FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

[Jan R]

In the Dutch gliding records list, I found a flight, conducted in South
Africa that landed after the local official daylight time. For
ratification a flight must be conducted legaly, so I asked the Dutch NAC
for explanation. The responsible officer told me that a flight that
lands before 19:44:00 is still landing within the 43 th minute.
Interesting to know that the officer who told me that, was a Dutch
engineer working in a Dutch nuclear power station. So, if, all of a
sudden you do not hear anything from Holland anymore, you have a option
to think of.

I waited a few months, and was surprised to see that the FAI ratified
the record also as a African regional record. So I asked the responsible
officer of the FAI for a explanation and I was told that the observation
of the Official Observer regarding sunset time was leading. Of course
this is not true. The country where the flight is conducted issues the
official sunset time and the official daylight times.

After a few emails and not getting any answers, I dropped the case.
Then by coincidence, I met the responsible officer of the FAI at a
glider site and brought up the problem. He told me that for just a few
minutes to late, the FAI considered the flight as being still legal.

So, not South Africa is telling what illegal is in there country but the
FAI is.

Why am I telling this story? The main reason is that if somebody
claims a record and the Official Observer and the pilot himself sign the
claim form, they state that the flight was conducted in a legal way.. In
the mean time I spoke to a few OO's and none of them was prepared to
sign for such a flight. That means that different pilots are are being
treated unequally and that is, at least in my opinion, not fair. So I
asked the FAI officer to confirm the FAI point of view in writing and he
promised me to write me after he was in his office again. Unfortunately
he did not keep this promise and did not react to any mails referring to
our conversation.

If anybody has trouble to have his badge/record ratified because he
landed after official daylight time, he may refer to this posting and of
course the ratified record of the illegal flight.
The details are:
Registration 1-4-2016 PH-1340 Maxim Leenders CN: UFO.
FAI record: 17793

I wish everyone a beautiful Christmas.

[[email protected][_2_]]

Sitting here full of Christmas breakfast, coffee and eggnog, away from the noise for a break...I think life is full of gray areas where compromise and ‘I don’t care, you pick’ thrive. 1 minute , in this case , has me thinking of what a State Trooper said after I asked him “ how much over the speed limit� do you accept.
He said, “ eight you’re safe, nine you’re mine�. I got a ticket for nine over, doing 75 in a 55. He said nine is code to the next trooper to lower the boom should I fail to learn.
Let it go...Sunset is more than a place in time, it forever happens.
“Eight...you’re safe.�

R

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 1:43:30 AM UTC-8, Jan R wrote:
> In the Dutch gliding records list, I found a flight, conducted in South
> Africa that landed after the local official daylight time. For
> ratification a flight must be conducted legaly, so I asked the Dutch NAC
> for explanation. The responsible officer told me that a flight that
> lands before 19:44:00 is still landing within the 43 th minute.
> Interesting to know that the officer who told me that, was a Dutch
> engineer working in a Dutch nuclear power station. So, if, all of a
> sudden you do not hear anything from Holland anymore, you have a option
> to think of.
>
> I waited a few months, and was surprised to see that the FAI ratified
> the record also as a African regional record. So I asked the responsible
> officer of the FAI for a explanation and I was told that the observation
> of the Official Observer regarding sunset time was leading. Of course
> this is not true. The country where the flight is conducted issues the
> official sunset time and the official daylight times.
>
> After a few emails and not getting any answers, I dropped the case.
> Then by coincidence, I met the responsible officer of the FAI at a
> glider site and brought up the problem. He told me that for just a few
> minutes to late, the FAI considered the flight as being still legal.
>
> So, not South Africa is telling what illegal is in there country but the
> FAI is.
>
> Why am I telling this story? The main reason is that if somebody
> claims a record and the Official Observer and the pilot himself sign the
> claim form, they state that the flight was conducted in a legal way.. In
> the mean time I spoke to a few OO's and none of them was prepared to
> sign for such a flight. That means that different pilots are are being
> treated unequally and that is, at least in my opinion, not fair. So I
> asked the FAI officer to confirm the FAI point of view in writing and he
> promised me to write me after he was in his office again. Unfortunately
> he did not keep this promise and did not react to any mails referring to
> our conversation.
>
> If anybody has trouble to have his badge/record ratified because he
> landed after official daylight time, he may refer to this posting and of
> course the ratified record of the illegal flight.
> The details are:
> Registration 1-4-2016 PH-1340 Maxim Leenders CN: UFO.
> FAI record: 17793
>
> I wish everyone a beautiful Christmas.

Sounds like our 1st World problems are being exported to the 3rd World.

[[email protected]]

Are we talking about a few seconds, here?
I flew the longest legal triangle out of Minden, a few years back. At my first turn (Mine near Owens Lake), was on the line of the correct observation zone, centered on Austin, Nv. State records keeper would not accept my record 1000K flight..............are line’es in, or are line’es out???
Lord save us from the nitpickers!
JJ

[2G]

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 10:02:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Are we talking about a few seconds, here?
> I flew the longest legal triangle out of Minden, a few years back. At my first turn (Mine near Owens Lake), was on the line of the correct observation zone, centered on Austin, Nv. State records keeper would not accept my record 1000K flight..............are line’es in, or are line’es out???
> Lord save us from the nitpickers!
> JJ

So 19:43:59 is fine, you get the record, but 19:44:00 and you are an illegal charlatan? Please, we have bigger fish to fry.

Tom

[[email protected]]

I trullly get tired of the nick pickers. If some guy makes a 1000k and he is one minute late on the official sunset, give me a break. He is not violating true safety and we all know many many many past record distance flights, guys actually landed in the dark. They were ratified back then. Now with gps tracking, its a handy thing, but also becomes something of an unnecesary handicap.

[Roy B.]

Jan:
While I am not an expert on these rules, I note that this was an Out and Return distance record that would have used a start and finish line (to make sure that the finish altitude was within 1000m of the start). Would not the "soaring performance" have ended at the finish line crossing and not at the landing? Why is time of landing (or any rule violation) after the record performance is completed relevant to validity of the record claim?
ROY

[Jan R]

Op 12/25/2019 om 20:26 schreef Roy B.:
> Jan:
> While I am not an expert on these rules, I note that this was an Out and Return distance record that would have used a start and finish line (to make sure that the finish altitude was within 1000m of the start). Would not the "soaring performance" have ended at the finish line crossing and not at the landing? Why is time of landing (or any rule violation) after the record performance is completed relevant to validity of the record claim?
> ROY
>

Hi Roy, if you claim a record you have to sign the following statement:

I certify that this flight was conducted in accordance with the FAI
Sporting Code and with (1) all operating
limitations established by the aircraft manufacturer, (2) any more
restrictive operating limitations
imposed by national airworthiness regulations of the civil aviation
authority of the country of registration,
and (3) airspace regulations where the flight took place.
Signature of pilot
.................................................. ....................
Date ..................................

It says "this flight". That means from the moment that the plane starts
to roll at its own power til the moment it stops on the ramp.

If the law says that you have to land before a given time and you did
not, you were not legal and you can not possibly sign the above
statement. It is as simple as that.

Of course, the FAI could leave out the entire statement and hold the
view that a record is a record. That would also not be fair, because it
would benefit people which are prepared to follow the most illegal way's.

It is not my goal to have a record withdrawn. My goal is that every
pilot is judged evenly. There for every OO must know that he is expected
to lie under these circumstances and co sign the claim!
Of course, the next question will be: how many seconds to late is to
late? The "airspace regulations where the flight took place" are quite
clear on that point.

[Jan R]

Op 12/25/2019 om 20:26 schreef Roy B.:
> Jan:
> While I am not an expert on these rules, I note that this was an Out and Return distance record that would have used a start and finish line (to make sure that the finish altitude was within 1000m of the start). Would not the "soaring performance" have ended at the finish line crossing and not at the landing? Why is time of landing (or any rule violation) after the record performance is completed relevant to validity of the record claim?
> ROY
>

Hi Roy, if you claim a record you have to sign the following statement:

I certify that this flight was conducted in accordance with the FAI
Sporting Code and with (1) all operating
limitations established by the aircraft manufacturer, (2) any more
restrictive operating limitations
imposed by national airworthiness regulations of the civil aviation
authority of the country of registration,
and (3) airspace regulations where the flight took place.
Signature of pilot
.................................................. ....................
Date ..................................

It says "this flight". That means from the moment that the plane starts
to roll at its own power til the moment it stops on the ramp.

If the law says that you have to land before a given time and you did
not, you were not legal and you can not possibly sign the above
statement. It is as simple as that.

Of course, the FAI could leave out the entire statement and hold the
view that a record is a record. That would also not be fair, because it
would benefit people which are prepared to follow the most illegal way's.

It is not my goal to have a record withdrawn. My goal is that every
pilot is judged evenly. There for every OO must know that he is expected
to lie under these circumstances and co sign the claim!
Of course, the next question will be: how many seconds to late is to
late? The "airspace regulations where the flight took place" are quite
clear on that point.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 1:43:30 AM UTC-8, Jan R wrote:
> In the Dutch gliding records list, I found a flight, conducted in South
> Africa that landed after the local official daylight time. For
> ratification a flight must be conducted legaly, so I asked the Dutch NAC
> for explanation. The responsible officer told me that a flight that
> lands before 19:44:00 is still landing within the 43 th minute.
> Interesting to know that the officer who told me that, was a Dutch
> engineer working in a Dutch nuclear power station. So, if, all of a
> sudden you do not hear anything from Holland anymore, you have a option
> to think of.
>
> I waited a few months, and was surprised to see that the FAI ratified
> the record also as a African regional record. So I asked the responsible
> officer of the FAI for a explanation and I was told that the observation
> of the Official Observer regarding sunset time was leading. Of course
> this is not true. The country where the flight is conducted issues the
> official sunset time and the official daylight times.
>
> After a few emails and not getting any answers, I dropped the case.
> Then by coincidence, I met the responsible officer of the FAI at a
> glider site and brought up the problem. He told me that for just a few
> minutes to late, the FAI considered the flight as being still legal.
>
> So, not South Africa is telling what illegal is in there country but the
> FAI is.
>
> Why am I telling this story? The main reason is that if somebody
> claims a record and the Official Observer and the pilot himself sign the
> claim form, they state that the flight was conducted in a legal way.. In
> the mean time I spoke to a few OO's and none of them was prepared to
> sign for such a flight. That means that different pilots are are being
> treated unequally and that is, at least in my opinion, not fair. So I
> asked the FAI officer to confirm the FAI point of view in writing and he
> promised me to write me after he was in his office again. Unfortunately
> he did not keep this promise and did not react to any mails referring to
> our conversation.
>
> If anybody has trouble to have his badge/record ratified because he
> landed after official daylight time, he may refer to this posting and of
> course the ratified record of the illegal flight.
> The details are:
> Registration 1-4-2016 PH-1340 Maxim Leenders CN: UFO.
> FAI record: 17793
>
> I wish everyone a beautiful Christmas.

I thought here was a precedent for this after the Ca City Altitude record? You fly it, you own it regardless of consequences.

[Dan Marotta]

How about an extra minute?Â* 10?Â* An hour?Â* Rules are set in advance and,
if you don't complete the task within the rule, /_which you understood
before takeoff_/, what right do you have to claim that only one second
should be allowed?

Give the man a participation trophy.Â* He'll feel better about himself.

On 12/25/2019 11:15 AM, 2G wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 10:02:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>> Are we talking about a few seconds, here?
>> I flew the longest legal triangle out of Minden, a few years back. At my first turn (Mine near Owens Lake), was on the line of the correct observation zone, centered on Austin, Nv. State records keeper would not accept my record 1000K flight..............are line’es in, or are line’es out???
>> Lord save us from the nitpickers!
>> JJ
> So 19:43:59 is fine, you get the record, but 19:44:00 and you are an illegal charlatan? Please, we have bigger fish to fry.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

That's a fair claim, if that's the way it happened.Â* ...Unless the rules
state that the /_flight_/ must be legal.Â* Maybe he had navigation lights.

On 12/25/2019 11:26 AM, Roy B. wrote:
> Jan:
> While I am not an expert on these rules, I note that this was an Out and Return distance record that would have used a start and finish line (to make sure that the finish altitude was within 1000m of the start). Would not the "soaring performance" have ended at the finish line crossing and not at the landing? Why is time of landing (or any rule violation) after the record performance is completed relevant to validity of the record claim?
> ROY

--
Dan, 5J

[krasw]

If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.

[Tango Eight]

https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=4820067
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@1008612?month=1&year=2016


The roll stopped at 19:43:59 (UTC +2)
Local Sunset was 19:27 (UTC +2)

What do the SA regulations require?

T8

[Jan R]

Op 12/26/2019 om 16:23 schreef Tango Eight:
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=4820067
> https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@1008612?month=1&year=2016
>
>
> The roll stopped at 19:43:59 (UTC +2)
> Local Sunset was 19:27 (UTC +2)
>
> What do the SA regulations require?
>
> T8
>

Sunset + 15 minutes.

[[email protected]]

Two points

Within reason, I don't feel it is my business what some one else feels is a valid badge or record claim. I personally think it makes more fun to let one bad tracking point be enough to dq because it means that I get the fun of trying again. I can see that others might see this differently, but I don't see how this disagreement should lead to disapproval.

Most table of sunrise/sunset are to the nearest minute, but there is probably a legal definition and table of sun locations which would get this to the second at the actual landing point. The flight might have been without question, given the right figuring after the fact.

[[email protected]]

Intrigued by this post, I went searching for the SA AIP (http://www.caa.co.za/Pages/Aeronautical%20Information/Aeronautical%20Information%20Publication.aspx) to check what is called "day" in the local AIP. Although I found about 190 occurences of the words "day" or "daytime" in the GEN and ENR parts, I was unable to find a valid definition of these terms.

The SA AIP gives SR and SS tables for different Airports, but not for Douglas.

In my country, "day" is clearly defined in the AIP as SR-30' > SS+30'; I know of other countries where it is between civil twilights. Where did you get the SR-15' > SR+15' from?

[[email protected]]

Of course, I meant "Where did you get the SR-15' > SS+15' from?"

[George Haeh]

From the Canada AIP:

"In the morning, civil twilight begins when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6°
below the horizon and is ascending, and ends at sunrise, approximately
25 minutes later. In the evening, civil twilight begins at sunset, and ends
when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6° below the horizon and is descending,
approximately 25 minutes later. The number of minutes varies depending
on the latitude and the time of year.
"

Horizon may be affected by relative terrain elevation in the crepuscular direction.

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 9:45:05 AM UTC-5, Jan R wrote:
> Op 12/26/2019 om 16:23 schreef Tango Eight:
> > https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=4820067
> > https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@1008612?month=1&year=2016
> >
> >
> > The roll stopped at 19:43:59 (UTC +2)
> > Local Sunset was 19:27 (UTC +2)
> >
> > What do the SA regulations require?
> >
> > T8
> >
>
> Sunset + 15 minutes.

How annoying.

T8

[Dan Marotta]

crepuscular

Why use an understandable word or phrase when you can say,
"crepuscular"?Â* Had to look it up.

On 12/26/2019 10:43 AM, George Haeh wrote:
> From the Canada AIP:
>
> "In the morning, civil twilight begins when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6°
> below the horizon and is ascending, and ends at sunrise, approximately
> 25 minutes later. In the evening, civil twilight begins at sunset, and ends
> when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6° below the horizon and is descending,
> approximately 25 minutes later. The number of minutes varies depending
> on the latitude and the time of year.
> "
>
> Horizon may be affected by relative terrain elevation in the crepuscular direction.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

“day� means the period of time from 15 minutes before sunrise to 15 minutes after sunset,
sunrise and sunset being as given in the publication “Times of Sunrise, Sunset and Local
Apparent Noon of the South African Astronomical Observatory� or in a similar publication issued
by a recognised astronomical observatory;


On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:34:25 PM UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> crepuscular
>
> Why use an understandable word or phrase when you can say,
> "crepuscular"?Â* Had to look it up.
>
> On 12/26/2019 10:43 AM, George Haeh wrote:
> > From the Canada AIP:
> >
> > "In the morning, civil twilight begins when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6°
> > below the horizon and is ascending, and ends at sunrise, approximately
> > 25 minutes later. In the evening, civil twilight begins at sunset, and ends
> > when the centre of the sun’s disc is 6° below the horizon and is descending,
> > approximately 25 minutes later. The number of minutes varies depending
> > on the latitude and the time of year.
> > "
> >
> > Horizon may be affected by relative terrain elevation in the crepuscular direction.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

[Tom BravoMike]

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.

Exactly my opinion, too.

[2G]

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 2:29:01 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.
>
> Exactly my opinion, too.

You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.

Tom

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:19:00 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 2:29:01 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > > If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.
> >
> > Exactly my opinion, too.
>
> You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.
>
> Tom

2G - in your country, perhaps so; not in all. RAS is world-wide.

[Tom BravoMike]

>
> You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.
>
> Tom

Correct. I'm among the few lucky glider pilots with night flights endorsement. Three flights (patterns) with an instructor, three solo, the last one midnight to 12:08 AM. Didn't see the tow plane, just its navigation lights. The runway was a black hole, couldn't see it, but it was marked ny a row of tourist propane lamps, including the landing position. All practically spot landings, unforgettable. I know, it's off topic, great experience anyway.

[Surge]

On Thursday, 26 December 2019 19:22:36 UTC+2, wrote:
> Intrigued by this post, I went searching for the SA AIP (http://www.caa.co.za/Pages/Aeronautical%20Information/Aeronautical%20Information%20Publication.aspx) to check what is called "day" in the local AIP. Although I found about 190 occurences of the words "day" or "daytime" in the GEN and ENR parts, I was unable to find a valid definition of these terms.
>
> The SA AIP gives SR and SS tables for different Airports, but not for Douglas.
>
> In my country, "day" is clearly defined in the AIP as SR-30' > SS+30'; I know of other countries where it is between civil twilights. Where did you get the SR-15' > SR+15' from?

"Day" is defined by the South African CAA as "The period of time from fifteen minutes before sunrise to fifteen minutes after sunset."

Source:
http://www.caa.co.za/Standards%20and%20Procedures%20Manuals/Definitions%20and%20Abbrevations.pdf

[Surge]

On Friday, 27 December 2019 03:19:00 UTC+2, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 2:29:01 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > > If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.
> >
> > Exactly my opinion, too.
>
> You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.
>
> Tom


The South African CAA regulations require navigation lights, landing light(s) and a rotating beacon or strobe light to fly at night.

Aircraft operating lights
CAR 91.04.3 (1) No owner or operator of an aircraft shall operate such aircraft by night unless, in addition to the equipment specified in regulation 91.04.5(1), the aircraft is equipped with –
(a) serviceable navigation lights;
(b) either –
(i) two serviceable landing lights; or
(ii) one single serviceable landing light housing with two separately energized
filaments;
(c) a serviceable rotating beacon or strobe light; and
(d) a serviceable electrical torch for each required crew member, readily accessible to such crew member when seated at his or her designated station.
(2) Power supplied from the electrical system of the aircraft shall –
(a) provide adequate illumination for all instruments and equipment, used by the flight crew and essential for the safe operation of the aircraft;

[[email protected]]

Le vendredi 27 décembre 2019 07:46:08 UTC+1, Surge a écritÂ*:
> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 19:22:36 UTC+2, wrote:
> > Intrigued by this post, I went searching for the SA AIP (http://www.caa..co.za/Pages/Aeronautical%20Information/Aeronautical%20Information%20Publication.aspx) to check what is called "day" in the local AIP. Although I found about 190 occurences of the words "day" or "daytime" in the GEN and ENR parts, I was unable to find a valid definition of these terms.
> >
> > The SA AIP gives SR and SS tables for different Airports, but not for Douglas.
> >
> > In my country, "day" is clearly defined in the AIP as SR-30' > SS+30'; I know of other countries where it is between civil twilights. Where did you get the SR-15' > SR+15' from?
>
> "Day" is defined by the South African CAA as "The period of time from fifteen minutes before sunrise to fifteen minutes after sunset."
>
> Source:
> http://www.caa.co.za/Standards%20and%20Procedures%20Manuals/Definitions%20and%20Abbrevations.pdf

Thanks for the source.

[andrzop]

Sunset at the landing site is at 19:23

https://www.peakfinder.org/?lat=-29.0799&lng=23.8078&azi=241&zoom=5&ele=1037&cfg=rs&date=2016-01-04T17:27Z&binoazi=224.82&binoalt=-0.41

[[email protected]]

Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.

Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 7:15:07 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> >
> > You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Correct. I'm among the few lucky glider pilots with night flights endorsement. Three flights (patterns) with an instructor, three solo, the last one midnight to 12:08 AM. Didn't see the tow plane, just its navigation lights.. The runway was a black hole, couldn't see it, but it was marked ny a row of tourist propane lamps, including the landing position. All practically spot landings, unforgettable. I know, it's off topic, great experience anyway.

That sounds as interesting as doing night auto-rotations in the rain.

[[email protected]]

1/8th of a mile? A sectional will shrink more than that by folding and unfolding it! If you’d have ironed the map, bet the 1/8th mile would miraculously reappear?

I remember Marcel Goudinat, I was working film in the 1975 Nationals at Minden. Marcel wasn’t in the contest, but handed me one roll of film and ask me to develop it for his badge flight................somehow his film got lost!............I told him to get his other roll of film (everybody used 2 cameras) Not Marcel........ If that little German had a gun, he’d of shot me!
RIP Nitpicker,
JJ

[Dan Marotta]

An interesting question.Â* Do the FAI/IGC rules state simply that the
flight must be legal or that the flight must be completed before some
specifically defined time for the location, e.g., sunset, civil
twilight, night?

On 12/26/2019 6:18 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 2:29:01 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
>>> If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.
>> Exactly my opinion, too.
> You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition
by not completing a task under the established rules.

I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture
was taken outside of the zone.Â* Remember cameras and barographs?Â* The
pilot had shot three pictures (prematurely due to his excitement) and,
by connecting the pictures to show his flight path, it was clear to me
that he had, indeed, turned the point.Â* But the rules were specific.

I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn
point was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby
(within a mile) road intersection.Â* Sure, I flew the distance, but I did
not meet the letter of the rule.Â* I simply flew a different flight at a
later date.

So, I think that, should I attempt a 1,000 km flight in my Stemme, and I
need to run the engine for just a minute or so to avoid landing short of
home, I'll submit the claim and expect it to be approved.Â* I know I'll
get a lot of support here, since it's only just a little bit outside the
rules.

On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
> Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.
>
> Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.

--
Dan, 5J

[Roy B.]

if you claim a record you have to sign the following statement:

I certify that this flight was conducted in accordance with the FAI
Sporting Code and with (1) all operating
limitations established by the aircraft manufacturer, (2) any more
restrictive operating limitations
imposed by national airworthiness regulations of the civil aviation
authority of the country of registration,
and (3) airspace regulations where the flight took place.
Signature of pilot

Jan:
While the contrary position is certainly reasonable, if I was the OO or the pilot here I would have confidence that a 2-3 minute late landing was neither an "operating limitation" nor an "airspace regulation" violation. I would sign the certification for that new record. I read items 1 and 2 as relating to the problem of flying overweight or similar matters, and #3 as relating to delineated controlled airspace violations. If the FAI wanted a certification that "all applicable flight regulations" were complied with - they would know how to write that, and they did not write that.
ROY

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition
> by not completing a task under the established rules.
>
> I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture
> was taken outside of the zone.Â* Remember cameras and barographs?Â* The
> pilot had shot three pictures (prematurely due to his excitement) and,
> by connecting the pictures to show his flight path, it was clear to me
> that he had, indeed, turned the point.Â* But the rules were specific.
>
> I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn
> point was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby
> (within a mile) road intersection.Â* Sure, I flew the distance, but I did
> not meet the letter of the rule.Â* I simply flew a different flight at a
> later date.
>
> So, I think that, should I attempt a 1,000 km flight in my Stemme, and I
> need to run the engine for just a minute or so to avoid landing short of
> home, I'll submit the claim and expect it to be approved.Â* I know I'll
> get a lot of support here, since it's only just a little bit outside the
> rules.
>
> On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
> > Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.
> >
> > Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

I was denied a diamond goal when I had a logged position on either side of the 90 degree zone and a line could be drawn that would have crossed the zone, but because I made a sharp turn there was not a logged point in the sector. Flew it again, but for some reason my logger had a 2 minute gap in the logged flight. Third time was the charm.

[BobW]

On 12/27/2019 10:12 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition by
> not completing a task under the established rules.
>
> I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture was
> taken outside of the zone...<snip>...[b]ut the rules were specific.
>
> I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn point
> was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby (within a
> mile) road intersection...

>
> On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
<snip>
>> Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low
>> performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good,
>> but [my O.O.] told me I was 1/8 mile short. It didn't matter that I had
>> probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I
>> was still deemed to be short lol.


BTDT - denied a badge claim for 'a technical infraction' (photos taken outside
the rules' sector) while acting as O.O. Spent more time
explaining-to/consoling applicant than was spent analyzing the photos.
'Rightly' he was mostly disappointed, as distinct from combative, hence the
commiseration. I'll bet Big Bucks he felt better after later achieving -
within the rules - that particular goal on a subsequent attempt.

I submit that anyone who deems it sufficiently important 'to the world' to
claim a flight (record or not) as 'completed within the rules' (a reasonable,
if oft-hidden assumption of Joe Casual Peruser of such flights) - when it is
NOT so completed - is a strange creature indeed...a person who can live with
himself and go to sleep with a peaceful mind knowing rules intended ONLY for
peer approval (as distinct from - say- monetary reward, etc.) were not
followed. A person comfortable lying to himself and lying to the world.
Perhaps for some...

Philosophically pondering,

Bob W.

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:17:25 PM UTC-5, Roy B. wrote:
> if you claim a record you have to sign the following statement:
>
> I certify that this flight was conducted in accordance with the FAI
> Sporting Code and with (1) all operating
> limitations established by the aircraft manufacturer, (2) any more
> restrictive operating limitations
> imposed by national airworthiness regulations of the civil aviation
> authority of the country of registration,
> and (3) airspace regulations where the flight took place.
> Signature of pilot
>
> Jan:
> While the contrary position is certainly reasonable, if I was the OO or the pilot here I would have confidence that a 2-3 minute late landing was neither an "operating limitation" nor an "airspace regulation" violation. I would sign the certification for that new record. I read items 1 and 2 as relating to the problem of flying overweight or similar matters, and #3 as relating to delineated controlled airspace violations. If the FAI wanted a certification that "all applicable flight regulations" were complied with - they would know how to write that, and they did not write that.
> ROY

The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.

4.4.2.a. says...

"For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."

If I'd flown that flight, I'd have not submitted a record claim. I would not have signed off as an OO and I darned sure would not have ratified the record as a record keeper. And I'm only half German, lol. The flight is not diminished in any way, it's just another amusing story to tell.

The pilot that can fly 1250 km doesn't do so by accident. Do it again, do it correctly in all respects, get the record without fudging anything, have an even better story to tell and *another* wonderful flight.

Bless those fussy full blooded Germans, long may they continue to build such beautiful and capable flying machines. Bless the nitpickers, may they find jobs in QC working for our favorite manufacturers of flying machines of all types.

T8

[Roy B.]

The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.
4.4.2.a. says...
"For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."

Tango:
This just confirms the point I am trying to make. The FAI had the right to make the certification more strict than it was and it later did that. That means that there was an issue (maybe) with the old form of certification - but it does not mean the pilot or OO were wrong to sign the old certification.

There seems no question but had any of the 3 bodies (NAC of South Africa, the NAC of Holland, or the FAI itself) all of whom reviewed and approved this record denied the record - the pilot would have won his appeal. He did the flight, the record performance ended at the finish line, and the issue of landing time was outside the certification. Case over. He gets the record.
ROY

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:40:17 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.
>
> Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat.. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.

I thought Marcel Godinat was French, but he flew as a Swiss in the 1936 Olympics gliding contest. Perhaps he lived in French speaking Switzerland.

https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/summer/1936/GLD/mens-gliding.html

As another member of the Swiss gliding team won a medal, he said they were a bit fearful about leaving Germany unscathed as the Germans were expected to win.

Of course, the Swiss of that generation were also precision seekers.

Frank Whiteley

[Dan Marotta]

There ya go!Â* Congratulations on the flight.

I completed Silver in a Mosquito, Gold plus one Diamond in an ASW-19,
and the remaining two Diamonds in an LS-6.Â* All with declaration sheet,
camera, and barograph, and not all on the first attempt.

I salute those guys who do it in a 1-26, especially east of the Mississippi.

BTW, anyone want to buy a camera and barograph (not certified in over 25
years)?

On 12/27/2019 10:35 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition
>> by not completing a task under the established rules.
>>
>> I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture
>> was taken outside of the zone.Â* Remember cameras and barographs?Â* The
>> pilot had shot three pictures (prematurely due to his excitement) and,
>> by connecting the pictures to show his flight path, it was clear to me
>> that he had, indeed, turned the point.Â* But the rules were specific.
>>
>> I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn
>> point was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby
>> (within a mile) road intersection.Â* Sure, I flew the distance, but I did
>> not meet the letter of the rule.Â* I simply flew a different flight at a
>> later date.
>>
>> So, I think that, should I attempt a 1,000 km flight in my Stemme, and I
>> need to run the engine for just a minute or so to avoid landing short of
>> home, I'll submit the claim and expect it to be approved.Â* I know I'll
>> get a lot of support here, since it's only just a little bit outside the
>> rules.
>>
>> On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
>>> Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.
>>>
>>> Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> I was denied a diamond goal when I had a logged position on either side of the 90 degree zone and a line could be drawn that would have crossed the zone, but because I made a sharp turn there was not a logged point in the sector. Flew it again, but for some reason my logger had a 2 minute gap in the logged flight. Third time was the charm.

--
Dan, 5J

[Mark H]

Mr Jan R.,
Before dispensing your version of justice, and noting that you choose to criticise many officials in your text, it would help if you could state the qualifications you possess in order for ignorant people like me to put your opinion into context. Are you a seasoned or retired official of some state body or are you just a grumpy glider pilot with a lot of time on his hands?
What else did you do on Christmas Day?
Mark H.

[[email protected]]

Hi Frank
Marcel and Berta always claimed to be swiss, he was actually born in that border country. And he did fly gliders in the olympics, but a lesser known item is he also flew aerobatics for the germans in one of the intrernational contests right before the war. I asked them one time about whether he flew in the war. He got real quiet and just smiled. I think he did. All I know was he was a madterful glider driver and taught this kid alot.

[Charlie Quebec]

It’s astonishing how such a minor issue raises so much comment. Personally, I don’t ever bother with badge claims. As long as I know I’ve done it, nothing else matters.
Impressing other glider pilots means nothing to me. Still I have no problems with this, with the bonus that it annoys nit picking nobodies.

[[email protected]]

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

(Alfonso Bedoya, ("Gold Hat"), 1948, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" John Huston, Director)

[Jan R]

Op 12/27/2019 om 20:17 schreef Roy B.:
> The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.
> 4.4.2.a. says...
> "For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."
>
> Tango:
> This just confirms the point I am trying to make. The FAI had the right to make the certification more strict than it was and it later did that. That means that there was an issue (maybe) with the old form of certification - but it does not mean the pilot or OO were wrong to sign the old certification.
>
> There seems no question but had any of the 3 bodies (NAC of South Africa, the NAC of Holland, or the FAI itself) all of whom reviewed and approved this record denied the record - the pilot would have won his appeal. He did the flight, the record performance ended at the finish line, and the issue of landing time was outside the certification. Case over. He gets the record.
> ROY
>

Roy,
I have here the SC3 effective from the first October 2015.
The flight took place at the fourth of January 2016.
The text in the SC3 is always leading.
In this SC3 I find:

4.4.2 Certificates required
a. PILOT CERTIFICATE OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE For all claims the pilot
must certify that
the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in
compliance with all the glider
manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance
with national flight regulations
(airspace use, night flight, etc.).
For records, this certification is on the IGC Record Forms A, B, and C.

There is no doubt what so ever, that the flight ended after the SA
official daylight time.
None of the officials I contacted in this matter disputed that the
FLIGHT had to be legal an not only the performance. Rule 4.4.2 cannot be
explained in any way other than this flight WAS illegal.
So, what are you talking about?
Only a bad OO would co sign a claim which does not comply with rule 4.4.2

[[email protected]]

I just remembered a classic nit-picker yarn. Sergio Colacevich figured out a way to get all three Diamonds in one flight by declared Death Valley and return from Truckee. That covered Diamond distance and he declared Death alley and return for Diamond Goal, but how was he going to get Diamond altitude gain? He pulled the spoilers in Death Valley and deliberately descended down to about 1000 feet above seal level, then climbed out, eventually reached about 17,700 feet on his way back to Truckee..........WOW, Wonderfull flight, right?

Our designated nit-picker had his hands full with this one. Sergio had obviously flown way over the required distance and his declaration looked pristine, how’s he going to throw this one out? Then he checked the max temperature difference between Truckee and Death Valley.............that worked, temperature rise adversely affected the barograph trace, just enough to decline Sergio’s 16,404 foot required altitude gain! CLAIM DENIED!

Old Sergio got the final laugh, though, he pled his case to the full SSA board and they recognized his claim!

JJ

[Roy B.]

Jan:
Neither I nor any other reader can determine (without formal research) between your version of SC3 as applicable (in which case I agree the certification would not comply) or Tango's version of SC3 (in which case the certification would comply). More important, none of us have seen the documents that the pilot and OO actually signed. I do know however (from my own experience in claiming records in South Africa), that the process is exacting, requires more analysis than just the pilot and OO signatures, and that the subject record application would have been reviewed (and in some instances recalculated) by all of the South African NAC, the Dutch NAC and the FAI. For this flight, all three allowed what became a Dutch, South African, and African Continental record.

Perhaps you could explain why you appear obsessed with questioning a record award from 4 years ago?
ROY

[Jip[_2_]]

Op 12/28/2019 om 17:41 schreef Roy B.:
> Jan:
> Neither I nor any other reader can determine (without formal research) between your version of SC3 as applicable (in which case I agree the certification would not comply) or Tango's version of SC3 (in which case the certification would comply). More important, none of us have seen the documents that the pilot and OO actually signed. I do know however (from my own experience in claiming records in South Africa), that the process is exacting, requires more analysis than just the pilot and OO signatures, and that the subject record application would have been reviewed (and in some instances recalculated) by all of the South African NAC, the Dutch NAC and the FAI. For this flight, all three allowed what became a Dutch, South African, and African Continental record.
>
> Perhaps you could explain why you appear obsessed with questioning a record award from 4 years ago?
> ROY
>
Hi Roy,
Tango's version of the SC3 is from 2017 and equal to the one from 2015.
What you call "tango's version" was actually a copy of a copy from a C
form (a speed claim form) from the FAI that I posted here. And, even if
it was the same claim form that the pilot concerned had to use for his
claim in 2016, the SC3 is leading. You read it differently, but also
that statement is saying that you have to comply with the rules which
are valid in the SA airspace.

The point is that if all these people (Dutch NAC, SSSA, FAI) are
prepared to bend the rules, you may as well throw them all away.
I am certain, that the FAI officer and the Dutch NAC are very well aware
of the fact that this record was not valid.
Next time somebody comes with a claim for a 1000km badge. After checking
with the World distance calculator, his flight declaration proves to be
2 meters short. Should he get his 1000 badge? Yes? Ok. Now it is ten
meters or 200 meters and so on. That 1000 km is a minimum distance for
which you may claim a 1000 badge. When I flew my 1000 km, I flew an out
and return of 1013 km and there was no dispute.

I do not think that my motives have anything to do with the case.
I dropped it, but it kept on nagging me. I am trying to fly records and
I do not know which rules I have to obey anymore.

A few seconds are not important. A few meters are not important, but the
issue itself places a bomb under the hole system. that's what I pity.

A few years ago, the Dutch NAC told me that he was claiming a records
for somebody who flew with a speed of 146 kmh. I checked the minimum
performance list of the FAI for Africa and saw that the minimum
performance was set on 152 kmh for that record. Claiming a regional
record costs about 160 dollars, so I informed the Dutch NAC on this
point. What do you think what happened? The Dutch NAC claimed the record
and the pilot got it from the FAI. So I asked the FAI what the minimum
performance list was for. Then, the record was withdrawn. That's why I
am not so impressed by all the NAC's FAI's etc. that "carefully" check
record claims.

[Roy B.]

Jan:
I do not disagree with your position on rule integrity or compliance. I disagree that the earlier certification form is clear - if it was clear it would not have been changed to be more specific. I cannot comment on reliability of the Dutch NAC, but my own experience with the South African NAC (which experience is substantial) has been that they are most exacting. They reexamine everything in the application package and actually recalculated speed and distance on 2 of my record flights - overruling the OO's calculations.

But, it remains my thinking that one should not label a flight as "illegal" nor a record as non compliant with the rules without review of all of the evidence. That includes the full record package of documents that were submitted to the officials. Here neither of us have seen the full record application package, and hence we are guessing at what the pilot and OO certified to, and guessing about what the NAC officials passed on, and guessing what people were "aware of" or why they acted as they did. That seems to me to be unfair and unwise - especially after 4 years.
ROY

[krasw]

On Saturday, 28 December 2019 18:56:03 UTC+2, Jip wrote:
>
> A few years ago, the Dutch NAC told me that he was claiming a records
> for somebody who flew with a speed of 146 kmh. I checked the minimum
> performance list of the FAI for Africa and saw that the minimum
> performance was set on 152 kmh for that record. Claiming a regional
> record costs about 160 dollars, so I informed the Dutch NAC on this
> point. What do you think what happened? The Dutch NAC claimed the record
> and the pilot got it from the FAI. So I asked the FAI what the minimum
> performance list was for. Then, the record was withdrawn. That's why I
> am not so impressed by all the NAC's FAI's etc. that "carefully" check
> record claims.

Surely there cannot be anything more stupid than setting a minimum threshold for a record category? Worst possible scenario would be that someone flies a record "not worthy enough", followed by some other one who tries to better it. I mean worst scenario: several pilots try to fly record flight. What a nightmare.

When I got the chance, I removed all these minumum thresholds from our national records and after that we had a surge of record attempts. One by one these records exceeded the old minimas. We have had more record flights in last 5 years than previous 30 years.

[Scott Williams[_2_]]

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 3:43:30 AM UTC-6, Jan R wrote:
> In the Dutch gliding records list, I found a flight, conducted in South
> Africa that landed after the local official daylight time. For
> ratification a flight must be conducted legaly, so I asked the Dutch NAC
> for explanation. The responsible officer told me that a flight that
> lands before 19:44:00 is still landing within the 43 th minute.
> Interesting to know that the officer who told me that, was a Dutch
> engineer working in a Dutch nuclear power station. So, if, all of a
> sudden you do not hear anything from Holland anymore, you have a option
> to think of.
>
> I waited a few months, and was surprised to see that the FAI ratified
> the record also as a African regional record. So I asked the responsible
> officer of the FAI for a explanation and I was told that the observation
> of the Official Observer regarding sunset time was leading. Of course
> this is not true. The country where the flight is conducted issues the
> official sunset time and the official daylight times.
>
> After a few emails and not getting any answers, I dropped the case.
> Then by coincidence, I met the responsible officer of the FAI at a
> glider site and brought up the problem. He told me that for just a few
> minutes to late, the FAI considered the flight as being still legal.
>
> So, not South Africa is telling what illegal is in there country but the
> FAI is.
>
> Why am I telling this story? The main reason is that if somebody
> claims a record and the Official Observer and the pilot himself sign the
> claim form, they state that the flight was conducted in a legal way.. In
> the mean time I spoke to a few OO's and none of them was prepared to
> sign for such a flight. That means that different pilots are are being
> treated unequally and that is, at least in my opinion, not fair. So I
> asked the FAI officer to confirm the FAI point of view in writing and he
> promised me to write me after he was in his office again. Unfortunately
> he did not keep this promise and did not react to any mails referring to
> our conversation.
>
> If anybody has trouble to have his badge/record ratified because he
> landed after official daylight time, he may refer to this posting and of
> course the ratified record of the illegal flight.
> The details are:
> Registration 1-4-2016 PH-1340 Maxim Leenders CN: UFO.
> FAI record: 17793
>
> I wish everyone a beautiful Christmas.

here's a complication for the nit-pickers,
In 23 hrs 59 minutes the earth completes a single rotation. At the 'advertised' circumference of the earth as 24,901 miles, 'Time' advances across the face of the earth at about 17.2 miles per minute. depending on the longitude and the moment of flight cessation, the 'local' sunset time is worth looking at, nitpicker wise.
Food for thought and entertaining as well.
Cheers,
Scott

[Jan R]

Op 12/28/2019 om 19:25 schreef Roy B.:
> Jan:
> I do not disagree with your position on rule integrity or compliance.
I disagree that the earlier certification form is clear - if it was
clear it would not have been changed to be more specific. I cannot
comment on reliability of the Dutch NAC, but my own experience with the
South African NAC (which experience is substantial) has been that they
are most exacting. They reexamine everything in the application package
and actually recalculated speed and distance on 2 of my record flights -
overruling the OO's calculations.
>

I had no contact with the SA NAC on this and I don't think the were
involved until after the record was ratified.
Further more, The SC3 is leading and not the claim form.



> But, it remains my thinking that one should not label a flight as
"illegal" nor a record as non compliant with the rules without review of
all of the evidence. That includes the full record package of documents
that were submitted to the officials. Here neither of us have seen the
full record application package, and hence we are guessing at what the
pilot and OO certified to, and guessing about what the NAC officials
passed on, and guessing what people were "aware of" or why they acted as
they did. That seems to me to be unfair and unwise - especially after 4
years.
> ROY
>
I am not Guessing at anything. I had contact with Dutch NAC and FAI
about thisissue and got only the obvious silly answers I described in my
first posting.
Further more, everyone is able to find out that the flight was illegal.
The SA rules are on the web, the IGC-file is on the web and the SC3 of
2016 is on the web. You do not need anymore. Maybe you could think the
plane was night equipped, but it is not. I know the plane and it has no
landing lights or nav lights and it is certified for vmc operation only.
In Holland they have no GPL with IF-rating anymore and you need that for
night operations in Holland.

Again, why would a NAC tell me that if you land at xx:43:55 you are
still in the 43 th minute? That is bull**** and it means that they had
no better answer.

Why would the FAI tell me that a few minutes to late is ok if they know
that its making a flight illegal according the SA law? It means they had
no better answer.

Why would the FAI tell me that the OO may establish the actual sunset
time while the SA law says it has to be taken from the official SA
tables? This means they had no better answer.

All these obvious nonsense leaves me very uncomfortable.
We should really ask ourselves if we want to go in this direction and
deliberately create grey areas on points that are crystal clear.

[Roy B.]

Jan wrote: I had no contact with the SA NAC on this and I don't think the were
involved until after the record was ratified.
Further more, The SC3 is leading and not the claim form.

Jan:
I am sorry but you are incorrect. I have substantial experience with record flying in SA. The very first step in the record ratification process for a foreign pilot is the submission of the claim to the SA NAC - which is how they certify the OO's appointment by them on the Form E, and they review all matters for establishment of a new SA record. There is a short list of individuals who can serve as OOs for records in SA and that person's status must be certified by the NAC as part of the record claim. As a further part of that process they review all of the work of the OO. They create a full dossier of the flight and that dossier (with the official stamp of the SA NAC on Form E) is what is given to the resident country's NAC - and they forward it to the FAI. We have not seen any of that dossier. I would make no decision based on "what somebody said, somebody else said, many years ago." I would want to see the dossier which would include a second FR file if there was one. It is the submitted paperwork that matters here (which is why we are required to submit record claims in writing) - and we have not seen it.

But, I think that you have quite made up your mind on this and further dialog is pointless. Good luck.
ROY

[[email protected]]

None of this really matters, whether it was a bonified record or not. Someone is gonna come along in the next year or so and beat it, then the old record won’t matter.

Here in the states many a past record was made by flying late into the evening or by breaking past 18k into controlled airspace or by sneaking thru lower level controlled airspace. This was all in the days before gps. The records were all approved but in time they were surpassed. Guys need to spend less time worrying about some guy getting a break by the powers that be, and spend more time going out and breaking the record themselves.

[[email protected]]

Those that do, do.........those that don’t, talk about it and criticize the doers.

[Jan R]

Op 12/29/2019 om 00:36 schreef Roy B.:
> Jan wrote: I had no contact with the SA NAC on this and I don't think the were
> involved until after the record was ratified.
> Further more, The SC3 is leading and not the claim form.
>
> Jan:
> I am sorry but you are incorrect. I have substantial experience with record flying in SA. The very first step in the record ratification process for a foreign pilot is the submission of the claim to the SA NAC - which is how they certify the OO's appointment by them on the Form E, and they review all matters for establishment of a new SA record. There is a short list of individuals who can serve as OOs for records in SA and that person's status must be certified by the NAC as part of the record claim. As a further part of that process they review all of the work of the OO. They create a full dossier of the flight and that dossier (with the official stamp of the SA NAC on Form E) is what is given to the resident country's NAC - and they forward it to the FAI. We have not seen any of that dossier. I would make no decision based on "what somebody said, somebody else said, many years ago." I would want to see the dossier which would include a second FR file if there was one. It is the submitted paperwork that matters here (which is why we are required to submit record claims in writing) - and we have not seen it.
>
> But, I think that you have quite made up your mind on this and further dialog is pointless. Good luck.
> ROY
>

Roy,

You are mistaken.
The SSSA has an agreement with the Dutch NAC and delegates the record
approval. I flew over 60 Dutch records in SA and that was the procedure.
And, indeed, further dialog with you is pointless.
So, ask the FAI yourself why the record was ratified.
Good luck.

[[email protected]]

There is also another aspect of the question: I suppose the flight was scheduled to end well before the end of day.

Where was the glider when it became clear that the flight would end just after the official end of the day? If at that moment the goal airfield was the nearest available, the PIC could exercise his right to diverge from the rules in order to follow what he deemed the safest option (exceeding the end of day by a few minutes to land on a known airfield vs. landing out in the dusk on an unknown surface).

In all the countries I regularly fly, this possibility to diverge from the rules is explicitly mentioned under the privileges and obligations of the PIC. You have of course to be able to justify your decision before a board of inquiry if the air administration deems it necessary. In the US, this rule would be under FAR 91.3. I suppose the same kind of rule applies in SA.

It seems to me this rule supersedes all the others...

[Jan R]

Op 12/28/2019 om 19:43 schreef krasw:
> On Saturday, 28 December 2019 18:56:03 UTC+2, Jip wrote:
>>
>> A few years ago, the Dutch NAC told me that he was claiming a records
>> for somebody who flew with a speed of 146 kmh. I checked the minimum
>> performance list of the FAI for Africa and saw that the minimum
>> performance was set on 152 kmh for that record. Claiming a regional
>> record costs about 160 dollars, so I informed the Dutch NAC on this
>> point. What do you think what happened? The Dutch NAC claimed the record
>> and the pilot got it from the FAI. So I asked the FAI what the minimum
>> performance list was for. Then, the record was withdrawn. That's why I
>> am not so impressed by all the NAC's FAI's etc. that "carefully" check
>> record claims.
>
> Surely there cannot be anything more stupid than setting a minimum threshold for a record category? Worst possible scenario would be that someone flies a record "not worthy enough", followed by some other one who tries to better it. I mean worst scenario: several pilots try to fly record flight. What a nightmare.
>
> When I got the chance, I removed all these minumum thresholds from our national records and after that we had a surge of record attempts. One by one these records exceeded the old minimas. We have had more record flights in last 5 years than previous 30 years.
>

You may have a point.
The minimum performance list I'm talking about was written on another
basis than the lists that you mean.
Before the regional records were introduced around 2011, there were of
course already several records flown before that time.
National records, and even world records.
The FAI did not want to have regional records with a lower speed than
the the speed of (previous) world records or National records that were
flown in that region, before the regional records existed.
That's why the minimum performance list was created.

[Dennis Cavagnaro]

Are you equating taking photos that actually show you made the turn but not taken within the letter of the rule the same as getting yourself in a sketchy area on a XC and turning on your engine and motoring the distance To safety?

You must be kidding.

DC

[Dan Marotta]

Simply trying to show how silly this whole thing is.Â* Yes, kidding.

On 12/30/2019 8:44 AM, Dennis Cavagnaro wrote:
> Are you equating taking photos that actually show you made the turn but not taken within the letter of the rule the same as getting yourself in a sketchy area on a XC and turning on your engine and motoring the distance To safety?
>
> You must be kidding.
>
> DC

--
Dan, 5J