SSA OLC Region for Flight Claim

[Jack[_1_]]

Several SSA OLC competitors in the recent Region 6 South contest at
Caesar Creek OH appear to have entered their flights in their respective
home regions (other than Region 6), even though no point on the flight
tracks lies outside of Region 6. There are other instances where pilots
have listed their flights in a different region than both the region in
which the flight was flown and their home club region. Usually this is
an adjacent region, indicating perhaps too little care with the
pull-down menu choices.

One may correct an entry made no more than four weeks ago. Instructions
here:

http://tinyurl.com/r2lcb


Objections ("complaints" or "partner-checks") to uncorrected entries can
be lodged here:

http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv


Anonymous complaints will not be processed.



Jack

[Greg Arnold]

If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite the
rule that says that?



Jack wrote:
>
> Several SSA OLC competitors in the recent Region 6 South contest at
> Caesar Creek OH appear to have entered their flights in their respective
> home regions (other than Region 6), even though no point on the flight
> tracks lies outside of Region 6. There are other instances where pilots
> have listed their flights in a different region than both the region in
> which the flight was flown and their home club region. Usually this is
> an adjacent region, indicating perhaps too little care with the
> pull-down menu choices.
>
> One may correct an entry made no more than four weeks ago. Instructions
> here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/r2lcb
>
>
> Objections ("complaints" or "partner-checks") to uncorrected entries can
> be lodged here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv
>
>
> Anonymous complaints will not be processed.
>
>
>
> Jack
>

[[email protected]]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
> other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite the
> rule that says that?
>


I'll bite (since no explicit rule exists as you suggest....)

-Quoting the rules (see last sentence):

6. Flight claiming
Fliht claims will be only accepted at www.onlinecontest.org. Claimes
have to be submitted by 24:00 (midnight) on the Tuesday following the
flight local time of the finish point.
The IGC-file has to be submitted as part of the flight claim.
By submitting the flight the participant certifies that the flight took
place as claimed.

-end quote

If you submit, you are stating the flight "took place as claimed", and
since specifiying the region is part of the claim you must specify the
correct region, else you are not following the rules.

Let the guy who makes the best flight in the region win that region....
or is this stating the obvious?

.... not a lawyer......

[Greg Arnold]

wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>> If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
>> other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite the
>> rule that says that?
>>
>
>
> I'll bite (since no explicit rule exists as you suggest....)
>
> -Quoting the rules (see last sentence):
>
> 6. Flight claiming
> Fliht claims will be only accepted at www.onlinecontest.org. Claimes
> have to be submitted by 24:00 (midnight) on the Tuesday following the
> flight local time of the finish point.
> The IGC-file has to be submitted as part of the flight claim.
> By submitting the flight the participant certifies that the flight took
> place as claimed.
>
> -end quote
>
> If you submit, you are stating the flight "took place as claimed", and
> since specifiying the region is part of the claim you must specify the
> correct region, else you are not following the rules.

The SeeYou claim form has a place to state the region, but it doesn't
say whether this is the region of the pilot or the region of the flight.
At the present time, most of the Region 12 pilots flying in Region 11
are claiming as Region 12.


>
> Let the guy who makes the best flight in the region win that region....
> or is this stating the obvious?
>
> ... not a lawyer......
>

[Jack[_1_]]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
> other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite the
> rule that says that?

The info below is cut-and-pasted directly from the OLC site

<http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv>

(note specifically under "Reason for complaint...: No fix in the region").


----------------
FLIGHT COMPLAINT

Dear Competitor,
the 'Partner-Check' is a very important aspect of the OLC system.
Whenever you find a faulty flight claim, please use the 'Patner-Check'
to inform us about the irregularity.
It is not denigrating but it helps the OLC-team to remove errors from
the scoring, as we have no time to check all the flights in detail.
Our time permits only random checks of flight claims.
We hope to have listed all possible irregularities in the complaint
form below, but if we have missed something send a mail to :
.
If you have a complaint about a flight , please complete the from
below, and send it to us by pressing 'Send' in the from.

Our OLC-Team


Information on the flight


Select the OLC:

Date of flight (dd.mm.yy):

Name of competitor:

Scored distance in km (xxxx.xx):

Reason for complaint, multiple choices possible:
DAeC-Index wrong, the correct one is:
Flight twice in scoring
No fix in the region
Departure time wrong
Finish time wrong
Means of propulsion active during soaring performance
Airspace infringement

Information on me:
Given name and name:
E-Mail for questions:
Telephone:


Anonymous complaints will not be processed.
------------------------------------------


I think others will agree that details of OLC rules have not been
clearly presented in the past, though SSA-OLC Administrator Doug Haluza
has gone a long way recently toward making the SSA OLC more accessible
to all of us. If I am wrong in my assessment of this issue, I apologize
for adding to the confusion. I believe this is an area that needs
further clarification.

We have 12 Regions because we have very different soaring conditions and
opportunities in this great expanse called the USA. It seems to me
completely illogical that wave flights in Region 11 or ridge flights in
Region 2 should be considered in comparison to thermal flights in Region
6, for example, when establishing Regional standings for clubs and
individuals.

These errors sometimes result from keyboard errors in data entry. They
also result when a pilot based in one region travels to a different
region for a contest, training, or recreation and does not realize that
a flight anywhere may be entered for the pilot and for his club but
should not be entered for a region outside the one in which it was flown.

Entrants, and their competitors, should be concerned about both sources
of inappropriate and misleading information.


Jack


>> One may correct an entry made no more than four weeks ago.
>> Instructions here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/r2lcb
>>
>>
>> Objections ("complaints" or "partner-checks") to uncorrected entries
>> can be lodged here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Jack wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>> If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
>> other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite
>> the rule that says that?

snip

> I think others will agree that details of OLC rules have not been
> clearly presented in the past, though SSA-OLC Administrator Doug Haluza
> has gone a long way recently toward making the SSA OLC more accessible
> to all of us. If I am wrong in my assessment of this issue, I apologize
> for adding to the confusion. I believe this is an area that needs
> further clarification.

Maybe not: I can't find any reference to the use of Region in the
USA-OLC, so I don't think Region has any significance at this point.
There are Champion listings, and Statistics by Airfield, Club, All
Flights, and Best Flights, but none by Region.
>
> We have 12 Regions because we have very different soaring conditions and
> opportunities in this great expanse called the USA. It seems to me
> completely illogical that wave flights in Region 11 or ridge flights in
> Region 2 should be considered in comparison to thermal flights in Region
> 6, for example, when establishing Regional standings for clubs and
> individuals.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the Regional Standings
listed? I don't see them on the SSA-OLC page or mentioned in the rules.
My understanding is the Region designation may be used at some later
date, but I don't see any use of it now.
>
> These errors sometimes result from keyboard errors in data entry. They
> also result when a pilot based in one region travels to a different
> region for a contest, training, or recreation and does not realize that
> a flight anywhere may be entered for the pilot and for his club but
> should not be entered for a region outside the one in which it was flown.

My understanding is the Region entry is for the pilot, NOT where the
flight was made. That's how I've been entering my flights, including 10
flown outside my Region this year. I didn't even know what Region I was
in for those flights, but you can find out by looking a the trace and a
map of the Regions. But, without any scoring based on regions, why bother?
>
> Entrants, and their competitors, should be concerned about both sources
> of inappropriate and misleading information.

Should the Region be where the pilot is from, where the glider is
launched from, where soaring begins, or where the OLC start is? A single
flight could have three different answers for these four questions, and
none of this is discussed in the rules that I can find.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Greg Arnold]

I hope the OLC publicizes this rule before they start disqualifying
flights for listing the wrong region. Since the OLC software can find
the field at which the launch was made, perhaps it also could determine
the correct region.

It also would be good if the OLC webpage gave us a way of getting a list
of all flights by pilots who live in a certain region (regardless of
where flown), as otherwise on a Saturday or Sunday you may have to look
through a list of 100 flights to find the ones done by local pilots who
are flying in another region.



Jack wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>> If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
>> other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite
>> the rule that says that?
>
> The info below is cut-and-pasted directly from the OLC site
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv>
>
> (note specifically under "Reason for complaint...: No fix in the region").
>
>
> ----------------
> FLIGHT COMPLAINT
>
> Dear Competitor,
> the 'Partner-Check' is a very important aspect of the OLC system.
> Whenever you find a faulty flight claim, please use the 'Patner-Check'
> to inform us about the irregularity.
> It is not denigrating but it helps the OLC-team to remove errors from
> the scoring, as we have no time to check all the flights in detail.
> Our time permits only random checks of flight claims.
> We hope to have listed all possible irregularities in the complaint
> form below, but if we have missed something send a mail to :
> .
> If you have a complaint about a flight , please complete the from
> below, and send it to us by pressing 'Send' in the from.
>
> Our OLC-Team
>
>
> Information on the flight
>
>
> Select the OLC:
>
> Date of flight (dd.mm.yy):
>
> Name of competitor:
>
> Scored distance in km (xxxx.xx):
>
> Reason for complaint, multiple choices possible:
> DAeC-Index wrong, the correct one is:
> Flight twice in scoring
> No fix in the region
> Departure time wrong
> Finish time wrong
> Means of propulsion active during soaring performance
> Airspace infringement
>
> Information on me:
> Given name and name:
> E-Mail for questions:
> Telephone:
>
>
> Anonymous complaints will not be processed.
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think others will agree that details of OLC rules have not been
> clearly presented in the past, though SSA-OLC Administrator Doug Haluza
> has gone a long way recently toward making the SSA OLC more accessible
> to all of us. If I am wrong in my assessment of this issue, I apologize
> for adding to the confusion. I believe this is an area that needs
> further clarification.
>
> We have 12 Regions because we have very different soaring conditions and
> opportunities in this great expanse called the USA. It seems to me
> completely illogical that wave flights in Region 11 or ridge flights in
> Region 2 should be considered in comparison to thermal flights in Region
> 6, for example, when establishing Regional standings for clubs and
> individuals.
>
> These errors sometimes result from keyboard errors in data entry. They
> also result when a pilot based in one region travels to a different
> region for a contest, training, or recreation and does not realize that
> a flight anywhere may be entered for the pilot and for his club but
> should not be entered for a region outside the one in which it was flown.
>
> Entrants, and their competitors, should be concerned about both sources
> of inappropriate and misleading information.
>
>
> Jack

[Greg Arnold]

Eric, I have been looking at flights by Region for some time. Find the
Region of choice in the box beneath the blue at the top of the OLC page.

However, I had thought this list was by the Region where pilots are
based, but it appears the list really is by Region where the flight
occurred. Thus, there is no way to get a list of all flights by pilots
in a region.


Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Greg Arnold wrote:
>>> If I am a Region 12 (So Cal) pilot flying in Region 11 (Nevada, among
>>> other places), I must enter the flight in Region 11? Could you cite
>>> the rule that says that?
>
> snip
>
>> I think others will agree that details of OLC rules have not been
>> clearly presented in the past, though SSA-OLC Administrator Doug
>> Haluza has gone a long way recently toward making the SSA OLC more
>> accessible to all of us. If I am wrong in my assessment of this issue,
>> I apologize for adding to the confusion. I believe this is an area
>> that needs further clarification.
>
> Maybe not: I can't find any reference to the use of Region in the
> USA-OLC, so I don't think Region has any significance at this point.
> There are Champion listings, and Statistics by Airfield, Club, All
> Flights, and Best Flights, but none by Region.
>>
>> We have 12 Regions because we have very different soaring conditions and
>> opportunities in this great expanse called the USA. It seems to me
>> completely illogical that wave flights in Region 11 or ridge flights in
>> Region 2 should be considered in comparison to thermal flights in Region
>> 6, for example, when establishing Regional standings for clubs and
>> individuals.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the Regional Standings
> listed? I don't see them on the SSA-OLC page or mentioned in the rules.
> My understanding is the Region designation may be used at some later
> date, but I don't see any use of it now.
>>
>> These errors sometimes result from keyboard errors in data entry. They
>> also result when a pilot based in one region travels to a different
>> region for a contest, training, or recreation and does not realize
>> that a flight anywhere may be entered for the pilot and for his club
>> but should not be entered for a region outside the one in which it was
>> flown.
>
> My understanding is the Region entry is for the pilot, NOT where the
> flight was made. That's how I've been entering my flights, including 10
> flown outside my Region this year. I didn't even know what Region I was
> in for those flights, but you can find out by looking a the trace and a
> map of the Regions. But, without any scoring based on regions, why bother?
>>
>> Entrants, and their competitors, should be concerned about both sources
>> of inappropriate and misleading information.
>
> Should the Region be where the pilot is from, where the glider is
> launched from, where soaring begins, or where the OLC start is? A single
> flight could have three different answers for these four questions, and
> none of this is discussed in the rules that I can find.
>

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> Eric, I have been looking at flights by Region for some time. Find the
> Region of choice in the box beneath the blue at the top of the OLC page.

It took me a long while to find it, because I'm accustomed to using the
"North America" button from the OLC home page (which doesn't show it),
rather than the "US" button. I like to see what the Canadians are up to.

>
> However, I had thought this list was by the Region where pilots are
> based, but it appears the list really is by Region where the flight
> occurred.

It does seem like it, since selecting Region 8 (my region) shows the
Canadian pilots entered in our Regional contest, even though their
region is listed as "BC/AB". Their flights do not show up in the Canada
listing. I notice the Canadian page region selection includes "USA" (in
addition to AB/BC, SK/MB, etc), so maybe that's what the Canadians in
the Region 8 contest selected so it would appear in the US listing.

> Thus, there is no way to get a list of all flights by pilots
> in a region.

I am still puzzled about the intent of the Region selection. I've always
thought it was for the pilot's region. For Daily Score, region selection
seems to pick flights within the region, but for "Statistics:all
flights", the region selection seems to pick "by pilot", as all my
flights in several regions show up there.

I still can't find anything in the rules about what region you should
enter when submitting a flight, so I won't be changing what I'm doing.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Frank Whiteley]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
> > Eric, I have been looking at flights by Region for some time. Find the
> > Region of choice in the box beneath the blue at the top of the OLC page.
>
> It took me a long while to find it, because I'm accustomed to using the
> "North America" button from the OLC home page (which doesn't show it),
> rather than the "US" button. I like to see what the Canadians are up to.
>
> >
> > However, I had thought this list was by the Region where pilots are
> > based, but it appears the list really is by Region where the flight
> > occurred.
>
> It does seem like it, since selecting Region 8 (my region) shows the
> Canadian pilots entered in our Regional contest, even though their
> region is listed as "BC/AB". Their flights do not show up in the Canada
> listing. I notice the Canadian page region selection includes "USA" (in
> addition to AB/BC, SK/MB, etc), so maybe that's what the Canadians in
> the Region 8 contest selected so it would appear in the US listing.
>
> > Thus, there is no way to get a list of all flights by pilots
> > in a region.
>
> I am still puzzled about the intent of the Region selection. I've always
> thought it was for the pilot's region. For Daily Score, region selection
> seems to pick flights within the region, but for "Statistics:all
> flights", the region selection seems to pick "by pilot", as all my
> flights in several regions show up there.
>
> I still can't find anything in the rules about what region you should
> enter when submitting a flight, so I won't be changing what I'm doing.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
> Operation"
As a state governor, I requested a state filter (by pilot and or flight
origination), noting at the time the lack of much useful from the
regional filter from my perspective. There are soaring sites that
border regional boundaries. Though home airfield is in one region, the
flights are actually done largely in the adjacent region.

Importing into Excel was my solution. It allowed me to filter out
flights done out of state and limit awards to flights actually staring
within Colorado. Pre-filtering by having pilots file under their home
region, especially in the absence of any organized regional awards
effort is useful. If they file a flight out of region, it won't show
up in the pre-filter, but that's not an issue as the flight won't be
counted anyway.

I would like a filter that showed me any flight terminating in Colorado
(easier for this state than others) though. Like to know where roaming
pilots are arriving from.

Frank Whiteley

[Doug Haluza]

The region in the SSA-OLC is the SSA Region of the take-off site. This
is the way it is done in all other OLC countries, and since this is an
international contest, we need to be consistent with this in the US as
well. It only makes sense, since pilots must claim flights in the
country where they are made, so what SSA Region would foreign pilots
use?

The only possible exception would be where a club's membership is based
in one region, but their home airport happens to be just over the line,
technically in another region. As long as the majority of the pilots
flying from this airport agree with the region shift, we could consider
declaring that that airport is in the adjoining region. If you want
this to apply to your airport, send an email request to olc <at> ssa
<dot> org.

The OLC flight statistics can be broken down by SSA Region. For
example, if you click on "Champion" in the OLC-Classic line of the web
page header, you see results for all regions, but if you select a
region from the drop-down box, you will see the rankings for that
region only. This allows people to set up local rivalries, that
equalize the weather conditions somewhat. So it makes no sense for
someone flying in the Desert Southwest to claim flights in Region 1
(New England) just because they receive mail or vote there.
Unfortunately, if you do select Region 1, you will see the results are
polluted by a number of pilots who did not bother to select the correct
region on their claim.

There is no need to talk of disqualification for now. It is just as
easy for the admin to change the region as it is to remove the flight.
So for now, we can just make the corrections if people are interested
in regional statistics, and they are seeing flights that should not be
there. Send email requests to olc <at> ssa <dot> org for this as well
(but let's prioritize this to just address the top few places only).
There is no need to burden the OLC Team with partner check requests, we
can administer US pilots locally.

Although there is no specific mention of takeoff region in the OLC
rules, just to make it explicit, the English version of the OLC web
claim form now shows "Take-off Region" next to the drop down menu.
Unfortunately flight analysis software will not show this in the
built-in menu.

The intention was to make this automatic, but because there were
problems with the airfield selection by the server early in the season,
this function was disabled by OLC. So there is no automatic check on
takeoff site right now. Also the current airfield database does not
have all the correct regions entered for every airfield. We are working
on improving this for 2007, but cannot promise anything yet (the OLC is
an all volunteer effort).

The SSA regions are based on state boundaries, and the state
abbreviations are included in the drop down selections to make
selecting the correct region easier. There are four states that are
divided as follows:

- CA is divided by the 36th parallel into Region 11 (north) and Region
12 (south)
- New York is divided by the 42nd parallel into Region 2 (south) and
Region 3 (north)
- Pennsylvania is divided by the 78th meridian into Region 2 (east) and
Region 3 (west)
- Missouri is divided by the 92nd meridian into Region 7 (east) and
Region 10 (west)

So please select the correct region of your takeoff site in your claims
so people can get correct regional results from the OLC.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Jack wrote:
> Several SSA OLC competitors in the recent Region 6 South contest at
> Caesar Creek OH appear to have entered their flights in their respective
> home regions (other than Region 6), even though no point on the flight
> tracks lies outside of Region 6. There are other instances where pilots
> have listed their flights in a different region than both the region in
> which the flight was flown and their home club region. Usually this is
> an adjacent region, indicating perhaps too little care with the
> pull-down menu choices.
>
> One may correct an entry made no more than four weeks ago. Instructions
> here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/r2lcb
>
>
> Objections ("complaints" or "partner-checks") to uncorrected entries can
> be lodged here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv
>
>
> Anonymous complaints will not be processed.
>
>
>
> Jack

[Doug Haluza]

The region in the SSA-OLC is the SSA Region of the take-off site. This
is the way it is done in all other OLC countries, and since this is an
international contest, we need to be consistent with this in the US as
well. It only makes sense, since pilots must claim flights in the
country where they are made, so what SSA Region would foreign pilots
use?

The only possible exception would be where a club's membership is based
in one region, but their home airport happens to be just over the line,
technically in another region. As long as the majority of the pilots
flying from this airport agree with the region shift, we could consider
declaring that that airport is in the adjoining region. If you want
this to apply to your airport, send an email request to olc <at> ssa
<dot> org.

The OLC flight statistics can be broken down by SSA Region. For
example, if you click on "Champion" in the OLC-Classic line of the web
page header, you see results for all regions, but if you select a
region from the drop-down box, you will see the rankings for that
region only. This allows people to set up local rivalries, that
equalize the weather conditions somewhat. So it makes no sense for
someone flying in the Desert Southwest to claim flights in Region 1
(New England) just because they receive mail or vote there.
Unfortunately, if you do select Region 1, you will see the results are
polluted by a number of pilots who did not bother to select the correct
region on their claim.

There is no need to talk of disqualification for now. It is just as
easy for the admin to change the region as it is to remove the flight.
So for now, we can just make the corrections if people are interested
in regional statistics, and they are seeing flights that should not be
there. Send email requests to olc <at> ssa <dot> org for this as well
(but let's prioritize this to just address the top few places only).
There is no need to burden the OLC Team with partner check requests, we
can administer US pilots locally.

Although there is no specific mention of takeoff region in the OLC
rules, just to make it explicit, the English version of the OLC web
claim form now shows "Take-off Region" next to the drop down menu.
Unfortunately flight analysis software will not show this in the
built-in menu.

The intention was to make this automatic, but because there were
problems with the airfield selection by the server early in the season,
this function was disabled by OLC. So there is no automatic check on
takeoff site right now. Also the current airfield database does not
have all the correct regions entered for every airfield. We are working
on improving this for 2007, but cannot promise anything yet (the OLC is
an all volunteer effort).

The SSA regions are based on state boundaries, and the state
abbreviations are included in the drop down selections to make
selecting the correct region easier. There are four states that are
divided as follows:

- CA is divided by the 36th parallel into Region 11 (north) and Region
12 (south)
- New York is divided by the 42nd parallel into Region 2 (south) and
Region 3 (north)
- Pennsylvania is divided by the 78th meridian into Region 2 (east) and
Region 3 (west)
- Missouri is divided by the 92nd meridian into Region 7 (east) and
Region 10 (west)

So please select the correct region of your takeoff site in your claims
so people can get correct regional results from the OLC.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Jack wrote:
> Several SSA OLC competitors in the recent Region 6 South contest at
> Caesar Creek OH appear to have entered their flights in their respective
> home regions (other than Region 6), even though no point on the flight
> tracks lies outside of Region 6. There are other instances where pilots
> have listed their flights in a different region than both the region in
> which the flight was flown and their home club region. Usually this is
> an adjacent region, indicating perhaps too little care with the
> pull-down menu choices.
>
> One may correct an entry made no more than four weeks ago. Instructions
> here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/r2lcb
>
>
> Objections ("complaints" or "partner-checks") to uncorrected entries can
> be lodged here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qqqsv
>
>
> Anonymous complaints will not be processed.
>
>
>
> Jack

[Greg Arnold]

Doug Haluza wrote:

> The OLC flight statistics can be broken down by SSA Region. For
> example, if you click on "Champion" in the OLC-Classic line of the web
> page header, you see results for all regions, but if you select a
> region from the drop-down box, you will see the rankings for that
> region only. This allows people to set up local rivalries, that
> equalize the weather conditions somewhat. So it makes no sense for
> someone flying in the Desert Southwest to claim flights in Region 1
> (New England) just because they receive mail or vote there.
> Unfortunately, if you do select Region 1, you will see the results are
> polluted by a number of pilots who did not bother to select the correct
> region on their claim.


"pilots who did not bother to select the correct region on their claim."
Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair to pilots who
are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly written and
confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer effort, but
I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but itself for its
deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
an IGC file).

[Doug Haluza]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>> "pilots who did not bother to select the correct region on their claim."
> Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair to pilots who
> are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly written and
> confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer effort, but
> I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but itself for its
> deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
> Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
> set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
> an IGC file).

No, my point was that Region 1 in particular has a number of flights
made by pilots who neither live, nor flew there. So it is not a matter
of confusion, where they didn't know what was the right thing to do,
they apparently did nothing, and let their claim go with the first
choice in the list.

[Ray Lovinggood]

When I claim a flight, I go directly to the OLC webpage,
since I don't have SeeYou or Stre Pla (not yet, anyway).

It is a bit cumbersome, but I get the flight posted.

The OLC webpage has a pickbox to select the region,
just as it has pickboxes to select the glider, the
glider type (glider or with engine) and starting location.

While a bit cumbersome, I've gotten used to it and
it seems easy enough. Especially for a FREE service!!!

I wonder, though, if the OLC team could automate the
start location?

To Doug and all on the OLC team, I say 'Thanks' for
a fun, FREE, way to see what and how other pilots are
doing.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
(Still flying below stall speed. I don't want to
burn off the gel coat...)

At 16:30 03 July 2006, Greg Arnold wrote:
>Doug Haluza wrote:
>
>> The OLC flight statistics can be broken down by SSA
>>Region. For
>> example, if you click on 'Champion' in the OLC-Classic
>>line of the web
>> page header, you see results for all regions, but
>>if you select a
>> region from the drop-down box, you will see the rankings
>>for that
>> region only. This allows people to set up local rivalries,
>>that
>> equalize the weather conditions somewhat. So it makes
>>no sense for
>> someone flying in the Desert Southwest to claim flights
>>in Region 1
>> (New England) just because they receive mail or vote
>>there.
>> Unfortunately, if you do select Region 1, you will
>>see the results are
>> polluted by a number of pilots who did not bother
>>to select the correct
>> region on their claim.
>
>
>'pilots who did not bother to select the correct region
>on their claim.'
> Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair
>to pilots who
>are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly
>written and
>confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer
>effort, but
>I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but
>itself for its
>deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example,
>was blamed on
>Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which
>could have simply
>set up its software to validate the CAI file, then
>itself converted to
>an IGC file).
>

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>> Doug Haluza wrote:
>>> "pilots who did not bother to select the correct region on their claim."
>> Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair to pilots who
>> are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly written and
>> confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer effort, but
>> I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but itself for its
>> deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
>> Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
>> set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
>> an IGC file).
>
> No, my point was that Region 1 in particular has a number of flights
> made by pilots who neither live, nor flew there. So it is not a matter
> of confusion, where they didn't know what was the right thing to do,
> they apparently did nothing, and let their claim go with the first
> choice in the list.

Perhaps they didn't realize the Region value was being used for
anything? For example, I didn't think it was being used for anything,
and until Greg pointed it out, I didn't even know there was Region
selection on the SSA OLC page! I just entered Region 8, because that's
the region I'm in. I didn't have a clue that it was supposed to be the
region of the _takeoff_ airport, and how could I? It wasn't in the
rules, and people that don't follow RAS still won't know about it if
they use SeeYou, as I do, or don't notice the OLC wording change.

This is a like a rules change in mid-season, so maybe emails should be
sent to every competitor informing them of it, and the rules on the
websites should be amended to make it clear what the Region entry is
supposed to be.

Speaking as a pilot with 10 flights "mis-regioned" ...

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[[email protected]]

Start location *is* automated when you use Seeyou to claim. And likely
in other software, it does a lookup on lat/lon of takeoff point versus
a pre-approved list of takeoff points that country OLC admin people
submit.

Canada up until this year had a USA region (others are provincial) for
flights in FL, PA or CA or NV or whatever, to let easterners even out
the advantage of booming Rockies flights... then an easterner won the
contest using some USA flights so the westerners got the USA region
eliminated, or it was pure coincidence..... Yes, sour grapes..... I'm
an easterner.

A Canadian, or any nationality , will claim a USA flight to the USA
contest, and in the region flown. You always claim to the country where
the flight occured. And in the region for the takeoff point.

All contest results can be filtered on 'region'.

In Canada, the region 'contest' is really the important one, as the
best flights are always in the Rockies. So to win Canada, you MUST fly
out of Invermere or close by. This is a long drive and very expensive
from eastern Canada. So winning your province is much more of an
appropriate challenge. I would assume the USA regions have a similar
issue..

Anyway, it seems obvious that 'region' is where the flight took place.
But, that said, I guess anyone can get confused. My guess is they will
add a few words in the rules.

The OLC complaint process did seem to identify the issue.. claimed in
wrong region.

[Doug Haluza]

wrote:
<snip>
> A Canadian, or any nationality , will claim a USA flight to the USA
> contest, and in the region flown. You always claim to the country where
> the flight occured. And in the region for the takeoff point.
>
> All contest results can be filtered on 'region'.
>
> In Canada, the region 'contest' is really the important one, as the
> best flights are always in the Rockies. So to win Canada, you MUST fly
> out of Invermere or close by. This is a long drive and very expensive
> from eastern Canada. So winning your province is much more of an
> appropriate challenge. I would assume the USA regions have a similar
> issue..
>
> Anyway, it seems obvious that 'region' is where the flight took place.
> But, that said, I guess anyone can get confused. My guess is they will
> add a few words in the rules.
>
> The OLC complaint process did seem to identify the issue.. claimed in
> wrong region.

Very well put. Thanks for the "outside perspective." Yes the situation
in the US is similar, but it is not so black-and-white. Still the
regions do level the field somewhat.

The SSA Region information is now up on the SSA-OLC Info page as well:

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/olc-i.php?olc=olc-usa&spr=en

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:

>
> The SSA Region information is now up on the SSA-OLC Info page as well:
>
> http://www.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/olc-i.php?olc=olc-usa&spr=en

But it's still not in the rules, which is where most people will go to
find out what to do. Can't this be changed immediately?

I now know what to do, and so do others on RAS, but new competitors
won't, nor will those that are current competitors that don't read RAS.
The OLC (and I suppose the SSA) has email addresses for all USA
competitors, so would it be practical to send this information directly
to them? Or maybe it's just easier for the SSA to correct ths it
automatically?

I know I sound a bit testy, but I'm annoyed that people are annoyed that
pilots have been doing it wrong when there was no guidance for doing it
correctly. I conscientiously set "Region 8" with each submission because
that seemed the logical thing to do - it wasn't because I couldn't be
bothered to do it right.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Doug Haluza]

I corrected the biggest problems with wrong takeoff region claimed in
the US. The OLC-Classic leaders in each SSA Region are currently:

R1: Koepper, Mark, GBSC Boston
R2: Haluza, Doug, Ridge Soaring Irregulars
R3: Murphy, Sean, Harris Hill Soaring
R4: Higgins, Michael, M-ASA Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assn
R5: Schmelzer, Wolfgang, Kitty Hawk Airpark
R6: Lubon, John, Caesar Creek Soaring
R7: Hard, James, 126 Association
R8: Funston, Nelson, SGC Seattle Glider Council
R9: Feager, Tim, Albuquerque Soaring
R10: Johnson, Richard, Dallas Gliding Assoc
R11: Yanetz, Ramy, Hollister Gliding Club
R12: Gonzales, Dan, Hole in the Wall

Send requests for corrections by email to ssa <at> olc <dot> org

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

[Jack[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> I corrected the biggest problems with wrong takeoff region claimed in
> the US. The OLC-Classic leaders in each SSA Region are currently:
>
> R1: Koepper, Mark, GBSC Boston
> R2: Haluza, Doug, Ridge Soaring Irregulars
> R3: Murphy, Sean, Harris Hill Soaring
> R4: Higgins, Michael, M-ASA Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assn
> R5: Schmelzer, Wolfgang, Kitty Hawk Airpark
> R6: Lubon, John, Caesar Creek Soaring
> R7: Hard, James, 126 Association
> R8: Funston, Nelson, SGC Seattle Glider Council
> R9: Feager, Tim, Albuquerque Soaring
> R10: Johnson, Richard, Dallas Gliding Assoc
> R11: Yanetz, Ramy, Hollister Gliding Club
> R12: Gonzales, Dan, Hole in the Wall
>
> Send requests for corrections by email to ssa <at> olc <dot> org
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin


The SSA is becoming a responsive, effective organization, particularly
in the person of its SSA-OLC Admin.

Thank you, Doug.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Jack wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:

>> Send requests for corrections by email to ssa <at> olc <dot> org
>>
>> Doug Haluza
>> SSA-OLC Admin
>
>
> The SSA is becoming a responsive, effective organization, particularly
> in the person of its SSA-OLC Admin.
>
> Thank you, Doug.

Yes, I think progress and communication are occuring.

Here might be something else to work on: when I look at today's US
results with "all regions", four R8 pilots show in the list; when I
select "R8", only three pilots remain, and Len Edvinson, the leader for
the day, is left off. Is that correct (and why?), or are is there a
problem with region selection?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Doug Haluza]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Jack wrote:
> Here might be something else to work on: when I look at today's US
> results with "all regions", four R8 pilots show in the list; when I
> select "R8", only three pilots remain, and Len Edvinson, the leader for
> the day, is left off. Is that correct (and why?), or are is there a
> problem with region selection?
>

The problem was that one of the four claimed the flight in Region-1. I
fixed this, so now all four are shown in Region-8.

The region you see in the daily score is the region associated with the
pilot's club. This is just a database schema thing, and I'm sure OLC is
not going to change it this year. All of the OLC's limited resources
are focused on developing the 2007 OLC right now.

P.S. I also made requested corrections in Region-12, and this changed
the standings in many of the top places (but not the leader).

[Eric Greenwell[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>> Here might be something else to work on: when I look at today's US
>> results with "all regions", four R8 pilots show in the list; when I
>> select "R8", only three pilots remain, and Len Edvinson, the leader for
>> the day, is left off. Is that correct (and why?), or are is there a
>> problem with region selection?
>>
>
> The problem was that one of the four claimed the flight in Region-1. I
> fixed this, so now all four are shown in Region-8.
>
> The region you see in the daily score is the region associated with the
> pilot's club.

This quirk may be why many pilots didn't enter a region properly. After
all, if the daily score is all you look at, and the region displayed is
always your home region, regardless of what you entered (even if you
entered nothing), you might assume entering a Region value is
irrelevant. I think it's confusing the region shown goes with the pilot
in the daily listings, and goes with the launch point in other listings.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

www.motorglider.org - Download "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane
Operation"

[Frank Whiteley]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> I corrected the biggest problems with wrong takeoff region claimed in
> the US. The OLC-Classic leaders in each SSA Region are currently:
>
> R1: Koepper, Mark, GBSC Boston
> R2: Haluza, Doug, Ridge Soaring Irregulars
> R3: Murphy, Sean, Harris Hill Soaring
> R4: Higgins, Michael, M-ASA Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assn
> R5: Schmelzer, Wolfgang, Kitty Hawk Airpark
> R6: Lubon, John, Caesar Creek Soaring
> R7: Hard, James, 126 Association
> R8: Funston, Nelson, SGC Seattle Glider Council
> R9: Feager, Tim, Albuquerque Soaring
> R10: Johnson, Richard, Dallas Gliding Assoc
> R11: Yanetz, Ramy, Hollister Gliding Club
> R12: Gonzales, Dan, Hole in the Wall
>
> Send requests for corrections by email to ssa <at> olc <dot> org
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin

I just filtered on Region 9 for 7/5 and only 3 of the 9 flights posted
happened in Region 9. To be fair, the pilots flying outside the region
are on the road and probably not aware of this thread.

Frank Whiteley

[Doug Haluza]

Greg Arnold wrote:
<snip>
> The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
> Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
> set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
> an IGC file).

Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

[jcarlyle]

Doug,

I'm not a web expert, but this assertion seems incorrect. Certainly you
can e-mail a binary cai file and it will still be valid upon receipt.
It can also be sent via FTP, and I guarantee that this process would
result in a valid binary file. And a FTP transfer could be easily built
into the OLC submission process if OLC chose to do so.

Sounds to me like OLC programmers simply don't want to go to the effort
of figuring out how to handle cai files, and so are putting what should
be their problem on all of us Cambridge users.

-John

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
> it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
> upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
> Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
> converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

[Doug Haluza]

When you email a binary file, it is also converted to text prior to
transfer, and converted back to binary on the other end.

You are probably correct that the OLC programmers don't want to spend
additional effort on the non-standard and now obsolete CAI binary
format, especially since they have already spent considerable effort on
the current compromise solution. Since the relative number of GPS-NAV
loggers will keep declining, this is probably a wise allocation of
limited resources. They should focus their efforts on future growth
opportunities.

I don't think you are correct about the ease of implementing a binary
FTP transfer. But, if you want to volunteer to implement this, and
prove me wrong, I can put you in touch with the right people.

jcarlyle wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I'm not a web expert, but this assertion seems incorrect. Certainly you
> can e-mail a binary cai file and it will still be valid upon receipt.
> It can also be sent via FTP, and I guarantee that this process would
> result in a valid binary file. And a FTP transfer could be easily built
> into the OLC submission process if OLC chose to do so.
>
> Sounds to me like OLC programmers simply don't want to go to the effort
> of figuring out how to handle cai files, and so are putting what should
> be their problem on all of us Cambridge users.
>
> -John
>
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
> > it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
> > upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
> > Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
> > converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

[jcarlyle]

Not to be contentious, but there are several points to be made:

1. With a 5 minute search I found the following three pages that
explain how one can implement a binary file transfer under a web
session:
http://www.vbip.com/itc/itc-http-component-01.asp
http://www.ftponline.com/vsm/2006_05/magazine/columns/gettingstarted/
http://weblogs.asp.net/cfranklin/archive/2006/01/29/436838.aspx
It would appear that most of the grunt work has been done towards
alleviating a lot of OLC heartache for Cambridge users.

2. Cambridge users might indeed be declining, but as you well know the
OLC ever evolving poor treatment of them over the last year has caused,
and is still causing, a lot of complaints on RAS and other soaring
sites. This widespread bad reputation, combined with the really poor
user interface on the OLC web site itself, has turned off a lot of
pilots that I know towards participating in the OLC. I submit that one
good way of assuring future growth of the OLC is to make sure that
everything that they have implemented at the moment works well, easily
and reliably - before they start offering new features! The current
approach of OLC towards software has doomed many, many other
interesting and worthwhile ventures.

3. I already volunteered my services to the OLC team. I won't go into
detail on RAS; suffice it to say my offer was brushed off.

I hope that these points will be viewed as constructive criticism of
OLC, rather than as a gratuitous slam. I like the idea of OLC very
much, it's just that the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

-John

Doug Haluza wrote:
> When you email a binary file, it is also converted to text prior to
> transfer, and converted back to binary on the other end.
>
> You are probably correct that the OLC programmers don't want to spend
> additional effort on the non-standard and now obsolete CAI binary
> format, especially since ey have already spent considerable effort on
> the current compromise solution. Since the relative number of GPS-NAV
> loggers will keep declining, this is probably a wise allocation of
> limited resources. They should focus their efforts on future growth
> opportunities.
>
> I don't think you are correct about the ease of implementing a binary
> FTP transfer. But, if you want to volunteer to implement this, and
> prove me wrong, I can put you in touch with the right people.
>
> jcarlyle wrote:
> > Doug,
> >
> > I'm not a web expert, but this assertion seems incorrect. Certainly you
> > can e-mail a binary cai file and it will still be valid upon receipt.
> > It can also be sent via FTP, and I guarantee that this process would
> > result in a valid binary file. And a FTP transfer could be easily built
> > into the OLC submission process if OLC chose to do so.
> >
> > Sounds to me like OLC programmers simply don't want to go to the effort
> > of figuring out how to handle cai files, and so are putting what should
> > be their problem on all of us Cambridge users.
> >
> > -John
> >
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
> > > it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
> > > upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
> > > Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
> > > converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

[Marc Ramsey]

jcarlyle wrote:
> Not to be contentious, but there are several points to be made:
>
> 1. With a 5 minute search I found the following three pages that
> explain how one can implement a binary file transfer under a web
> session:
> http://www.vbip.com/itc/itc-http-component-01.asp
> http://www.ftponline.com/vsm/2006_05/magazine/columns/gettingstarted/
> http://weblogs.asp.net/cfranklin/archive/2006/01/29/436838.aspx
> It would appear that most of the grunt work has been done towards
> alleviating a lot of OLC heartache for Cambridge users.
>
.....
> 3. I already volunteered my services to the OLC team. I won't go into
> detail on RAS; suffice it to say my offer was brushed off.
>

The brush-off might have something to do with the fact that all of these
"solutions" are specific to IIS/ASP running on Windows servers, when I
believe OLC runs Apache on Linux servers. That said, binary file upload
is pretty trivial to implement using the standard mechanisms provided in
HTML/HTTP, which suggests they have other reasons for not doing so...

Marc

[jcarlyle]

They weren't so much "solutions" as they were examples to help Doug
understand that he was being given a line. I agree that they have an
agenda which they aren't revealing. But it isn't gaining them users, at
least at my club. Most pilots there believe that the interface and
upload procedures are just too clunky and confusing to be worth their
time.

-John


Marc Ramsey wrote:
> The brush-off might have something to do with the fact that all of these
> "solutions" are specific to IIS/ASP running on Windows servers, when I
> believe OLC runs Apache on Linux servers. That said, binary file upload
> is pretty trivial to implement using the standard mechanisms provided in
> HTML/HTTP, which suggests they have other reasons for not doing so...
>
> Marc

[Frank Whiteley]

Although FTP is a reasonable method of file transfer, it isn't likely
the appropriate method of uploading OLC data. FTP has also had a
pattern of security cracks in the past few years, so SCP/SFTP tunneling
via SSH is much preferred. A file transfered via FTP would require an
additional server process, additional server ports, real server load,
and additional scripts and support issues. If would also complicate
the edit function.

Claim submissions are undoubtedly parsed to one, and likely more, data
table(s) from which the several results pages are queried. PHP is the
method of choice. Likely MySQL, PostgreSQL, or maybe even DB2, would
be likely database engines due to cost and speed.

Obvious agendas for an OLC type setup would be badge leg and record
submissions with OO/NAC endorsements. However, since most NAC's have
their own system of validations and qualifications (and in some cases,
fees), that may require some real re-work between the FAI/IGC and NAC's
to accomplish. Technically, it looks very close. Bureaucratically,
it's a ways off for some of use, closer for others. Nevertheless,
legacy support would seem to remain important, as would bug fixes in
software and firmware.

My $.02

Frank Whiteley

jcarlyle wrote:
> They weren't so much "solutions" as they were examples to help Doug
> understand that he was being given a line. I agree that they have an
> agenda which they aren't revealing. But it isn't gaining them users, at
> least at my club. Most pilots there believe that the interface and
> upload procedures are just too clunky and confusing to be worth their
> time.
>
> -John
>
>
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
> > The brush-off might have something to do with the fact that all of these
> > "solutions" are specific to IIS/ASP running on Windows servers, when I
> > believe OLC runs Apache on Linux servers. That said, binary file upload
> > is pretty trivial to implement using the standard mechanisms provided in
> > HTML/HTTP, which suggests they have other reasons for not doing so...
> >
> > Marc

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> Although FTP is a reasonable method of file transfer, it isn't likely
> the appropriate method of uploading OLC data. FTP has also had a
> pattern of security cracks in the past few years, so SCP/SFTP tunneling
> via SSH is much preferred. A file transfered via FTP would require an
> additional server process, additional server ports, real server load,
> and additional scripts and support issues. If would also complicate
> the edit function.

Huh?

The security issues in FTP are largely twofold:

(1) it's a cleartext protocol
(2) specific FTP servers have had problems

It's a bit broad to paint ALL of "FTP" as having "security cracks."

The additional server process and associated "real server load" are
trivial in modern terms. I doubt the OLC is run on an old 486.

And it would complicate the edit function only if implemented in a
complicated way. A custom FTP server could take you file, issue you a
"ticket number" or something similar, and you'd use that to tell the
edit form what it needs to know to find your file.

This stuff is not rocket surgery.

Jeremy

[Frank Whiteley]

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > Although FTP is a reasonable method of file transfer, it isn't likely
> > the appropriate method of uploading OLC data. FTP has also had a
> > pattern of security cracks in the past few years, so SCP/SFTP tunneling
> > via SSH is much preferred. A file transfered via FTP would require an
> > additional server process, additional server ports, real server load,
> > and additional scripts and support issues. If would also complicate
> > the edit function.
>
> Huh?
>
> The security issues in FTP are largely twofold:
>
> (1) it's a cleartext protocol
> (2) specific FTP servers have had problems
>
> It's a bit broad to paint ALL of "FTP" as having "security cracks."
>
> The additional server process and associated "real server load" are
> trivial in modern terms. I doubt the OLC is run on an old 486.
>
> And it would complicate the edit function only if implemented in a
> complicated way. A custom FTP server could take you file, issue you a
> "ticket number" or something similar, and you'd use that to tell the
> edit form what it needs to know to find your file.
>
> This stuff is not rocket surgery.
>
> Jeremy
I have also seen entire companies impacted by administrative oversights
in FTP, up to including public disclosure of thousands of CC cards,
user accounts, and other personal information. I think effort is
better spent debugging current issues and leaving other security
concerns out of the picture. PHP also has it's own set of security
issues, but it also allows better control over the persistency of
connections. FTP is a persistent connection and depending on timeouts,
leaving too many connections available can lead to DDOS mischief. Most
ISP's allowing FTP allow very few FTP connections relative to the
number of customers on the service. OLC is currently in use by a very
small percentage of the potential pilot base, especially if the
movement is to more important services. It would be nice to know if
the incremental cost per pilot will increase or decrease with growth
and can be supported by advertising. There is likely a point at which
a substantial upscaling of the servers and bandwideth would be needed.
It's one of the better things to happen to soaring in some time.

Frank

[Frank Whiteley]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > > Although FTP is a reasonable method of file transfer, it isn't likely
> > > the appropriate method of uploading OLC data. FTP has also had a
> > > pattern of security cracks in the past few years, so SCP/SFTP tunneling
> > > via SSH is much preferred. A file transfered via FTP would require an
> > > additional server process, additional server ports, real server load,
> > > and additional scripts and support issues. If would also complicate
> > > the edit function.
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > The security issues in FTP are largely twofold:
> >
> > (1) it's a cleartext protocol
> > (2) specific FTP servers have had problems
> >
> > It's a bit broad to paint ALL of "FTP" as having "security cracks."
> >
> > The additional server process and associated "real server load" are
> > trivial in modern terms. I doubt the OLC is run on an old 486.
> >
> > And it would complicate the edit function only if implemented in a
> > complicated way. A custom FTP server could take you file, issue you a
> > "ticket number" or something similar, and you'd use that to tell the
> > edit form what it needs to know to find your file.
> >
> > This stuff is not rocket surgery.
> >
> > Jeremy
> I have also seen entire companies impacted by administrative oversights
> in FTP, up to including public disclosure of thousands of CC cards,
> user accounts, and other personal information. I think effort is
> better spent debugging current issues and leaving other security
> concerns out of the picture. PHP also has it's own set of security
> issues, but it also allows better control over the persistency of
> connections. FTP is a persistent connection and depending on timeouts,
> leaving too many connections available can lead to DDOS mischief. Most
> ISP's allowing FTP allow very few FTP connections relative to the
> number of customers on the service. OLC is currently in use by a very
> small percentage of the potential pilot base, especially if the
> movement is to more important services. It would be nice to know if
> the incremental cost per pilot will increase or decrease with growth
> and can be supported by advertising. There is likely a point at which
> a substantial upscaling of the servers and bandwideth would be needed.
> It's one of the better things to happen to soaring in some time.
>
> Frank

Interestingly, I was showing the global view of OLC to a former B-17
pilot today as the bulk of the European flights were showing up and I
got a short period of server unavailability, that is, an OLC page
advising this, not a failure to connect. I suspect the database server
was humming.

Frank

Frank

[Doug Haluza]

The OLC web interface can be a challenge, but claiming with commercial
software (SeeYou or StrePla) is usually trivial. We can download
several loggers and claim in 10-15 min where I fly. It's part of the
post-flight festivities.

jcarlyle wrote:
> They weren't so much "solutions" as they were examples to help Doug
> understand that he was being given a line. I agree that they have an
> agenda which they aren't revealing. But it isn't gaining them users, at
> least at my club. Most pilots there believe that the interface and
> upload procedures are just too clunky and confusing to be worth their
> time.
>
> -John
>
>
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
> > The brush-off might have something to do with the fact that all of these
> > "solutions" are specific to IIS/ASP running on Windows servers, when I
> > believe OLC runs Apache on Linux servers. That said, binary file upload
> > is pretty trivial to implement using the standard mechanisms provided in
> > HTML/HTTP, which suggests they have other reasons for not doing so...
> >
> > Marc