annex C, para 1.2:
"OOs and National Claim Officers are encouraged to take the position
that, ensuring the rules are met, their goal is to make awards, not turn
them down for minor errors or oversights that do not affect the proof of
a soaring performance."

An OO's special statement about the glider flown should be enough to
solve the case IMHO.

--
WojtuÅ›.net

On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:

Sorry for your loss. I'm glad I got all my diamonds in the days when
a camera, barograph, and the word of my observer were all that
mattered.

Even a person on trial for murder seems to get more "reasonable doubt"
than a badge applicant these days.

Andy

>
> Even a person on trial for murder seems to get more "reasonable doubt"
> than a badge applicant these days.
>
> Andy


TOUCHE'!!!

On Jun 10, 11:13*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander >
> wrote:
>
> Sorry for your loss. *I'm glad I got all my diamonds in the days when
> a camera, barograph, and the word of my observer were all that
> mattered.
>
> Even a person on trial for murder seems to get more "reasonable doubt"
> than a badge applicant these days.
>
> Andy

guilty until proven innocent does seem to be the status quo for the
FAI.

On Jun 10, 10:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> good, it's still rejected.
>
> On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> count.
>
> I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> diamond flight.

As mentioned to Scott offline, there is a formal appeals process that
first needs to be followed. More shortly.

Cringingly,
Erik Mann
SSA's FAI B&R Committee

<snip>
> *Never mind
> that many igc approved flight recorders do not specifically ask you
> for this. *My C-302, for instance, prompts one for the "competition
> ID". *And in competition, this is what the scorer wants in that field
> (I've asked).
>
> There are many in the SSA that would like to see this sorted out. *The
> obvious place to go is the badge and record committee chairman, who
> (ahem) is probably reading this and cringing (sorry). *Judy, as you
> have already guessed, takes the other side of the debate.
>
<snip>

This is a good point, I looked back through the IGC files I have from
the 18 meter nationals last year and see a mix of Contest Numbers and
N-numbers used in the IGC files. I don't recall any serious issues
with this during scoring so I am suspicious that Guy has somehow
accounted for this in the Winscore software. I do see most are using
the competition ID.

I have sent Guy an email for confirmation of if the N number is
acceptable in the GLIDERID field and still have the contest number
show on the score sheet.

If the FAI is going to require the N-number in this field, it only
makes sense that we should be either require it be used in our
contests or at least allow either to be used so it doesn't need to be
change between contest flights and badge flights.

Brian C.

On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> good, it's still rejected.
>
> On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> count.
>
> I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> diamond flight.

Scott

It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
of this IGC/FAI stupidity.

But I want to be fair to Judy and others involved in this from the SSA
side. And as I've pointed out to Scott before privately, this was not
just something buried in fine print in Soaring Magazine. Judy and
others have posted on r.a.s about this specific issue (e.g. here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_frm/thread/63e65a08771f765a)

And this is specifically clarified in the latest (2009 revised) Pilot
and OO Guide Section 6.3.c. Which unfortunately has the effect of
tying Judy's hands on this issue.

So your likely most effective line of attack here is to make your next
flight count, read the current (i.e. 2009 revised) sporting code and
guide carefully and do what Judy has advised clearly in the past --
*always* do a paper declaration after you make the electronic one so
that paper declaration will override the electronic one. Doing that
will normally cure this and several other common declaration problems.
I've recently helped one pilot with advice through to his diamonds and
he had gone through all sorts of similar frustrations before, but he
was recently saved by doing just that paper declaration.

And just so I don't look like I am defending the IGC on this... If the
goal of the IGC/FAI was to marginalize soaring badges, to make them
look like petty bureaucratic bull****, they are doing a bang-up job.
The role of badges will continue to wane, lots of local pilots seem to
have little interest in dealing with this anymore. And having a set of
badges to your name as proof of skill or accomplishment is replaced
for many people by a decent OLC ranking or at least some great OLC
flights. There is no proof that the pilot in the cockpit is who is
described in the IGC file header, and there is no proof that the
logger was installed in the glider claimed in the header, it all
relies on the OO being honest. So given that I cannot fathom why IGC
bureaucrats care whether the GLIDERID field in the header contains the
glider registration or a pilot specific contest ID. If they want to be
pedantic for world records then fine, but for badges this is just mind-
numbingly stupid bureaucracy.


Darryl

On Jun 10, 10:51*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> > rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
> > the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
> > good, it's still rejected.
>
> > On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
> > because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
> > should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
> > count.
>
> > I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
> > magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
> > register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
> > me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
> > even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
> > which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.
>
> > So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> > claim.
>
> > Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> > this claim to pass? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
> > but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
> > diamond flight.
>
> Scott
>
> It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
> of this IGC/FAI stupidity.
>
> But I want to be fair to Judy and others involved in this from the SSA
> side. And as I've pointed out to Scott before privately, this was not
> just something buried in fine print in Soaring Magazine. Judy and
> others have posted on r.a.s about this specific issue (e.g. herehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_frm/thread...)
>
> And this is specifically clarified in the latest (2009 revised) Pilot
> and OO Guide Section 6.3.c. Which unfortunately has the effect of
> tying Judy's hands on this issue.
>
> So your likely most effective line of attack here is to make your next
> flight count, read the current (i.e. 2009 revised) sporting code and
> guide carefully and do what Judy has advised clearly in the past --
> *always* do a paper declaration after you make the electronic one so
> that paper declaration will override the electronic one. Doing that
> will normally cure this and several other common declaration problems.
> I've recently helped one pilot with advice through to his diamonds and
> he had gone through all sorts of similar frustrations before, but he
> was recently saved by doing just that paper declaration.
>
> And just so I don't look like I am defending the IGC on this... If the
> goal of the IGC/FAI was to marginalize soaring badges, to make them
> look like petty bureaucratic bull****, they are doing a bang-up job.
> The role of badges will continue to wane, lots of local pilots seem to
> have little interest in dealing with this anymore. And having a set of
> badges to your name as proof of skill or accomplishment is replaced
> for many people by a decent OLC ranking or at least some great OLC
> flights. There is no proof that the pilot in the cockpit is who is
> described in the IGC file header, and there is no proof that the
> logger was installed in the glider claimed in the header, it all
> relies on the OO being honest. So given that I cannot fathom why IGC
> bureaucrats care whether the GLIDERID field in the header contains the
> glider registration or a pilot specific contest ID. If they want to be
> pedantic for world records then fine, but for badges this is just mind-
> numbingly stupid bureaucracy.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On top of what Darryl said, why does it matter AT ALL what glider the
flight was made in? The requirements are the same for a 1-26 as for
28 meter, 60/1 glider. I've OO'd a fair number of badge flights in the
last couple years, and don't recall any 'handicap' rating anywhere.

Guy just got back to me and as usually he is pretty much on top of
this from the contest scoring side. IGC files can have either a a
GLIDERID field or a COMPETITIONID feild. The Winscore software checks
both for the competition ID.

The issue appears to be with some loggers. In looking at a selection
of files I have seen either field and some have both. The problem
would only occur if the logger only stores a GLIDERID field. It would
be interesting to know what what loggers do this but do not store the
COMPETITIONID. This would force the pilot to use the GLIDERID for the
COMPETITIONID.

Brian

I check the IGC files I had and found of the ones I could check the
C302 and Clearnav and my EW-model D seemed to be the only Loggers that
did not have a competion ID.

It looked like perhap only the older Cambridge, I am unsure what model
did not have a GliderID.

This doesn't meant that they can't be configured to have both, I just
didn't see them in the IGC files I looked at.

here are my results:

GLIDERID COMPETITIONID
Clearnav X
Volkslogger X X
Cambridige? X
C302 X
EW-MR X X
EW-mod D X
Flarm X X
Winpilot X X
Zander GP940 X X

Brian

On Jun 10, 10:02Â*am, Wojciech Scigala > wrote:
> Użytkownik Scott Alexander napisał:
>
> > I want this time to count. Â*Glad you got it approved Evan....anyone
> > else have any suggestions?
>
> SC3 (valid 2009 AL0 edition), para 4.2.1.c (declaration content):
> - glider type, and its registration _or_ serial number _or_ unique
> NAC-assigned contest number.
>
> Are SSA contest IDs unique?
>
> Also, SC3 Annex C, para 1.2:
> "OOs and National Claim Officers are encouraged to take the position
> that, ensuring the rules are met, their goal is to make awards, not turn
> them down for minor errors or oversights that do not affect the proof of
> a soaring performance."
>
> An OO's special statement about the glider flown should be enough to
> solve the case IMHO.
>
> --
> WojtuÅ›.net

SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.

> SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. But suppose my friend let
me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
difference of the validity of the flight. Again, the only problem
here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. So therefor it makes the whole
entire claim Invalid.

I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. I
really do appreciate them. It would take the fun out of soaring if
somebody set a record using an engine. But this is overkill.

I got a few emails today on an appeal process. Hopefully this will
get overturned. Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
for some more good luck.

On Jun 10, 4:43*pm, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> > SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> > sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
> me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
> difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
> here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
> entire claim Invalid.
>
> I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
> are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
> really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
> somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.
>
> I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
> get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
> Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
> for some more good luck.

I feel your pain Scott. I lost a 500K flight last year, due to a
faulty way point file in my logger, that did not show up on the PDA
while flying.

On Jun 10, 9:02Â*am, Wojciech Scigala > wrote:
> Użytkownik Scott Alexander napisał:
>
> > I want this time to count. Â*Glad you got it approved Evan....anyone
> > else have any suggestions?
>
> SC3 (valid 2009 AL0 edition), para 4.2.1.c (declaration content):
> - glider type, and its registration _or_ serial number _or_ unique
> NAC-assigned contest number.
>
> Are SSA contest IDs unique?
>
> Also, SC3 Annex C, para 1.2:
> "OOs and National Claim Officers are encouraged to take the position
> that, ensuring the rules are met, their goal is to make awards, not turn
> them down for minor errors or oversights that do not affect the proof of
> a soaring performance."
>
> An OO's special statement about the glider flown should be enough to
> solve the case IMHO.
>
> --
> WojtuÅ›.net

SSA issued Contest IDs are issued to a pilot and not the glider, and
they are therefore definitely *not* unique to a glider (I owned two
gliders at once both "6DX", but different N-numbers) and AFAIK this
has been the root issue with the IGC and using SSA issues contest IDs
in the IGC file GLIDERID header field.

But yes since the future of mankind does not depend on this, a
statement from the OO that the pilot flew the damn glider should be
enough, especially for a badge flight.

Darryl

Darryl

On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> > SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> > sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
> me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
> difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
> here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
> entire claim Invalid.
>
> I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
> are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
> really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
> somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.
>
> I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
> get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
> Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
> for some more good luck.

I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. I
have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
"our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
members?". Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
alienating the members we do have. I personally no longer give a
rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
have a single-place glider.


TA

I personally no longer give a
> rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
> lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
> have a single-place glider.
>
> TA-

Frank! That is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh!

On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> > > sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
> > me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
> > difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
> > here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
> > entire claim Invalid.
>
> > I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
> > are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
> > really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
> > somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.
>
> > I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
> > get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
> > Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
> > for some more good luck.
>
> I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
> have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
> their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
> "our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
> members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
> flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
> alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
> rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
> lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
> have a single-place glider.
>
> TA

Frank,

I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
don't think it is the SSA.

Darryl

On Jun 10, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> SSA issued Contest IDs are issued to a pilot and not the glider, and
> they are therefore definitely *not* unique to a glider (I owned two
> gliders at once both "6DX", but different N-numbers) and AFAIK this
> has been the root issue with the IGC and using SSA issues contest IDs
> in the IGC file GLIDERID header field.

But it's also true that the glider registration number is not unique
to that airframe serial number, at least in USA. A glider can change
hands and the new owner can apply for a new N number. The original
owner could then apply the original N number to a completely different
glider. Some German manufacturers like to stamp the registration
number on the data plate. Recently the issuance of an airworthiness
certificate was denied until the owner obtained a new data plate that
did not include the N number. Nothing unique about the N number in
USA, they are transferred and reused on different aircraft.

The only things unique are the pilot and the glider serial number. Why
isn't the name of the pilot sufficient.

All that matters is the the verified pilot flew some damn glider over
the required course.

Andy

On 2010/06/10 06:02 PM, Wojciech Scigala wrote:
> Użytkownik Scott Alexander napisał:
>
>> I want this time to count. Glad you got it approved Evan....anyone
>> else have any suggestions?
> SC3 (valid 2009 AL0 edition), para 4.2.1.c (declaration content):
> - glider type, and its registration _or_ serial number _or_ unique
> NAC-assigned contest number.
>
> Are SSA contest IDs unique?
>
>
> Also, SC3 Annex C, para 1.2:
> "OOs and National Claim Officers are encouraged to take the position
> that, ensuring the rules are met, their goal is to make awards, not turn
> them down for minor errors or oversights that do not affect the proof of
> a soaring performance."
>
> An OO's special statement about the glider flown should be enough to
> solve the case IMHO.
>
That has certainly been the case till now in South Africa.
If there was no OO - then you may have a problem, because you are
relying on the flight recorder only. IGC in general is reasonable in my
experience.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Użytkownik Grider Pirate napisał:

> On top of what Darryl said, why does it matter AT ALL what glider the
> flight was made in? The requirements are the same for a 1-26 as for
> 28 meter, 60/1 glider. I've OO'd a fair number of badge flights in the
> last couple years, and don't recall any 'handicap' rating anywhere.
There should be proves that it was a solo flight and no engine has been
used. Identifying the glider also enables to check flight against club logs.

--
WojtuÅ›.net

Scott Alexander wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/
> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
> claim.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
> this claim to pass? /snip/

I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of
something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form,
I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from
a lawyer.

Brian W

On Jun 11, 3:00Â*am, Wojciech Scigala > wrote:
> Użytkownik Grider Pirate napisał:
>
> > On top of what Darryl said, why does it matter AT ALL what glider the
> > flight was made in? Â*The requirements are the same for a 1-26 as for
> > 28 meter, 60/1 glider. I've OO'd a fair number of badge flights in the
> > last couple years, and don't recall any 'handicap' rating anywhere.
>
> There should be proves that it was a solo flight and no engine has been
> used. Identifying the glider also enables to check flight against club logs.
>
> --
> WojtuÅ›.net

The only "proof" in many cases it is a solo flight is the OO saying
so. Nothing stops a badge being awarded in a two seater by a solo
pilot. And I doubt clubs or FBO in the USA that has any records that
will catch cases of a (non-student) flying dual.

Again everything comes down to the OO. The OO should be allowed to
state a correction after the flight for the aircraft registration. Its
not like a contest ID incorrectly entered in the IGC file is
practically going to get confused with a USA n-number. The current
anal-retentive current treatment of GLIDERID is pointless and the
impact/annoyance of this is harming promoting the sport of soaring in
the USA. And it is not exactly endearing the IGC or SSA to many USA
pilots.

Darryl

On Jun 10, 6:51*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
> of this IGC/FAI stupidity.

I fail to understand the above comment, and the many attacks on FAI
and IGC that pepper this thread. Aside from commonsense, which
suggests that the critical point is: "was the glider in question
positively identified in the pre-flight declaration", the current
Sporting Code says, about glider ID in a pre-flight declaration:

4.2.1c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique
NAC-assigned contest number.

This is a pretty wide definition, the intention (as I understand it,
the Code is not my area within IGC), that's GPS recorders, as you
know) is simply to positively identify the glider to which the
declaration refers.

It is then up to the National gliding authority to interpret the above
in a reasonable way, with knowledge of the circumstances that pertain
(in the case on Glider IDs) in the country concerned. Then there is
the OO concerned, was he or she positive about which glider was
referred to in the declaration, if so, this evidence can be put
forward to the NAC.

Or perhaps I'm missing something?

My glider BGA Competition ID is "60", and I am sure that, if I were to
make a claim, the BGA would accept that, as they have in the past when
I was young enough to make claims for records in the UK.

It's rainy and dull here at the moment, but that's typical weather
this side of the pond! They say that it will be a 500k day tomorrow,
but I am not sure that I believe it.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

On Jun 11, 5:48*am, Ian Strachan > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 6:51*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
> > of this IGC/FAI stupidity.
>
> I fail to understand the above comment, and the many attacks on FAI
> and IGC that pepper this thread. *Aside from commonsense, which
> suggests that the critical point is: "was the glider in question
> positively identified in the pre-flight declaration", *the current
> Sporting Code says, about glider ID in a pre-flight declaration:
>
> 4.2.1c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique
> NAC-assigned contest number.
>
> This is a pretty wide definition, the intention (as I understand it,
> the Code is not my area within IGC), that's GPS recorders, as you
> know) is simply to positively identify the glider to which the
> declaration refers.
>
> It is then up to the National gliding authority to interpret the above
> in a reasonable way, with knowledge of the circumstances that pertain
> (in the case on Glider IDs) in the country concerned. *Then there is
> the OO concerned, was he or she positive about which glider was
> referred to in the declaration, if so, this evidence can be put
> forward to the NAC.
>
> Or perhaps I'm missing something?
>
> My glider BGA Competition ID is "60", and I am sure that, if I were to
> make a claim, the BGA would accept that, as they have in the past when
> I was young enough to make claims for records in the UK.
>
> It's rainy and dull here at the moment, but that's typical weather
> this side of the pond! *They say that it will be a 500k day tomorrow,
> but I am not sure that I believe it.
>
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Ian

So tp bring your comments back to relevance to the problem we are
having in the USA, your interpretation as somebody working within the
IGC on flight recorders for a long time is that SC3 4.2.1c. "unique
NAC assigned contest ID" would indeed be met by the SSA issued contest
ID that is issued to a pilot? I understand that is probably just your
personal opinion, but could you please confirm this is in fact the
IGC's position. I presume that is a quick question for you to have
answered definitively. Also if that is so could you suggest to the
IGC they remove what would then appear to be incorrect and confusing
information in SC3c 6.3c where it says "Not all NACs issue competition
numbers or require them to be unique to a glider – the glider
registration or its serial number must then be used."

The issue has previously been described on r.a.s. by the SSA's rule
committee chairman when this issue first came up in the USA. See the
comments by Papa3 in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_frm/thread/63e65a08771f765a/db0ce781c3ef5314

And to avoid trouble linking to that for non Google users I'll include
the guts of the post here...

> The catch is that 4.2.1.c refers to a "unique NAC-Assigned contest
> number." The SSA (and several other large NACs) do not assign a
> unique contest number to an aircraft; rather, the contest number is
> assigned to the pilot. In the context of the rule, the
> interpretation handed down by the IGC is that "unique" refers to the
> combination of the contest number and aircraft. The IGC folks were
> very clear that the situation in the US is such that the competition
> number would not meet the requirements. We tried very hard to explain
> the impact of this situation, but we ultimately were asked to concede
> the point.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Mann
> Chair, SSA FAI Badge & Record Committee

Either the SSA is seriously confused or the IGC easily deserves the
criticism in this thread.

Thanks


Darryl

>
> I doubt there is a case for an appeal.
>
> Frank Whiteley

If my appeal is turned down i then have no respect for this whole
process

The question at large should be, "Did he successfuly round the
declared turnpoints in a motorless aircraft?"

In my case, the answer is YES! Simple as that.

>
> If my appeal is turned down i then have no respect for this whole
> process
>
>
So many years ago, I had problems with several flights and
contests. Many rules were learned along the way and after several
attempts, I got the badges.
But, my "problems" were with me. My own making. I wasn't
following the "rules" of the game.
Did the "offender" break any rules. It seems to be a paper problem.
The appeal process should be able to resolve this issue.
GA

I really feel for you, Scott. I know from personal experience just how
hard a flight a Diamond Goal is. In my opinion, it's a shame that such
a flight wouldn't be recognized for such a minor transgression.

But, rules are rules. The FAA demands that a "pilot in command shall,
before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available
information concerning that flight". It's not unreasonable to demand
that if you're flying a badge flight you need to know the rules. And
in this case the lame rule that's getting you has been widely
discussed, in a number of forums.

I disagree with those that say adherence to the FAI rules will hurt
soaring. I started soaring because I wanted to fly - I didn't hear of
badges until long after I was hooked on soaring. In my opinion again,
badges won't entice people into soaring. But talking about things I've
seen that they'll never see on the ground, and using IgcReplay to give
them a good idea of what they'd see if they soared, has definitely
gotten folks into soaring.

-John


On Jun 11, 11:34 am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:
> If my appeal is turned down i then have no respect for this whole
> process
>
> The question at large should be, "Did he successfuly round the
> declared turnpoints in a motorless aircraft?"
>
> In my case, the answer is YES! Simple as that.

Scott Alexander > wrote:
> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration.

Is there a rule that prevents you from re-submitting with the typo
corrected?

On Jun 11, 10:57*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Scott Alexander > wrote:
> > I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> > rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration.
>
> Is there a rule that prevents you from re-submitting with the typo
> corrected?

The "TYPO" is in the electronic declaration. A paper declaration
would be valid, but only if it were made and signed before the flight.

Grider Pirate > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 10:57*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Scott Alexander > wrote:
>> > I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
>> > rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration.
>>
>> Is there a rule that prevents you from re-submitting with the typo
>> corrected?
>
> The "TYPO" is in the electronic declaration. A paper declaration
> would be valid, but only if it were made and signed before the flight.

I see - thanks.

On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander >
> > wrote:
>
> > > > SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> > > > sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
> > > me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
> > > difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
> > > here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
> > > entire claim Invalid.
>
> > > I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
> > > are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
> > > really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
> > > somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.
>
> > > I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
> > > get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
> > > Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
> > > for some more good luck.
>
> > I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
> > have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
> > their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
> > "our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
> > members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
> > flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
> > alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
> > rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
> > lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
> > have a single-place glider.
>
> > TA
>
> Frank,
>
> I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
> IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
> SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
> outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
> agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
> don't think it is the SSA.
>
> Darryl

Darryl,

You have my sympathy but you're in good company - hundreds if not
thousands of pilots have had badge claims denied over the years
because of a paperwork glitch. It pays to read the rules - and have
a good OO looking over your shoulder as you fill out the forms.

It happened to me. I flew an 300 km out and return but got credit for
Gold Distance and not Diamond Goal because the start and finish were 1
km apart - not the same point - my bad. I didn't complain, I just
cleared the memory of the Volkslogger and flew another 300 km O&R for
Diamond Goal. Both flights were a lot of fun so I didn't have much to
complain about.

Bill D

The inherent problem is a self-serving “system” that has evolved into
the absurd over the years. The focus is on procedures rather than
results. Everyone reading this knows of someone who has completed a
badge flight and their paperwork has been rejected. You’ve often heard
something to the effect that the flight was the easy part but getting
the paperwork right takes a rocket scientist. SSA currently has a
group working on some of these issues, but as you’ve often heard the
Chairman say, the Staff relies on members to get things done. I would
suggest a small uprising of SSA members focused on reforming badge
flight documentation would an appropriate action. A grass-roots
effort to put the fun back in badge flying… now there’s an idea! A
couple of thousand e-mail messages to SSA HQ, or your Regional
Director, would be a good start for a grass-roots movement to reform
an out-dated bureaucratic badge system.

So, what would rational, functional, and user-friendly badge flight
documentation look like?

Bob

On Jun 11, 12:11*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> > > > > sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
> > > > me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
> > > > difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
> > > > here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
> > > > entire claim Invalid.
>
> > > > I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
> > > > are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
> > > > really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
> > > > somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.
>
> > > > I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
> > > > get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
> > > > Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
> > > > for some more good luck.
>
> > > I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
> > > have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
> > > their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
> > > "our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
> > > members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
> > > flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
> > > alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
> > > rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
> > > lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
> > > have a single-place glider.
>
> > > TA
>
> > Frank,
>
> > I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
> > IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
> > SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
> > outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
> > agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
> > don't think it is the SSA.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Darryl,
>
> You have my sympathy but you're in good company - hundreds if not
> thousands of pilots have had badge claims denied over the years
> because of a paperwork glitch. * It pays to read the rules - and have
> a good OO looking over your shoulder as you fill out the forms.
>
> It happened to me. *I flew an 300 km out and return but got credit for
> Gold Distance and not Diamond Goal because the start and finish were 1
> km apart - not the same point - my bad. *I didn't complain, I just
> cleared the memory of the Volkslogger and flew another 300 km O&R for
> Diamond Goal. *Both flights were a lot of fun so I didn't have much to
> complain about.
>
> Bill D

I don't need your sympathy. I've never had a badge claim rejected, but
I've come close more than once. And As I've suggested here Scott's
most effective resolution of this problem is to go do the flight again
properly.

As somebody's who has worked to locally promote badge flights, given
local seminars/talks on badges, helped explain the common traps and
helped mentor a few people through badges, worked with local clubs/
FBOs etc to make sure they are clear on the exact GLIDERID/Contest ID
issue discussed here, etc... I'll restate my points on this...

1. The sporting code _is_ clear. You do have to read it a few times.

2. The SSA has communicated this issue fairly well.

3. While Scott has my sympathy, I really don't care about the impact
on an individual badge claim.

4. I do care on the net overall affect of this particularly pedantic
rule and the impact on lots of Scott's and others trying for their
badges. Especially combined with -
a) A long running tradition in the USA of entering the SSA Contest
number as the GLIDERID
b) Confusing software UI and documentation from IGC flight recorder
vendors that state "contest ID" when it means "GLIDER ID".
c) The complete pedantic nature of this actual rule interpretation,
and its non-impact of this on anything important.

Here is the minimal solution I would like for the USA: have the OO
just be able to document (post-badge application on inquiry from the
SSA if needed) that in cases where a valid SSA contest ID was entered
for that pilot instead of the N-number what the actual glider N-number
was. Of course this is perfectly easily handled today by doing a paper
declaration after the electronic one. As has been suggested on r.a.s
many times. So while I'm complaining about the IGC interpretation of
this rule I'm equally complaining about pilots who cannot get basic
stuff like this right _and_ also choose to not do a paper declaration.
The suggestion for doing a paper declaration has been around for ages,
it covers a lot of possible sins, so it's not a new thing. The OO in
this case really let the pilot down.


Darryl

On Jun 11, 3:55*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> The OO in
> this case really let the pilot down.


It's easy to do. My OO -- who was completely blind sided by the same
'defect' was our IGC delegate....

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On 6/11/2010 1:47 PM, RL wrote:
> The inherent problem is a self-serving “system” that has evolved into
> the absurd over the years. The focus is on procedures rather than
> results.

I suspect (as in, am just about 99.98276% certain!) this 'focus on
procedures' is an easy trap for folks 'in the IGC position' to fall
into. That noted, put me in the category of agreeing a 'real O.O.'
shouldn't let stuff like [Scott A.'s oversight] happen on his watch;
plenty of blame to go around.

For the record, while wearing my O.O. hat, I never had a badge
application fail/be-returned for any reason...when the requirements
changed with new technology and it was too much personal hassle to
remain 'up' on them, I simply stowed my O.O. hat.)
- - - - - -

<Snip...>
SSA currently has a
> group working on some of these issues, but as you’ve often heard the
> Chairman say, the Staff relies on members to get things done. I would
> suggest a small uprising of SSA members focused on reforming badge
> flight documentation would an appropriate action. A grass-roots
> effort to put the fun back in badge flying… now there’s an idea! A
> couple of thousand e-mail messages to SSA HQ, or your Regional
> Director, would be a good start for a grass-roots movement to reform
> an out-dated bureaucratic badge system.
Management 101 - assign responsibility for the project to whomever
thought it up - at least that person cared enough to think and whine
about things!

Whiners take note...if you *really* care, be prepared to follow-up and
take action.
- - - - - -

> So, what would rational, functional, and user-friendly badge flight
> documentation look like?

GREAT QUESTION!!! - don't be shy with responses! And don't imagine that
because this is a 'U.S. problem' that all the good ideas can come only
from the U.S.

Quite possibly here's a chance for RAS to genuinely benefit a bit of the
sport we all love...by becoming a central repository for ideas.

My 'forest' list includes:
- define the forest before diving into the trees (i.e. What're our
goal[s]? For whom? Who gets hurt if anyone cheats? KISS.)
- I don't care too much about the trees until we're in general agreement
about the nature of the forest...

Bob W.

On Jun 11, 7:13*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:

> http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6789819598&show=blog&id=2001
>
> I doubt there is a case for an appeal.

I can't agree with you. There appears to be nothing in the kit itself
that says a constest number is not allowed to be used. A discussion
or posting on RAS does not make a rule. A note on the SSA website
does not make a rule. A notice in the Soaring magazine does not make
a rule. The rules are included in the kit and specifically in the SC
summary:

Declaration content
a. Date of flight.
b. Name of the pilot-in-command, and the flight crew if any (see Annex
C, para 6.3c).
c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique NAC-
assigned contest number.
d. The make, model and serial number of the FR used (as recorded in
the .igc file for the flight). For any barograph or GPS position
recorder used, the make, model and serial
number as verified by the OO before flight.

If something else is to be enforced then the kit itself must be
changed. Perhaps the kit should include the statement "All observers
and badge applicants shall read all past issues of Soaring Magazine
and shall browse all postings on RAS or the SAA website since anything
published there shall take precedence over the rules published in this
kit".

Andy

On Jun 11, 6:13*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 7:13*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6789819598&show=blog&id=2001
>
> > I doubt there is a case for an appeal.
>
> I can't agree with you. *There appears to be nothing in the kit itself
> that says a constest number is not allowed to be used. *A discussion
> or posting on RAS does not make a rule. *A note on the SSA website
> does not make a rule. *A notice in the Soaring magazine does not make
> a rule. *The rules are included in the kit and specifically in the SC
> summary:
>
> Declaration content
> a. Date of flight.
> b. Name of the pilot-in-command, and the flight crew if any (see Annex
> C, para 6.3c).
> c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique NAC-
> assigned contest number.
> d. The make, model and serial number of the FR used (as recorded in
> the .igc file for the flight). For any barograph or GPS position
> recorder used, the make, model and serial
> number as verified by the OO before flight.
>
> If something else is to be enforced then the kit itself must be
> changed. Perhaps the kit should include the statement "All observers
> and badge applicants shall read all past issues of Soaring Magazine
> and shall browse all postings on RAS or the SAA website since anything
> published there shall take precedence over the rules published in this
> kit".
>
> Andy

Well, it seems to me that what's actually important in an e-
declaration is: turn point coords and time stamp. Period. Everything
else can be handled just as well if not better by the application
form, which is attested to and signed by the OO. Everything else in
the declaration is simply fluff. Needless, valueless booby traps.

I am hopeful that we may yet see this sorted out.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jun 11, 3:13*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 7:13*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6789819598&show=blog&id=2001
>
> > I doubt there is a case for an appeal.
>
> I can't agree with you. *There appears to be nothing in the kit itself
> that says a constest number is not allowed to be used. *A discussion
> or posting on RAS does not make a rule. *A note on the SSA website
> does not make a rule. *A notice in the Soaring magazine does not make
> a rule. *The rules are included in the kit and specifically in the SC
> summary:
>
> Declaration content
> a. Date of flight.
> b. Name of the pilot-in-command, and the flight crew if any (see Annex
> C, para 6.3c).
> c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique NAC-
> assigned contest number.
> d. The make, model and serial number of the FR used (as recorded in
> the .igc file for the flight). For any barograph or GPS position
> recorder used, the make, model and serial
> number as verified by the OO before flight.
>
> If something else is to be enforced then the kit itself must be
> changed. Perhaps the kit should include the statement "All observers
> and badge applicants shall read all past issues of Soaring Magazine
> and shall browse all postings on RAS or the SAA website since anything
> published there shall take precedence over the rules published in this
> kit".
>
> Andy

Ah this has already been well covered in this thread, but here goes
again.

A careful reading of SC3 and SC3c shows this is spelt out.

SC3 4.2.1 "Declaration content
a. blah blah...
....
c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique
NAC-assigned contest number.
d. blah blah..."

Here I read this as clearly intended to mean "unique"to the glider not
pilot since it is in the context of Glider type and its' registration.

But what I think does not matter, as any doubt is removed in SC3 Annex
C 6.3c that clarifies this rule... "[blah blah blah....] Not all NACs
issue competition numbers or require them to be unique to a glider –
the glider registration or its serial number must then be used."

So the sporting code is pretty clear that the intent is you need to
use the a unique glider ID, the SSA Contest ID does not appear to
qualify. And I as posted previously by Eric Mann this has been
apparently been hashed over between the IGC and SSA. So lets make
progress and agree that this is the current rule. Next question is
does this has an unreasonable impact on badges and records, and the
promotion of soaring, in the USA and a solution needs to be found?
(count me as a "yes" on that).


Darryl

On Jun 11, 3:49*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> But what I think does not matter, as any doubt is removed in SC3 Annex
> C 6.3c that clarifies this rule... "[blah blah blah....] Not all NACs
> issue competition numbers or require them to be unique to a glider –
> the glider registration or its serial number must then be used."

Is that rule included in the SSA kit?

Is that interpretation of the validity of SSA issued contest numbers
included in the SSA kit?

If not, and I can't find either, then I stand by what I posted.


Andy

On Jun 11, 4:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 3:49*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > But what I think does not matter, as any doubt is removed in SC3 Annex
> > C 6.3c that clarifies this rule... "[blah blah blah....] Not all NACs
> > issue competition numbers or require them to be unique to a glider –
> > the glider registration or its serial number must then be used."
>
> Is that rule included in the SSA kit?
>
> Is that interpretation of the validity of SSA issued contest numbers
> included in the SSA kit?
>
> If not, and I can't find either, then I stand by what I posted.
>
> Andy

SSA Kit? I have no idea what the "SSA Kit" is. Ah tell me you are not
reading the SSA provided sporting code summary and thinking this is
the only thing you need to read? right? And you are not thinking this
is the definite document on the badge rules for the SSA? If people
have this impression then the SSA summary ought to be removed from the
SSA web site or fixed - for a start it seems to not mention the USA/
SSA hot issue that is the topic of this thread. There are many guide
documents and simple versions of badge/records forms that seem to do
more harm than good in this area. It is better to send people to the
actual documents.).

The SSA Badge Web site does link to the set of SC3 documents including
SC3 and Annex C. Its the first link at the top of the badge documents
page. But regardless of anything else you read the formal FAI badge
rules are defined by the FAI sporting code SC3 and additional
clarification in SC3c, whether that is in any "SSA Kit" is irrelevant--
the SSA does not get to change the actual sporting code. Besides being
written in SC3 in what I believe is clear English, I've pointed out
the very straightforward clarification in SC3 Annex C and last year
both the chair of the badge and records committee and Judy worked to
point out this issue, including on r.a.s. I understand that this may
be missed on the first readings, and (as I do) you may not agree with
it, but it is there plain as day.

The more useful issue to worry about is the rule is a poor one and
should be fixed/mitigated/worked around/ignored by the NAC/etc.

Darryl

On Jun 11, 3:55*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 12:11*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
> > > > > > sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
> > > > > me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
> > > > > difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
> > > > > here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
> > > > > entire claim Invalid.
>
> > > > > I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
> > > > > are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims.. *I
> > > > > really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
> > > > > somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.
>
> > > > > I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
> > > > > get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
> > > > > Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
> > > > > for some more good luck.
>
> > > > I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
> > > > have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
> > > > their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
> > > > "our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
> > > > members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
> > > > flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
> > > > alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
> > > > rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
> > > > lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
> > > > have a single-place glider.
>
> > > > TA
>
> > > Frank,
>
> > > I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
> > > IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
> > > SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
> > > outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
> > > agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
> > > don't think it is the SSA.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Darryl,
>
> > You have my sympathy but you're in good company - hundreds if not
> > thousands of pilots have had badge claims denied over the years
> > because of a paperwork glitch. * It pays to read the rules - and have
> > a good OO looking over your shoulder as you fill out the forms.
>
> > It happened to me. *I flew an 300 km out and return but got credit for
> > Gold Distance and not Diamond Goal because the start and finish were 1
> > km apart - not the same point - my bad. *I didn't complain, I just
> > cleared the memory of the Volkslogger and flew another 300 km O&R for
> > Diamond Goal. *Both flights were a lot of fun so I didn't have much to
> > complain about.
>
> > Bill D
>
> I don't need your sympathy. I've never had a badge claim rejected, but
> I've come close more than once. And As I've suggested here Scott's
> most effective resolution of this problem is to go do the flight again
> properly.
>
> As somebody's who has worked to locally promote badge flights, given
> local seminars/talks on badges, helped explain the common traps and
> helped mentor a few people through badges, worked with local clubs/
> FBOs etc to make sure they are clear on the exact GLIDERID/Contest ID
> issue discussed here, etc... I'll restate my points on this...
>
> 1. The sporting code _is_ clear. You do have to read it a few times.
>
> 2. The SSA has communicated this issue fairly well.
>
> 3. While Scott has my sympathy, I really don't care about the impact
> on an individual badge claim.
>
> 4. I do care on the net overall affect of this particularly pedantic
> rule and the impact on lots of Scott's and others trying for their
> badges. Especially combined with -
> a) A long running tradition in the USA of entering the SSA Contest
> number as the GLIDERID
> b) Confusing software UI and documentation from IGC flight recorder
> vendors that state "contest ID" when it means "GLIDER ID".
> c) The complete pedantic nature of this actual rule interpretation,
> and its non-impact of this on anything important.
>
> Here is the minimal solution I would like for the USA: *have the OO
> just be able to document (post-badge application on inquiry from the
> SSA if needed) that in cases where a valid SSA contest ID was entered
> for that pilot instead of the N-number what the actual glider N-number
> was. Of course this is perfectly easily handled today by doing a paper
> declaration after the electronic one. As has been suggested on r.a.s
> many times. So while I'm complaining about the IGC interpretation of
> this rule I'm equally complaining about pilots who cannot get basic
> stuff like this right _and_ also choose to not do a paper declaration.
> The suggestion for doing a paper declaration has been around for ages,
> it covers a lot of possible sins, so it's not a new thing. The OO in
> this case really let the pilot down.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Responding here completely in an unofficial capacity, Darryl has
really done a wonderful job in this thread of getting to the essence
of the issue. In years past (pre 1995), a "declaration" was a
piece of paper with crystal clear instructions. At least here in the
US, the "identifying information" including Pilot, Crew Member,
Sailplane Model and Registration,and Barograph Serial Number (i.e.
the parts of the declaration that DON'T impact the TASK) were rarely
if ever entered erroneously. 99% of claims here in the US were done
against a simple form that made it (almost) impossible to get this
stuff wrong.

Fast forward to 2010, and we have PDAs running various software
(Winpilot, Seeyou, FlywithCE, Glide Naviator, MyCousinBobsMovingMap)
all trying to interface to dozens of FRs (old CAI, Newer CAI,
Volksloggers, Colibris, EWs, etc.) . Not to mention laptops that
aren't talking to older, serial-based devices, newer devices with SD
cards and inscrutable boot sequences, etc. The problem is that the
technology and the rules have diverged. And, the more we've tried to
get prescriptive in the declaration, the more chances we've created
for pilots to get it wrong.

Anyway, I'm certainly hopeful that we'll find some common sense fixes
to the rash of issues we're seeing.

P3

On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
> GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
> THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."

But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
requirement.

-T8

On Jun 12, 8:18*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > *FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
> > GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
> > THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."
>
> But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
> requirement.
>
> -T8

It would be even simpler to tell the IGC to take a hike, and tell the
badge lady to quit rejecting badge and record claims over
technicalities. If the IGC wants to go to the trouble of rejecting
claims that the SSA has already approved, let them. I'll bet $10 that
the IGC (remember, its just another big, bloated bureaucracy filled
with people who don't like doing work) will never trouble itself.
After all, if it is clear that the flight actually happened, and any
technical difficulties with the declaration can be cleared up with a
few emails, then that should do it.

If the IGC *does* object to common sense, then its time to drop the
IGC entirely and go our own way with badges and records. I could care
less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
U.S.?

Frank

On Jun 12, 5:18*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > *FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
> > GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
> > THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."
>
> But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
> requirement.
>
> -T8

I completely agree that's a great goal, and I want to see this
changed, but much harder to achieve since it seems to involve getting
the IGC to change their position on this.

In the meantime doing a quick fix in the SSA kit may help save some
frustration like described in this thread. The summary guide should
also have a banner/note across the top advising to always do a paper
declaration. And again, maybe more than a quick fix I think the SSA
should not be publishing extensive rule summies (there are folks
posting in this thread who seem to think this summary has some rule
setting ability over the actual sporting code for SSS adjudicated
badges) but pointing pilots only to the sporting code docs. Much
better to capture the common reasons for problems in a doc/checklist.

Darryl

Darryl

In article
>,
Frank > wrote:

> If the IGC *does* object to common sense, then its time to drop the
> IGC entirely and go our own way with badges and records. I could care
> less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
> U.S.?

Perhaps the best path would be to give a submitter the choice of trying
for the stricter FAI badge or a more lax SSA badge. Those who don't care
can go for the SSA badge, and those who do can worry about nonsense like
whether their name was slightly misspelled.

Stuff like this certainly gives me very little incentive to do badge
flights. Flying is fun, flying high and far is really fun, but paperwork
is not. I don't see how adding paperwork to the flying adds to the fun,
so why do badges...?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jun 12, 8:55*am, Frank > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:18*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > *FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
> > > GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
> > > THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."
>
> > But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
> > requirement.
>
> > -T8
>
> It would be even simpler to tell the IGC to take a hike, and tell the
> badge lady to quit rejecting badge and record claims over
> technicalities. *If the IGC wants to go to the trouble of rejecting
> claims that the SSA has already approved, let them. *I'll bet $10 that
> the IGC (remember, its just another big, bloated bureaucracy filled
> with people who don't like doing work) will never trouble itself.
> After all, if it is clear that the flight actually happened, and any
> technical difficulties with the declaration can be cleared up with a
> few emails, then that should do it.
>
> If the IGC *does* object to common sense, then its time to drop the
> IGC entirely and go our own way with badges and records. *I could care
> less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
> U.S.?
>
> Frank

But that would be too simple. After all isn't the objective to make it
as difficult as possible? The actual flight is just a tiny part of the
overall process. We need to focus on the big picture. Sometime times
it seems that when the joy of flying get old we turn to contests, when
that becomes old we turn ot the importance of contest rules and when
even that becomes boring we turn to the importance of dotting i's and
crossing your t's on badge claims.

On Jun 12, 4:16*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:55*am, Frank > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 8:18*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > *FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
> > > > GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
> > > > THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."
>
> > > But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
> > > requirement.
>
> > > -T8
>
> > It would be even simpler to tell the IGC to take a hike, and tell the
> > badge lady to quit rejecting badge and record claims over
> > technicalities. *If the IGC wants to go to the trouble of rejecting
> > claims that the SSA has already approved, let them. *I'll bet $10 that
> > the IGC (remember, its just another big, bloated bureaucracy filled
> > with people who don't like doing work) will never trouble itself.
> > After all, if it is clear that the flight actually happened, and any
> > technical difficulties with the declaration can be cleared up with a
> > few emails, then that should do it.
>
> > If the IGC *does* object to common sense, then its time to drop the
> > IGC entirely and go our own way with badges and records. *I could care
> > less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
> > U.S.?
>
> > Frank
>
> But that would be too simple. After all isn't the objective to make it
> as difficult as possible? The actual flight is just a tiny part of the
> overall process. We need to focus on the big picture. Sometime times
> it seems that when the joy of flying get old we turn to contests, when
> that becomes old we turn ot the importance of contest rules and when
> even that becomes boring we turn to the importance of dotting i's and
> crossing your t's on badge claims.

I trust this is tongue-in-cheek. It is about flying and not about
being anal-retentive.
Of course, the documentation has to prove that the flight was made; I
well remember
that a person faked a badge flight back in the 1960's, was proven by
weather records
to have faked the flight, and the badge was withdrawn. (If you have
old enough SSA
Directories you can look this up to find the vacated number and the
name.)

Beyond proving the flight is real and meets the requirements for
altitude and distance,
nothing more is needed. We don't need the trickiness of contest rules
to document
badge flights. If that gets boring fly contests or longer, higher,
faster flights. Don't drag
the fussiness of contest rules into non-competitive flying. Are we
pilots, or are we
pencil sharpeners?
pencils?

On Jun 12, 2:26*pm, None > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 4:16*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 8:55*am, Frank > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 8:18*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > *FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
> > > > > GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
> > > > > THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."
>
> > > > But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
> > > > requirement.
>
> > > > -T8
>
> > > It would be even simpler to tell the IGC to take a hike, and tell the
> > > badge lady to quit rejecting badge and record claims over
> > > technicalities. *If the IGC wants to go to the trouble of rejecting
> > > claims that the SSA has already approved, let them. *I'll bet $10 that
> > > the IGC (remember, its just another big, bloated bureaucracy filled
> > > with people who don't like doing work) will never trouble itself.
> > > After all, if it is clear that the flight actually happened, and any
> > > technical difficulties with the declaration can be cleared up with a
> > > few emails, then that should do it.
>
> > > If the IGC *does* object to common sense, then its time to drop the
> > > IGC entirely and go our own way with badges and records. *I could care
> > > less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
> > > U.S.?
>
> > > Frank
>
> > But that would be too simple. After all isn't the objective to make it
> > as difficult as possible? The actual flight is just a tiny part of the
> > overall process. We need to focus on the big picture. Sometime times
> > it seems that when the joy of flying get old we turn to contests, when
> > that becomes old we turn ot the importance of contest rules and when
> > even that becomes boring we turn to the importance of dotting i's and
> > crossing your t's on badge claims.
>
> I trust this is tongue-in-cheek. *It is about flying and not about
> being anal-retentive.
> Of course, the documentation has to prove that the flight was made; I
> well remember
> that a person faked a badge flight back in the 1960's, was proven by
> weather records
> to have faked the flight, and the badge was withdrawn. (If you have
> old enough SSA
> Directories you can look this up to find the vacated number and the
> name.)
>
> Beyond proving the flight is real and meets the requirements for
> altitude and distance,
> nothing more is needed. *We don't need the trickiness of contest rules
> to document
> badge flights. *If that gets boring fly contests or longer, higher,
> faster flights. *Don't drag
> the fussiness of contest rules into non-competitive flying. Are we
> pilots, or are we
> pencil sharpeners?
> pencils?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Back in the 60's someone was caught faking a badge flight? "O" my God
I didn't know that! Alright then even though it happened 40 years ago
we can't let that ever happen again. We need a new IGC committee to
tighten up those rule and claims.

On Jun 12, 8:55*am, Frank > wrote:
>*I could care
> less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
> U.S.?
>


It may nor be as simple as that. The involved NAC may not just be the
NAC of the country where the flight is made. It is quite common for
pilots to visit other countries and to make badge and record flights
while away from home.

In my case all my soaring badges were earned in US because that is
where I was resident. As required by the SSA forms at that time I
declared my nationality as British and all my badges are recorded in
the UK register.

In this case both SSA and BGA would have to have been satisfied that
my claims met all applicable rules.

That brings me to the subject of a Unique Contest Number. There can be
no such thing in any country or assigned by any NAC. The NAC will
only have control over Contest Numbers issued in its own country and
to gliders operating under its control. Say, for example BGA issues a
"unique" number to a glider and the owner brings that glider to US for
a visit to make a badge or record attempt. The number is no longer
unique since that same number may also have been issued by SSA.

Unless the movement of gliders between countries is made illegal there
can be no such thing as a "unique NAC-assigned contest number". If
the use of contest number is invalid in US it should also be invalid
in all counties for exactly the same reason - that it cannot be known
to be unique.

Given that some (perhaps all if you consider export) countries allow
the registration number to change during the life of an aircraft, the
only unique number associated with any glider is the manufacturer's
serial number.

Andy

On Jun 13, 5:50*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:55*am, Frank > wrote:
>
> >*I could care
> > less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
> > U.S.?
>
> It may nor be as simple as that. The involved NAC may not just be the
> NAC of the country where the flight is made. *It is quite common for
> pilots to visit other countries and to make badge and record flights
> while away from home.
>
> In my case all my soaring badges were earned in US because that is
> where I was resident. *As required by the SSA forms at that time I
> declared my nationality as British and all my badges are recorded in
> the UK register.
>
> In this case both SSA and BGA would have to have been satisfied that
> my claims met all applicable rules.
>
> That brings me to the subject of a Unique Contest Number. There can be
> no such thing in any country or assigned by any NAC. *The NAC will
> only have control over Contest Numbers issued in its own country and
> to gliders operating under its control. *Say, for example BGA issues a
> "unique" number to a glider and the owner brings that glider to US for
> a visit to make a badge or record attempt. *The number is no longer
> unique since that same number may also have been issued by SSA.
>
> Unless the movement of gliders between countries is made illegal there
> can be no such thing as a "unique NAC-assigned contest number". *If
> the use of contest number is invalid in US it should also be invalid
> in all counties for exactly the same reason - that it cannot be known
> to be unique.
>
> Given that some (perhaps all if you consider export) countries allow
> the registration number to change during the life of an aircraft, the
> only unique number associated with any glider is the manufacturer's
> serial number.
>
> Andy

This post repeatedly implies the SSA issues contest IDs to gliders.
Can we please get the basic facts right -- the root issue here is the
SSA does *not* issue contest IDs to gliders, they are issued to
pilots. At any time the FAA issued N-number is a unique, and a BGA
issued contest ID for a glider is unique as well - within the coverage
of the BGA/NAC. It is pretty clear when the sporting code says things
like a "unique NAC assigned Contest ID" it means within the area of
responsibility of that NAC and unique at any point in time. We have a
real, practical issues with the sporting code, flight recorders, and
contest IDs in the USA, and the issues at hand are not really helped
by trying to invent other problems that do not exist.

I suspect folks suggesting the SSA goes it's own way on badges do not
think accomodating foreign badge applicants is an issue. And one
solution would be to to offer you a SSA badge if you wanted a sensible
level of rules, maybe the option of an FAI badge if you want to follow
the sporting code, deal with flight recorder silliness issues exactly,
etc.

On Jun 13, 8:44*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> This post repeatedly implies the SSA issues contest IDs to gliders.
> Can we please get the basic facts right --

Nor once in my post do I make any reference to SSA issuing contest
ID's to gliders..

Please read it more carefully before you post comment!

On Jun 13, 4:10*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:44*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > This post repeatedly implies the SSA issues contest IDs to gliders.
> > Can we please get the basic facts right --
>
> Nor once in my post do I make any reference to SSA issuing contest
> ID's to gliders..
>
> Please read it more carefully before you post comment!

Your post was largely about contest numbers *for gliders*, you stated
that you are worried about bringing a glider here because the SSA
could have issued the same contest number and therefore your glider's
contest number won't be unique. It's painful to keep saying this, but
I will -- the SSA does not issue contest numbers to gliders. None nada
zilch. So, even if cross NAC uniqueness might every be an issue, which
it is not, it just does not make sense to talk about a conflict
between unique NAC assigned Contest IDs for gliders since the SSA does
not issue Contest IDs for gliders.

An SSA issued Contest ID is invalid as a Glider ID for any badge or
record flight claim. I believe you do understanding this, but your
writing about in a way that is not clear and implies to a reader that
the SSA does issues contest IDs to gliders. And the root issue here is
that many people don't get the subtle issue around Glider ID and
Contest ID so yes I'm being overly picky on that clarity.

---

And recapping the real issue, again, I'm fine with a rule that says
the SSA issued Contest ID is not to be used when a Glider ID is
required (because well, it is just not a Glider ID, no argument from
me there) - but we need some common sense approach here with the IGC
agreeing to allow something like just letting the OO have a way of
noting a correction from an incorrect Contest ID or pilot name entered
into an electronic flight recorder. The OO witnessed what glider the
pilot flew, simply allow the Glider ID (and pilot name if also messed
up) header data to be overridden (but obviously not any declared turn
points) post flight by a note from the OO -- that solves this problem
and others and introduces no additional practical issues. For world
records etc. I have less sympathy for pilots who do not read and
understand the rules in minute details, but at least for badges, time
for some sanity.

Darryl

"Andy" > wrote in message
:

> On Jun 10, 6:25*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > SSA issued Contest IDs are issued to a pilot and not the glider, and
> > they are therefore definitely *not* unique to a glider (I owned two
> > gliders at once both "6DX", but different N-numbers) and AFAIK this
> > has been the root issue with the IGC and using SSA issues contest IDs
> > in the IGC file GLIDERID header field.
>
> But it's also true that the glider registration number is not unique
> to that airframe serial number, at least in USA. A glider can change
> hands and the new owner can apply for a new N number. The original
> owner could then apply the original N number to a completely different
> glider. Some German manufacturers like to stamp the registration
> number on the data plate. Recently the issuance of an airworthiness
> certificate was denied until the owner obtained a new data plate that
> did not include the N number. Nothing unique about the N number in
> USA, they are transferred and reused on different aircraft.
>
> The only things unique are the pilot and the glider serial number. Why
> isn't the name of the pilot sufficient.
>
> All that matters is the the verified pilot flew some damn glider over
> the required course.
>
> Andy


Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact
that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do
with it. At a point in time (the time of the goal flight) it is,
verifiably, unique. In your above example the "original owner" cannot
"apply the original N number to a completely different glider". He can
petition the FAA to use the number for a new glider once it is no longer
being used on the old glider, and, if approved, it becomes a unique
number for the new glider in question. No other glider will have that N
number (ie, unique) at that time.

Larry

"Grider Pirate" > wrote in message
:

> On Jun 11, 10:57*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > Scott Alexander > wrote:
> > > I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
> > > rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration.
> >
> > Is there a rule that prevents you from re-submitting with the typo
> > corrected?
>
> The "TYPO" is in the electronic declaration. A paper declaration
> would be valid, but only if it were made and signed before the flight.



Soooo! There is the solution to this whole problem!

Scott, get with your OO and find that paper declaration (that clearly
shows the glider N number) that you both prepared before the flight
(wink, wink). I am sure if you look down behind the seat of your car or
glider, you will find it.

Send it in and the problem is solved, right?


Larry

On Jun 14, 5:54*am, "Larry Goddard" > wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in message
>
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 6:25 pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > SSA issued Contest IDs are issued to a pilot and not the glider, and
> > > they are therefore definitely *not* unique to a glider (I owned two
> > > gliders at once both "6DX", but different N-numbers) and AFAIK this
> > > has been the root issue with the IGC and using SSA issues contest IDs
> > > in the IGC file GLIDERID header field.
>
> > But it's also true that the glider registration number is not unique
> > to that airframe serial number, at least in USA. *A glider can change
> > hands and the new owner can apply for a new N number. *The original
> > owner could then apply the original N number to a completely different
> > glider. *Some German manufacturers like to stamp the registration
> > number on the data plate. *Recently the issuance of an airworthiness
> > certificate was denied until the owner obtained a new data plate that
> > did not include the N number. Nothing unique about the N number in
> > USA, they are transferred and reused on different aircraft.
>
> > The only things unique are the pilot and the glider serial number. Why
> > isn't the name of the pilot sufficient.
>
> > All that matters is the the verified pilot flew some damn glider over
> > the required course.
>
> > Andy
>
> Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact
> that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do
> with it. *At a point in time (the time of the goal flight) it is,
> verifiably, unique. *In your above example the "original owner" cannot
> "apply the original N number to a completely different glider". *He can
> petition the FAA to use the number for a new glider once it is no longer
> being used on the old glider, and, if approved, it becomes a unique
> number for the new glider in question. No other glider will have that N
> number (ie, unique) at that time.
>
> Larry


This thread has become illustrious of the bureaucratic process that
created this problem. We now have a heated discussion over the
uniqueness of the glider identifying number in the declaration. I am
sure this is exactly what happed at the IGC. Lost in the moment, it
was overlooked that this piece of information is COMPLETELY
UNNECESSARY. It has been stated before, so I will make this brief, in
badge flying, there is NO change in declaration procedure or
requirement according to glider type, let alone the specific glider.
This information might be required for the application, but is clearly
not needed for declaration. It seems particularly absurd to worry
about uniquely identifying the glider, when it is not required to
uniquely identify the pilot! Sorry to all the John Smiths, your
issuing authority (your parents) did not uniquely identify you so you
are not eligible for diamonds…

Just to point this thread in a more constructive direction, what can
we do to simply the badge process?

We can start the list with the essence of this problematic
application:
Reduce the declaration to its essence. For electronic declarations,
Waypoints and time and date.

Another possible change, Reduce the calibration requirements for
loggers IF the flight if does not show a significant discrepancy with
the GPS altitude. ie coarse calibration via gps.

More suggestions? let’s look at some failures from insignifiga , and
test them here in this forum. For example, someone noted their
“closed course” was not exactly closed. Sorry thems the rules, but if
there are other blatant, unnecessary requirements like this one, lets
expose them here, and I would be happy to submit the list to the IGC
(although I expect they are listening) and see if we can attack the
root of the problem…

RR

On Jun 14, 2:54*am, "Larry Goddard" > wrote:

> Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact
> that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do
> with it. *

Actually I maintain it has everything to do with it. Sure, the
registration and the glider have a unique relationship at the time the
flight is made. There is however no assurance that the registration
number and the glider will have that same association at the time the
badge or record is processed, or at any time in the future when the
badge or record documentation is reviewed. The association between the
glider and the N number is therefore not unique.


Andy

I guess the main point is that if you are going to be making badge or
record attempts it is important to read the sporting code before you
go fly. Also, make sure that you have an OO who has read the sporting
code.

On Jun 14, 11:48*am, Andy > wrote:
>*There is however no assurance that the registration
> number and the glider will have that same association at the time the
> badge or record is processed, or at any time in the future when the
> badge or record documentation is reviewed. The association between the
> glider and the N number is therefore not unique.

The barometric pressure is likely different at the time the claim is
processed.

You seem to agree that at the time the flight is made, there is a
unique association between registration and glider. If the glider is
destroyed before the claim can be processed, is it invalidated?
What's your point?

This is silly...

-Tom

To all, FWIW:

1. The claim in question was not rejected because of a "typo". The
claim in question was rejected because a current FAI procedural
requirement WRT flight declaration was not met.

2. The *last* declaration accomplished immediately before the start
of flight, be it paper or electronic, is the valid declaration. Said
another way, a paper declaration supersedes an electronic declaration
only when it is accomplished after the electronic declaration has been
input into the FR.

3. Attempting to retroactively create a paper trail to overcome a
claim error is unethical at best
and outright lying at worst. Any advice to the contrary is
improper.
(A subsequently submitted paper declaration wouldn't be accepted
anyway because SSA procedure is it must be sent in along with the
claim.)

4. The proper procedure to contest a rejected badge or record claim
is the appeal process.
Filing an appeal makes the SSA badge and record committee aware of
questionable rules language thus requiring interpretation,
clarification, and/or procedural changes. An appeal may also become
the impetus that causes the committee to take formal action with the
FAI to clarify/amend/omit a rule.

Anyone familiar with my personal learning curve in these regards can
testify as to my sympathizing with anyone whose badge or record
claim(s) is rejected due to a technicality; however, the bottom line
is
"If you want to play the game, you gotta play by the rules--And them's
the rules!"

If one is to commit themselves to being actively involved in badge or
record flying, one is far better advised to become intimately familiar
with the rules and to accept the inevitable procedural setbacks as
learning experiences--though frustrating as it can be.

Regardless, my congratulations to Scott on a great soaring
performance!

In all sincerity,

Ray Cornay

On 6/11/2010 4:42 AM, brian whatcott wrote:
> Scott Alexander wrote:
>> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
>> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/
>> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
>> claim.
>>
>> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
>> this claim to pass? /snip/
>
> I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of
> something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form,
> I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from
> a lawyer.
>
> Brian W

It might be more fun and less expensive to re-fly the flight than deal
with a lawyer. (Naturally, I exclude my few lawyer friends when citing
this opinion).
Paul
ZZ

ZZ wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 4:42 AM, brian whatcott wrote:
>> Scott Alexander wrote:
>>> I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
>>> rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/
>>> So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
>>> this claim to pass? /snip/
>>
>> I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of
>> something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form,
>> I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from
>> a lawyer.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> It might be more fun and less expensive to re-fly the flight than deal
> with a lawyer. (Naturally, I exclude my few lawyer friends when citing
> this opinion).
> Paul
> ZZ
>
I have to say that almost anything is more fun and less expensive than
dealing with a lawyer! :-)

Brian W