End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

[Doug Haluza]

This is cross posted from the SSA Home > News & Information > General
News:

As the days get shorter as the end of the soaring season nears, the
SSA-OLC Committee has been receiving complaints about flights after
sunset without required aircraft lighting. Although the requirements
for night flight begin at twilight for pilots in the US, the
requirements for aircraft lighting begin at sunset. Gliders without
approved lighting must land, and move clear of lighted runways and
taxiways before sunset.

IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was concerned about
flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport if they were
posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board adopted a policy
disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as FAI awards such as
badges and records. See:

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf

The SSA-OLC Committee prefers that pilots voluntarily remove the
flights, rather than having them removed by an admin. We have contacted
a number of pilots to request this, and they are currently in various
stages of the 5-step grieving process (denial, anger, bargaining,
depression, and acceptance). You can avoid this emotional roller
coaster by planning and executing your flights to be complete before
sunset, unless you have approved night lighting.

You can't just duct tape a flashlight to the nose for night flight. The
requirements for navigation lights are very specific to color,
intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
night lighting, and it was used for flight after sunset, you must put a
note in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining this.

We also have been advised of flight claims that show altitudes in the
log well above the 18,000' MSL limit for Class-A airspace in the US.
The IGC logger altitude is subject to a number of errors, which could
total to several hundred feet. We are currently reviewing with the
pilots a number of flights that appear to exceed even a reasonable
error budget.

Note that unless your flight reference altimeter has been properly
calibrated for IFR flight, and is set to a current ATC altimeter
setting, you will need to allow an extra buffer below 18,000' MSL
indicated altitude to account for possible errors. If you have an
encounter with an IFR aircraft with calibrated altitude references, the
calibrated references and ATC logs will be used to determine your
actual altitude in any subsequent investigation.

Again, if your flight log shows flight above 18,000 MSL, after
correcting for field elevation at takeoff, you will need to provide an
explanation in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining
this. The same requirement applies to entering special use airspace.
This will immediately answer any questions that may concern other
competitors, or anyone else reviewing your flight log in the future.

Finally, if you note a flight that appears to be questionable, do not
speculate in public forums (like news://rec.avation.soaring). Contact
the pilot privately if you can. If the flight is in the US, contact the
SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org. Or use the complaint
tab on the OLC Web header to initiate a partner check.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

[5Z]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
> night lighting,

So has anyone in the USA investigated options to add lighting to a
sailplane?

The new generation of super bright LEDs seem to be a perfect solution
for us. They could even be embedded in various parts of the wingtip or
winglet. A couple AA batteries installed at each light location would
probably last 20 or more hours, so no need to run wires. But since
current draw would be quite low, a fairly lightweight wire would be
suitable.

-Tom

[Mike the Strike]

"GC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
quite plain to see in these logs."

Unfortunately, sunset doesn't come with a GPS timestamp, so I'm afraid
this isn't as easy as you make it sound.

Yes, I know there are standard tables of sunset times, but these make
assumptions that may not be exactly correct and at a given location
actual sunset may differ from the calculated one by many minutes.
(Ask any local physicist./astronomer).

Of course, gross violations are pretty obvious, but I have operated
from a field where landing to the west is best done after the sun has
descended behind mountains, which usually occurs close to the time of
"official" sunset and is standard practice by those flying late.

Methinks all this scrutiny of flight logs is getting a bit too
intrusive and nit-picky.

Mike

[Doug Haluza]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> "IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> quite plain to see in these logs."
>
> Unfortunately, sunset doesn't come with a GPS timestamp, so I'm afraid
> this isn't as easy as you make it sound.
>
> Yes, I know there are standard tables of sunset times, but these make
> assumptions that may not be exactly correct and at a given location
> actual sunset may differ from the calculated one by many minutes.
> (Ask any local physicist./astronomer).
>
> Of course, gross violations are pretty obvious, but I have operated
> from a field where landing to the west is best done after the sun has
> descended behind mountains, which usually occurs close to the time of
> "official" sunset and is standard practice by those flying late.
>
> Methinks all this scrutiny of flight logs is getting a bit too
> intrusive and nit-picky.
>
> Mike

The apparent movement of the sun in the sky is known very precisely (we
have been observing the sun for centuries). The only variable is the
refraction of the atmosphere, which changes the precise angle at which
the sun appears to pass below the local horizon. Various sunset
calculations use different refraction calculations, so they may differ
by a few minutes, but not "many minutes". The time of actual sunset may
also vary by a few minutes from the calculated value. The US Naval
Observatory has a sunrise/sunset calculator available online, and this
is probably the most reliable source for sunset times.

Unfortunately there is widespread ignorance of the sunset rule for
aircraft lighting, despite the fact that it has remained unchanged for
many years--longer than most pilots have been flying. So, we have seen
a few gross violations posted to OLC.

The point of all this is to get pilots to self-police, and not post
these flights in the first place. They should not be making flights
that continue after sunset witout lights anyway, but we certainly don't
want to see them on the OLC in any case.

P.S. The sun will appear to set below mountains before official sunset
when at an altitude lower than the mountains, becase the mountains will
appear to project above the local horizon.

P.P.S. Note that the sun will appear to set later than official sunset
when flying for the opposite reason--the local horizon appears to be
depressed. So you will need to enter the pattern to land well before
the sun appears to be setting in flight.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Doug,

May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC rules mid-season. (2) If
you insist on checking all traces for certain violations, do it at the time
of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that do not pass, there and
then.

Going back through the season and arbitrarily hand-picking "bad" flights
seems like huge waste of time -- yours and everybody else's.

More generally, I can't help but notice that OLC has become a much worse
place since SSA got involved. It started with a huge ugly STATIONARY banner
on top of SSA-OLC page that serves no good purpose but to generate
advertisement income for SSA at the expense of users' screen space. I
checked other national OLCs, and the ONLY three out of 29 that do this
tasteless disservice to their users are AT, FR and US.

Now this policing of the traces. OLC used to be an extremely valuable tool
for sharing and learning. I used to rave about it and promote it to all my
soaring friends. Still, I estimate that only about one-third of the pilots I
know post their flights. Which is a pity, because those who do NOT post tend
to be the more experienced and wiser pilots. See any connection?

You can count the "stages" in the "process", but I do not see how you can
count on the last one being acceptance. Many did not accept OLC to begin
with and still fewer will if the current trends with SSA-OLC continue. The
rate of participation will be further diminishing, as will be the value of
the OLC to the rest of us. Pity.

Once again, U.S.A. shows the way.

Thank you.
--
Yuliy Gerchikov


"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is cross posted from the SSA Home > News & Information > General
> News:
>
> As the days get shorter as the end of the soaring season nears, the
> SSA-OLC Committee has been receiving complaints about flights after
> sunset without required aircraft lighting. Although the requirements
> for night flight begin at twilight for pilots in the US, the
> requirements for aircraft lighting begin at sunset. Gliders without
> approved lighting must land, and move clear of lighted runways and
> taxiways before sunset.
>
> IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was concerned about
> flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport if they were
> posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board adopted a policy
> disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as FAI awards such as
> badges and records. See:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
>
> The SSA-OLC Committee prefers that pilots voluntarily remove the
> flights, rather than having them removed by an admin. We have contacted
> a number of pilots to request this, and they are currently in various
> stages of the 5-step grieving process (denial, anger, bargaining,
> depression, and acceptance). You can avoid this emotional roller
> coaster by planning and executing your flights to be complete before
> sunset, unless you have approved night lighting.
>
> You can't just duct tape a flashlight to the nose for night flight. The
> requirements for navigation lights are very specific to color,
> intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
> night lighting, and it was used for flight after sunset, you must put a
> note in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining this.
>
> We also have been advised of flight claims that show altitudes in the
> log well above the 18,000' MSL limit for Class-A airspace in the US.
> The IGC logger altitude is subject to a number of errors, which could
> total to several hundred feet. We are currently reviewing with the
> pilots a number of flights that appear to exceed even a reasonable
> error budget.
>
> Note that unless your flight reference altimeter has been properly
> calibrated for IFR flight, and is set to a current ATC altimeter
> setting, you will need to allow an extra buffer below 18,000' MSL
> indicated altitude to account for possible errors. If you have an
> encounter with an IFR aircraft with calibrated altitude references, the
> calibrated references and ATC logs will be used to determine your
> actual altitude in any subsequent investigation.
>
> Again, if your flight log shows flight above 18,000 MSL, after
> correcting for field elevation at takeoff, you will need to provide an
> explanation in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining
> this. The same requirement applies to entering special use airspace.
> This will immediately answer any questions that may concern other
> competitors, or anyone else reviewing your flight log in the future.
>
> Finally, if you note a flight that appears to be questionable, do not
> speculate in public forums (like news://rec.avation.soaring). Contact
> the pilot privately if you can. If the flight is in the US, contact the
> SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org. Or use the complaint
> tab on the OLC Web header to initiate a partner check.
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin

[Stewart Kissel]

12. Airspace Violations
The OLC organizers have to assume that the participants
in the contest will not violate restricted airspace
during their flights. ATC clearances are necessary
to enter certain airspace. The OLC team will not check
if a pilot has obtained the necessary clearance to
enter airspace which needs ATC clearance. This is not
within our competences and responsibilities. However,
if we get to know that there has been an obvious violation
of airspace then we reserve the right to carry out
special actions against that pilot and his participation
in the OLC. Of course every pilot is allowed to contact
other pilots in case of a potential airspace violation.

What rules are they changing? Is busting FAR's okay
if they do not specify not to? Will your insurance
pay a claim if you get hit at FL200 or flying after
sunset? If we as a group knowingly allow cheating
to occur, are we liable as well? If pilots want to
fly illegally, they don't need to post logs for the
rest of us to see.

I wish pilots flew in accordance to the *privilege*
of the license...then this discussion would be moot.
Calling enforcement an issue is a weak argument.




At 01:06 07 September 2006, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>Doug,
>
>May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC
>rules mid-season. (2) If
>you insist on checking all traces for certain violations,
>do it at the time
>of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that
>do not pass, there and
>then.
>

[[email protected]]

Are you saying that 2/3 of the pilots you know are afraid to post
flights because they regularly bust FARs? Please tell me where you
fly?

At my home field, probably 3/4 of the pilots post their flights,
including the very best pilots.




Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Doug,
>
> May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC rules mid-season. (2) If
> you insist on checking all traces for certain violations, do it at the time
> of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that do not pass, there and
> then.
>
> Going back through the season and arbitrarily hand-picking "bad" flights
> seems like huge waste of time -- yours and everybody else's.
>
> More generally, I can't help but notice that OLC has become a much worse
> place since SSA got involved. It started with a huge ugly STATIONARY banner
> on top of SSA-OLC page that serves no good purpose but to generate
> advertisement income for SSA at the expense of users' screen space. I
> checked other national OLCs, and the ONLY three out of 29 that do this
> tasteless disservice to their users are AT, FR and US.
>
> Now this policing of the traces. OLC used to be an extremely valuable tool
> for sharing and learning. I used to rave about it and promote it to all my
> soaring friends. Still, I estimate that only about one-third of the pilots I
> know post their flights. Which is a pity, because those who do NOT post tend
> to be the more experienced and wiser pilots. See any connection?
>
> You can count the "stages" in the "process", but I do not see how you can
> count on the last one being acceptance. Many did not accept OLC to begin
> with and still fewer will if the current trends with SSA-OLC continue. The
> rate of participation will be further diminishing, as will be the value of
> the OLC to the rest of us. Pity.
>
> Once again, U.S.A. shows the way.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Yuliy Gerchikov
>
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > This is cross posted from the SSA Home > News & Information > General
> > News:
> >
> > As the days get shorter as the end of the soaring season nears, the
> > SSA-OLC Committee has been receiving complaints about flights after
> > sunset without required aircraft lighting. Although the requirements
> > for night flight begin at twilight for pilots in the US, the
> > requirements for aircraft lighting begin at sunset. Gliders without
> > approved lighting must land, and move clear of lighted runways and
> > taxiways before sunset.
> >
> > IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> > standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> > quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was concerned about
> > flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport if they were
> > posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board adopted a policy
> > disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as FAI awards such as
> > badges and records. See:
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
> >
> > The SSA-OLC Committee prefers that pilots voluntarily remove the
> > flights, rather than having them removed by an admin. We have contacted
> > a number of pilots to request this, and they are currently in various
> > stages of the 5-step grieving process (denial, anger, bargaining,
> > depression, and acceptance). You can avoid this emotional roller
> > coaster by planning and executing your flights to be complete before
> > sunset, unless you have approved night lighting.
> >
> > You can't just duct tape a flashlight to the nose for night flight. The
> > requirements for navigation lights are very specific to color,
> > intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
> > night lighting, and it was used for flight after sunset, you must put a
> > note in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining this.
> >
> > We also have been advised of flight claims that show altitudes in the
> > log well above the 18,000' MSL limit for Class-A airspace in the US.
> > The IGC logger altitude is subject to a number of errors, which could
> > total to several hundred feet. We are currently reviewing with the
> > pilots a number of flights that appear to exceed even a reasonable
> > error budget.
> >
> > Note that unless your flight reference altimeter has been properly
> > calibrated for IFR flight, and is set to a current ATC altimeter
> > setting, you will need to allow an extra buffer below 18,000' MSL
> > indicated altitude to account for possible errors. If you have an
> > encounter with an IFR aircraft with calibrated altitude references, the
> > calibrated references and ATC logs will be used to determine your
> > actual altitude in any subsequent investigation.
> >
> > Again, if your flight log shows flight above 18,000 MSL, after
> > correcting for field elevation at takeoff, you will need to provide an
> > explanation in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining
> > this. The same requirement applies to entering special use airspace.
> > This will immediately answer any questions that may concern other
> > competitors, or anyone else reviewing your flight log in the future.
> >
> > Finally, if you note a flight that appears to be questionable, do not
> > speculate in public forums (like news://rec.avation.soaring). Contact
> > the pilot privately if you can. If the flight is in the US, contact the
> > SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org. Or use the complaint
> > tab on the OLC Web header to initiate a partner check.
> >
> > Doug Haluza
> > SSA-OLC Admin

[Eric Greenwell]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

> More generally, I can't help but notice that OLC has become a much worse
> place since SSA got involved. It started with a huge ugly STATIONARY banner
> on top of SSA-OLC page that serves no good purpose but to generate
> advertisement income for SSA at the expense of users' screen space.

Maybe it depends on your screen size: I didn't even notice it was
stationary and I don't think it's ugly. No problem here (19" monitor).

>
> Now this policing of the traces. OLC used to be an extremely valuable tool
> for sharing and learning. I used to rave about it and promote it to all my
> soaring friends. Still, I estimate that only about one-third of the pilots I
> know post their flights. Which is a pity, because those who do NOT post tend
> to be the more experienced and wiser pilots. See any connection?

No, I don't. This SSA "policing problem" you mention didn't exist until
recently, so that couldn't be the reason those pilots didn't post. And,
it doesn't seem to be the case in Region 8 (experienced and wiser pilots
not posting): our most prolific posters are also our most experienced
pilots, though a few good pilots don't post their flights.

> You can count the "stages" in the "process", but I do not see how you can
> count on the last one being acceptance. Many did not accept OLC to begin
> with and still fewer will if the current trends with SSA-OLC continue. The
> rate of participation will be further diminishing, as will be the value of
> the OLC to the rest of us. Pity.

If the people posting flights that appear to have illegal operations in
them decide to stop posting to the OLC, is that bad? Most of the flights
posted don't exceed 18,000', don't enter restricted airspace, and don't
fly after sunset, so maybe these restrictions won't deter most pilots.

Personally, I find participating in the OLC makes me a little more
cautious close to 18,000', a little more diligent near restricted
airspace, and bit more conservative when I get low. And that's not a bad
thing.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Ramy]

Good points, Yuliy.
To avoid the SSA frame, you can use the following url:
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/2006/ausw_wertung.php?ein_kl=keine&olc=olc-usa&spr=en
May I add that a better use of the SSA banner would have been to
provide a Rules link which clearly state the rules, instead of hiding
it under "About" which most people never care to check. Instead, the
only "rules" link available is the international one which says nothing
about these sunset limitations, which many pilots were not aware of.
Also, the content of the rules section hidden under the "About" link
keep changing during the season, and worse, are reinforced
retroactively.

Ramy

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Doug,
>
> May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC rules mid-season. (2) If
> you insist on checking all traces for certain violations, do it at the time
> of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that do not pass, there and
> then.
>
> Going back through the season and arbitrarily hand-picking "bad" flights
> seems like huge waste of time -- yours and everybody else's.
>
> More generally, I can't help but notice that OLC has become a much worse
> place since SSA got involved. It started with a huge ugly STATIONARY banner
> on top of SSA-OLC page that serves no good purpose but to generate
> advertisement income for SSA at the expense of users' screen space. I
> checked other national OLCs, and the ONLY three out of 29 that do this
> tasteless disservice to their users are AT, FR and US.
>
> Now this policing of the traces. OLC used to be an extremely valuable tool
> for sharing and learning. I used to rave about it and promote it to all my
> soaring friends. Still, I estimate that only about one-third of the pilots I
> know post their flights. Which is a pity, because those who do NOT post tend
> to be the more experienced and wiser pilots. See any connection?
>
> You can count the "stages" in the "process", but I do not see how you can
> count on the last one being acceptance. Many did not accept OLC to begin
> with and still fewer will if the current trends with SSA-OLC continue. The
> rate of participation will be further diminishing, as will be the value of
> the OLC to the rest of us. Pity.
>
> Once again, U.S.A. shows the way.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Yuliy Gerchikov
>
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > This is cross posted from the SSA Home > News & Information > General
> > News:
> >
> > As the days get shorter as the end of the soaring season nears, the
> > SSA-OLC Committee has been receiving complaints about flights after
> > sunset without required aircraft lighting. Although the requirements
> > for night flight begin at twilight for pilots in the US, the
> > requirements for aircraft lighting begin at sunset. Gliders without
> > approved lighting must land, and move clear of lighted runways and
> > taxiways before sunset.
> >
> > IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> > standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> > quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was concerned about
> > flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport if they were
> > posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board adopted a policy
> > disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as FAI awards such as
> > badges and records. See:
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
> >
> > The SSA-OLC Committee prefers that pilots voluntarily remove the
> > flights, rather than having them removed by an admin. We have contacted
> > a number of pilots to request this, and they are currently in various
> > stages of the 5-step grieving process (denial, anger, bargaining,
> > depression, and acceptance). You can avoid this emotional roller
> > coaster by planning and executing your flights to be complete before
> > sunset, unless you have approved night lighting.
> >
> > You can't just duct tape a flashlight to the nose for night flight. The
> > requirements for navigation lights are very specific to color,
> > intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
> > night lighting, and it was used for flight after sunset, you must put a
> > note in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining this.
> >
> > We also have been advised of flight claims that show altitudes in the
> > log well above the 18,000' MSL limit for Class-A airspace in the US.
> > The IGC logger altitude is subject to a number of errors, which could
> > total to several hundred feet. We are currently reviewing with the
> > pilots a number of flights that appear to exceed even a reasonable
> > error budget.
> >
> > Note that unless your flight reference altimeter has been properly
> > calibrated for IFR flight, and is set to a current ATC altimeter
> > setting, you will need to allow an extra buffer below 18,000' MSL
> > indicated altitude to account for possible errors. If you have an
> > encounter with an IFR aircraft with calibrated altitude references, the
> > calibrated references and ATC logs will be used to determine your
> > actual altitude in any subsequent investigation.
> >
> > Again, if your flight log shows flight above 18,000 MSL, after
> > correcting for field elevation at takeoff, you will need to provide an
> > explanation in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining
> > this. The same requirement applies to entering special use airspace.
> > This will immediately answer any questions that may concern other
> > competitors, or anyone else reviewing your flight log in the future.
> >
> > Finally, if you note a flight that appears to be questionable, do not
> > speculate in public forums (like news://rec.avation.soaring). Contact
> > the pilot privately if you can. If the flight is in the US, contact the
> > SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org. Or use the complaint
> > tab on the OLC Web header to initiate a partner check.
> >
> > Doug Haluza
> > SSA-OLC Admin

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Stewart,

You missed the point. Enforcement is not the issue here -- consistency is.

If you insist on enforcing certain rules, then (a) state them clearly, and
(b) enforce them all the time and not just on a whim. Checking flights at
the time of claim and rejecting those in violation might be OK. Going back
and pulling flights retroactively is not OK. Going back and pulling flights
*selectively* -- some but not the others with similar "violations" -- is
....I am gasping for words here, and "disgusting" is the RC1 so far. I don't
want to even get close to the question how, when and why they decide to pull
any given flight and not the next one -- I am afraid that would undermine
the last of my respect for humanity :) .
--
Yuliy


"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> 12. Airspace Violations
> The OLC organizers have to assume that the participants
> in the contest will not violate restricted airspace
> during their flights. ATC clearances are necessary
> to enter certain airspace. The OLC team will not check
> if a pilot has obtained the necessary clearance to
> enter airspace which needs ATC clearance. This is not
> within our competences and responsibilities. However,
> if we get to know that there has been an obvious violation
> of airspace then we reserve the right to carry out
> special actions against that pilot and his participation
> in the OLC. Of course every pilot is allowed to contact
> other pilots in case of a potential airspace violation.
>
> What rules are they changing? Is busting FAR's okay
> if they do not specify not to? Will your insurance
> pay a claim if you get hit at FL200 or flying after
> sunset? If we as a group knowingly allow cheating
> to occur, are we liable as well? If pilots want to
> fly illegally, they don't need to post logs for the
> rest of us to see.
>
> I wish pilots flew in accordance to the *privilege*
> of the license...then this discussion would be moot.
> Calling enforcement an issue is a weak argument.
>
>
>
>
> At 01:06 07 September 2006, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>>Doug,
>>
>>May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC
>>rules mid-season. (2) If
>>you insist on checking all traces for certain violations,
>>do it at the time
>>of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that
>>do not pass, there and
>>then.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Eric,

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:PdLLg.10359$YZ3.6807@trnddc03...
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>
>> those who do NOT post tend to be the more experienced and wiser pilots.
>> See any connection?
>
> No, I don't. This SSA "policing problem" you mention didn't exist until
> recently, so that couldn't be the reason those pilots didn't post.

Wise pilots see the problems that exist, wiser pilots see the problems that
are coming.

> Most of the flights posted don't exceed 18,000', don't enter restricted
> airspace, and don't fly after sunset, so maybe these restrictions won't
> deter most pilots.

See, here is an example of the problem that is coming. Yesterday it was
18,000. Today it is flying after sunset. What's tomorrow? How do we know if
tomorrow somebody won't start arbitrarily pulling some flights from OLC for
low passes or for ridge soaring, citing FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c)? What's
next? Cloud clearance? Non-standard landing patterns?...

Some people just feel that they don't need to subject themselves to this
level of scrutiny -- and in today's world with today's attitudes I don't
blame them.
--
Yuliy

[[email protected]]

If only the SSA devoted a fraction of the effort they spend monitoring
their members, to monitoring their financial officers...


Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> You missed the point. Enforcement is not the issue here -- consistency is.
>
> If you insist on enforcing certain rules, then (a) state them clearly, and
> (b) enforce them all the time and not just on a whim. Checking flights at
> the time of claim and rejecting those in violation might be OK. Going back
> and pulling flights retroactively is not OK. Going back and pulling flights
> *selectively* -- some but not the others with similar "violations" -- is
> ...I am gasping for words here, and "disgusting" is the RC1 so far. I don't
> want to even get close to the question how, when and why they decide to pull
> any given flight and not the next one -- I am afraid that would undermine
> the last of my respect for humanity :) .
> --
> Yuliy
>
>
> "Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
> message ...
> > 12. Airspace Violations
> > The OLC organizers have to assume that the participants
> > in the contest will not violate restricted airspace
> > during their flights. ATC clearances are necessary
> > to enter certain airspace. The OLC team will not check
> > if a pilot has obtained the necessary clearance to
> > enter airspace which needs ATC clearance. This is not
> > within our competences and responsibilities. However,
> > if we get to know that there has been an obvious violation
> > of airspace then we reserve the right to carry out
> > special actions against that pilot and his participation
> > in the OLC. Of course every pilot is allowed to contact
> > other pilots in case of a potential airspace violation.
> >
> > What rules are they changing? Is busting FAR's okay
> > if they do not specify not to? Will your insurance
> > pay a claim if you get hit at FL200 or flying after
> > sunset? If we as a group knowingly allow cheating
> > to occur, are we liable as well? If pilots want to
> > fly illegally, they don't need to post logs for the
> > rest of us to see.
> >
> > I wish pilots flew in accordance to the *privilege*
> > of the license...then this discussion would be moot.
> > Calling enforcement an issue is a weak argument.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 01:06 07 September 2006, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> >>Doug,
> >>
> >>May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC
> >>rules mid-season. (2) If
> >>you insist on checking all traces for certain violations,
> >>do it at the time
> >>of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that
> >>do not pass, there and
> >>then.

[Doug Haluza]

Yuily, you need to move past the bargaining phase of the grieving
process, and accept that you must remove these flights from the OLC
because they make us look bad as a group. You could petition the SSA
Board to change the FAR policy, but you are not likely to get a warm
response. In fact, given the present situation, you are not likely to
get any response for some time.

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember. The SSA did not make this rule,
they just decided not to ignore it. It is unfortunate that the SSA FAR
policy statement is not dated, but I received a copy of it on January
20, 2006 when I was researching my presentation for the Knauff & Grove
March Soaring Seminar in State College, PA. It is also covered in the
presentation slides which were posted to the OLC site on April 1. See:

http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/olc-i.php?olc=olc-i&spr=en

It is unfortunate that you did not see this information. But most
reasonable people find it intuitively obvious that you cannot get
credit for breaking the rules. And some of them have been complaining
about this as well. Is it reasonable to allow ignorace to become an
unfair advantage?


Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Doug,
>
> May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC rules mid-season. (2) If
> you insist on checking all traces for certain violations, do it at the time
> of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that do not pass, there and
> then.
>
> Going back through the season and arbitrarily hand-picking "bad" flights
> seems like huge waste of time -- yours and everybody else's.
>
> More generally, I can't help but notice that OLC has become a much worse
> place since SSA got involved. It started with a huge ugly STATIONARY banner
> on top of SSA-OLC page that serves no good purpose but to generate
> advertisement income for SSA at the expense of users' screen space. I
> checked other national OLCs, and the ONLY three out of 29 that do this
> tasteless disservice to their users are AT, FR and US.
>
> Now this policing of the traces. OLC used to be an extremely valuable tool
> for sharing and learning. I used to rave about it and promote it to all my
> soaring friends. Still, I estimate that only about one-third of the pilots I
> know post their flights. Which is a pity, because those who do NOT post tend
> to be the more experienced and wiser pilots. See any connection?
>
> You can count the "stages" in the "process", but I do not see how you can
> count on the last one being acceptance. Many did not accept OLC to begin
> with and still fewer will if the current trends with SSA-OLC continue. The
> rate of participation will be further diminishing, as will be the value of
> the OLC to the rest of us. Pity.
>
> Once again, U.S.A. shows the way.
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Yuliy Gerchikov
>
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > This is cross posted from the SSA Home > News & Information > General
> > News:
> >
> > As the days get shorter as the end of the soaring season nears, the
> > SSA-OLC Committee has been receiving complaints about flights after
> > sunset without required aircraft lighting. Although the requirements
> > for night flight begin at twilight for pilots in the US, the
> > requirements for aircraft lighting begin at sunset. Gliders without
> > approved lighting must land, and move clear of lighted runways and
> > taxiways before sunset.
> >
> > IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> > standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> > quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was concerned about
> > flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport if they were
> > posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board adopted a policy
> > disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as FAI awards such as
> > badges and records. See:
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
> >
> > The SSA-OLC Committee prefers that pilots voluntarily remove the
> > flights, rather than having them removed by an admin. We have contacted
> > a number of pilots to request this, and they are currently in various
> > stages of the 5-step grieving process (denial, anger, bargaining,
> > depression, and acceptance). You can avoid this emotional roller
> > coaster by planning and executing your flights to be complete before
> > sunset, unless you have approved night lighting.
> >
> > You can't just duct tape a flashlight to the nose for night flight. The
> > requirements for navigation lights are very specific to color,
> > intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
> > night lighting, and it was used for flight after sunset, you must put a
> > note in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining this.
> >
> > We also have been advised of flight claims that show altitudes in the
> > log well above the 18,000' MSL limit for Class-A airspace in the US.
> > The IGC logger altitude is subject to a number of errors, which could
> > total to several hundred feet. We are currently reviewing with the
> > pilots a number of flights that appear to exceed even a reasonable
> > error budget.
> >
> > Note that unless your flight reference altimeter has been properly
> > calibrated for IFR flight, and is set to a current ATC altimeter
> > setting, you will need to allow an extra buffer below 18,000' MSL
> > indicated altitude to account for possible errors. If you have an
> > encounter with an IFR aircraft with calibrated altitude references, the
> > calibrated references and ATC logs will be used to determine your
> > actual altitude in any subsequent investigation.
> >
> > Again, if your flight log shows flight above 18,000 MSL, after
> > correcting for field elevation at takeoff, you will need to provide an
> > explanation in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining
> > this. The same requirement applies to entering special use airspace.
> > This will immediately answer any questions that may concern other
> > competitors, or anyone else reviewing your flight log in the future.
> >
> > Finally, if you note a flight that appears to be questionable, do not
> > speculate in public forums (like news://rec.avation.soaring). Contact
> > the pilot privately if you can. If the flight is in the US, contact the
> > SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org. Or use the complaint
> > tab on the OLC Web header to initiate a partner check.
> >
> > Doug Haluza
> > SSA-OLC Admin

[Ramy]

Doug, the sunset rule may have been on the books, but not on olc rules
until recently.
You decided to enforce it retroactively, which is unfair to say the
least. I guess this is one way to win a contest, when someone is
catching up - remove their flights...
simple fact is that OLC was great until SSA took over. It is simply a
shame the way it has been administered. You managed to upset your most
loyal promoters and contestants.
I propose a new rule for next season, each olc participants must be
checked for drugs after each flight.

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Yuily, you need to move past the bargaining phase of the grieving
> process, and accept that you must remove these flights from the OLC
> because they make us look bad as a group. You could petition the SSA
> Board to change the FAR policy, but you are not likely to get a warm
> response. In fact, given the present situation, you are not likely to
> get any response for some time.
>
> As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
> longer than almost anyone can remember. The SSA did not make this rule,
> they just decided not to ignore it. It is unfortunate that the SSA FAR
> policy statement is not dated, but I received a copy of it on January
> 20, 2006 when I was researching my presentation for the Knauff & Grove
> March Soaring Seminar in State College, PA. It is also covered in the
> presentation slides which were posted to the OLC site on April 1. See:
>
> http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/olc-i.php?olc=olc-i&spr=en
>
> It is unfortunate that you did not see this information. But most
> reasonable people find it intuitively obvious that you cannot get
> credit for breaking the rules. And some of them have been complaining
> about this as well. Is it reasonable to allow ignorace to become an
> unfair advantage?
>
>
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > Doug,
> >
> > May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC rules mid-season. (2) If
> > you insist on checking all traces for certain violations, do it at the time
> > of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that do not pass, there and
> > then.
> >
> > Going back through the season and arbitrarily hand-picking "bad" flights
> > seems like huge waste of time -- yours and everybody else's.
> >
> > More generally, I can't help but notice that OLC has become a much worse
> > place since SSA got involved. It started with a huge ugly STATIONARY banner
> > on top of SSA-OLC page that serves no good purpose but to generate
> > advertisement income for SSA at the expense of users' screen space. I
> > checked other national OLCs, and the ONLY three out of 29 that do this
> > tasteless disservice to their users are AT, FR and US.
> >
> > Now this policing of the traces. OLC used to be an extremely valuable tool
> > for sharing and learning. I used to rave about it and promote it to all my
> > soaring friends. Still, I estimate that only about one-third of the pilots I
> > know post their flights. Which is a pity, because those who do NOT post tend
> > to be the more experienced and wiser pilots. See any connection?
> >
> > You can count the "stages" in the "process", but I do not see how you can
> > count on the last one being acceptance. Many did not accept OLC to begin
> > with and still fewer will if the current trends with SSA-OLC continue. The
> > rate of participation will be further diminishing, as will be the value of
> > the OLC to the rest of us. Pity.
> >
> > Once again, U.S.A. shows the way.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > --
> > Yuliy Gerchikov
> >
> >
> > "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > This is cross posted from the SSA Home > News & Information > General
> > > News:
> > >
> > > As the days get shorter as the end of the soaring season nears, the
> > > SSA-OLC Committee has been receiving complaints about flights after
> > > sunset without required aircraft lighting. Although the requirements
> > > for night flight begin at twilight for pilots in the US, the
> > > requirements for aircraft lighting begin at sunset. Gliders without
> > > approved lighting must land, and move clear of lighted runways and
> > > taxiways before sunset.
> > >
> > > IGC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> > > standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> > > quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was concerned about
> > > flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport if they were
> > > posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board adopted a policy
> > > disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as FAI awards such as
> > > badges and records. See:
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
> > >
> > > The SSA-OLC Committee prefers that pilots voluntarily remove the
> > > flights, rather than having them removed by an admin. We have contacted
> > > a number of pilots to request this, and they are currently in various
> > > stages of the 5-step grieving process (denial, anger, bargaining,
> > > depression, and acceptance). You can avoid this emotional roller
> > > coaster by planning and executing your flights to be complete before
> > > sunset, unless you have approved night lighting.
> > >
> > > You can't just duct tape a flashlight to the nose for night flight. The
> > > requirements for navigation lights are very specific to color,
> > > intensity and direction. If your aircraft is equipped with approved
> > > night lighting, and it was used for flight after sunset, you must put a
> > > note in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining this.
> > >
> > > We also have been advised of flight claims that show altitudes in the
> > > log well above the 18,000' MSL limit for Class-A airspace in the US.
> > > The IGC logger altitude is subject to a number of errors, which could
> > > total to several hundred feet. We are currently reviewing with the
> > > pilots a number of flights that appear to exceed even a reasonable
> > > error budget.
> > >
> > > Note that unless your flight reference altimeter has been properly
> > > calibrated for IFR flight, and is set to a current ATC altimeter
> > > setting, you will need to allow an extra buffer below 18,000' MSL
> > > indicated altitude to account for possible errors. If you have an
> > > encounter with an IFR aircraft with calibrated altitude references, the
> > > calibrated references and ATC logs will be used to determine your
> > > actual altitude in any subsequent investigation.
> > >
> > > Again, if your flight log shows flight above 18,000 MSL, after
> > > correcting for field elevation at takeoff, you will need to provide an
> > > explanation in the comments section of the OLC claim form explaining
> > > this. The same requirement applies to entering special use airspace.
> > > This will immediately answer any questions that may concern other
> > > competitors, or anyone else reviewing your flight log in the future.
> > >
> > > Finally, if you note a flight that appears to be questionable, do not
> > > speculate in public forums (like news://rec.avation.soaring). Contact
> > > the pilot privately if you can. If the flight is in the US, contact the
> > > SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org. Or use the complaint
> > > tab on the OLC Web header to initiate a partner check.
> > >
> > > Doug Haluza
> > > SSA-OLC Admin

[5Z]

wrote:
> If only the SSA devoted a fraction of the effort they spend monitoring
> their members, to monitoring their financial officers...

"The SSA" is you, me, and all the other members. The OLC monitoring is
being done by volunteer effort aimed at making the OLC a fair and
balanced competition. This is not a staff position, and very little if
any of our dues go to supporting the OLC effort.

Are you volunteering to monitor our financial officers? If not, then
don't complain that there's nobody to watch them. We pay our dues to
hire a handful of employees to run our organization's most critical
areas. The rest is done by VOLUNTEERS.

Doug has decided to volunteer to manage the US portion of the OLC. He
did not volunteer to monitor the SSA's financial position. That is
being done by others in our organization. If it's not being done well,
then someone with the time and experience needs to step up and do it.
I doubt that such a volunteer would be turned back.

As for the OLC, it's now apparent that many sailplane pilots are not
aware of ALL the regulations they fly under. The OLC is uncovering
this "problem", and the managers are making a reasonable effort to
educate the individuals by asking them to withdraw or explain their
claims.


-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

Looking at the cover of the current Soaring, Eric M. is clearly
operating in violation of CFR 14 Section 45.25. If he's submitted any
flights to OLC this year, does he have to remove them all? 8^)

Marc

[Doug Haluza]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Looking at the cover of the current Soaring, Eric M. is clearly
> operating in violation of CFR 14 Section 45.25. If he's submitted any
> flights to OLC this year, does he have to remove them all? 8^)
>
> Marc

Well, actually you bring up a very good point with this, whether you
meant to or not. This is analgous to the problem we are dealing with in
the OLC. By publishing this photo, on the cover of Soaring no less, it
damages the group by reinforcing incorrect behavior. Not only does it
show non-glider pilots that we don't do the right thing (even when it's
just as easy to do it right), it also shows glider pilots the wrong
thing to do, which they may try to emulate.

Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.

But I would expect that if the pilot showed up at a contest with this,
and someone noted the problem, a reasonable pilot would correct the
problem immediately. I think it would be unreasonable to take the
position that since nobody specificaly told them in advance that they
must display proper N-numbers, that they don't have to fix it until
next year.

[588]

I can't be sure from the cover photo that there is not a set of
numbers placed on the fuselage, perhaps a little above the equator.

What interests me more is the question: has Eric just done a
ribbon-cut pass? There is SOMETHING hanging below the cockpit of his
Discus that looks like a ribbon draped over both sides of the nose.


Jack

---

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Looking at the cover of the current Soaring, Eric M. is clearly
>> operating in violation of CFR 14 Section 45.25. If he's submitted any
>> flights to OLC this year, does he have to remove them all? 8^)
>>
>> Marc
>
> Well, actually you bring up a very good point with this, whether you
> meant to or not. This is analgous to the problem we are dealing with in
> the OLC. By publishing this photo, on the cover of Soaring no less, it
> damages the group by reinforcing incorrect behavior. Not only does it
> show non-glider pilots that we don't do the right thing (even when it's
> just as easy to do it right), it also shows glider pilots the wrong
> thing to do, which they may try to emulate.
>
> Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
> placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
> meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
> log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.
>
> But I would expect that if the pilot showed up at a contest with this,
> and someone noted the problem, a reasonable pilot would correct the
> problem immediately. I think it would be unreasonable to take the
> position that since nobody specificaly told them in advance that they
> must display proper N-numbers, that they don't have to fix it until
> next year.
>

[Marc Ramsey]

588 wrote:
> I can't be sure from the cover photo that there is not a set of numbers
> placed on the fuselage, perhaps a little above the equator.

Yes, that must be it. Funny how you can see the Discus 2 lettering just
fine, though...

> What interests me more is the question: has Eric just done a ribbon-cut
> pass? There is SOMETHING hanging below the cockpit of his Discus that
> looks like a ribbon draped over both sides of the nose.

Might be some sort of secret thermal detection gear...

[Ramy]

I was told by Doug "the Board has directed us to look at Sunset and
Class-A" so it is indeed the board effort to monitor their members olc
flights instead of monitoring their financial officers...

5Z wrote:
> wrote:
> > If only the SSA devoted a fraction of the effort they spend monitoring
> > their members, to monitoring their financial officers...
>
> "The SSA" is you, me, and all the other members. The OLC monitoring is
> being done by volunteer effort aimed at making the OLC a fair and
> balanced competition. This is not a staff position, and very little if
> any of our dues go to supporting the OLC effort.
>
> Are you volunteering to monitor our financial officers? If not, then
> don't complain that there's nobody to watch them. We pay our dues to
> hire a handful of employees to run our organization's most critical
> areas. The rest is done by VOLUNTEERS.
>
> Doug has decided to volunteer to manage the US portion of the OLC. He
> did not volunteer to monitor the SSA's financial position. That is
> being done by others in our organization. If it's not being done well,
> then someone with the time and experience needs to step up and do it.
> I doubt that such a volunteer would be turned back.
>
> As for the OLC, it's now apparent that many sailplane pilots are not
> aware of ALL the regulations they fly under. The OLC is uncovering
> this "problem", and the managers are making a reasonable effort to
> educate the individuals by asking them to withdraw or explain their
> claims.
>
>
> -Tom

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
> longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

> The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

Wow. I agree with Yuliy. Luckily I fly in UK.
I think the SSA is acting beyond its jurisdiction.
I hope you dont touch flights submitted by foreign
visitors.

Surprised you still have members to pay the bills.

Rory

At 11:00 02 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was
>concerned about
>flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport
>if they were
>posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board
>adopted a policy
>disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as
>FAI awards such as
>badges and records. See:
>
>http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.p
>>df
>

[Doug Haluza]

There are several factual inacuracies in this post, as noted below:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
> > longer than almost anyone can remember.
>
> Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
> FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
> worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
> specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
> airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations, if they become aware of it.
I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

> If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
> most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
> http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
> Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
> them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
> scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
> is what has changed since SSA took over.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.
Only two pilots have refused, and taken their position public on r.a.s.


> Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
> OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
> what has changed since SSA took over.
>
> > The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.
>
> Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
> and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

No, the SSA has been checking since the beginning of the year, and
reporting to the SSA ExCom at their request. We did find one flight
early in the season that appeared to land too late in SeeYou, but not
when checked against the USNO, so no action was taken. We did not
become aware of any other cases until recently. No flights have been
"pulled" but flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null" and a note
added in the offiicial comments to avoid duplicate complaints.

> If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
> Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
> pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
> yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
Board.

> The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
> over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
> telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC. The two parties executed a formal Memorandum of
Understanding on July 7, 2005. SSA has not restricted who can post (but
only members will be elligible for awards). SSA has taken the position
that flights above 18,000' without a proper ATC clearance, or flights
after sunset without approved lighting should not be posted because it
could damage the SSA's working relationship with the FAA (and is also
unsporting conduct).

> Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
> rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
> us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
> required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
> ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
> decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
> sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
> us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
> bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
> know -- just look at China.
>
> I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
> the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
> please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
> it to my taste.
> --
> Yuliy

[Martin Eiler]

The vast majority of U.S. OLC competitors make
a conscientious effort to comply with FAR's. They
have every right to expect all competitors to be
sportsmanlike, which means playing by and being
scored by the same rules.

The rest of us have little empathy for the minority
who think they are above the law by going above
18k without a clearance, crossing unauthorized
airspace or landing after sunset without required
lighting. It would probably be a step in the right
direction if the OLC software could be modified to
immediately pick out these irregularities when a
flight is submitted. Then flag the flight until an
acceptable explanation is supplied by the pilot.

Would it surprise anyone to know that in spite of all
this discussion on RAS, just this past weekend one
of these vocal few submitted a flight with a landing
after sunset.

We should be commending the OLC committee for
weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
should be scored for flights that violated regulations.

M Eiler

[Martin Eiler]

The vast majority of U.S. OLC competitors make
a conscientious effort to comply with FAR's. They
have every right to expect all competitors to be
sportsmanlike, which means playing by and being
scored by the same rules.

The rest of us have little empathy for the minority
who think they are above the law by going above
18k without a clearance, crossing unauthorized
airspace or landing after sunset without required
lighting. It would probably be a step in the right
direction if the OLC software could be modified to
immediately pick out these irregularities when a
flight is submitted. Then flag the flight until an
acceptable explanation is supplied by the pilot.

Would it surprise anyone to know that in spite of all
this discussion on RAS, just this past weekend one
of these vocal few submitted a flight with a landing
after sunset.

We should be commending the OLC committee for
weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
should be scored for flights that violated regulations.

M Eiler

[Andy[_1_]]

Martin Eiler wrote:

> We should be commending the OLC committee for
> weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
> should be scored for flights that violated regulations.
>

It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate a 10 hour flight
that landed 1 minute after sunset. To avoid this penalty a pilot may
have to give up soaring an hour early to be sure of getting home in
time, or should he landout a minute from home to save the points.

As has been pointed out landing shortly before sunset on a westerly
runway can be hazardous.

May I suggest that the end of soaring flight be determined by landing,
engine start, airspace violation, or sunset time. Points earned before
end of soaring flight should be scored as usual.

Perhaps the same scrutiny should be applied to sunrise. I hear some
ridge flights start quite early.


Andy

[5Z]

Ramy wrote:
> Doug, the sunset rule may have been on the books, but not on olc rules
> until recently.

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

> You decided to enforce it retroactively, which is unfair to say the
> least. I guess this is one way to win a contest, when someone is
> catching up - remove their flights...

The OLC software developers *could* create various validation schemes,
but have instead chosen to provide a method for peers to submit a
complaint. The SSA put out a statement regarding the FARs sometime
last fall, in Dennis' column in "Soaring" if I recollect correctly.

There have been several statements made through various channels in the
last year about the need for peer review of flying habits. Now,
finally, Doug has found the time to go over claims made this year to
identify some of the more obvious ones.

> simple fact is that OLC was great until SSA took over. It is simply a
> shame the way it has been administered. You managed to upset your most
> loyal promoters and contestants.

What is a shame, is that some participants make what they feel are
"harmless" violations of regulations, then make a record of this
behavior available online.

It is a shame that one pilot will choose to open the spoilers and land
before sunset while another continues to climb in that last evening
thermal, watch the sun set, then glide another 50 miles - and then
claim the distance in a sporting competition.

-Tom

[Ian Cant]

Andy,
I just flew a 7+ hour flight and missed diamond
distance by about 0.3 km or 11 ft height penalty.
My own stupid fault, I don't consider it an 'unreasonable
penalty'.

Agree with the rest of your comments.

But what about motorgliders with lights and big
batteries ? Are they allowed to have longer days than
the rest of us ?

Ian






At 13:54 08 September 2006, Andy wrote:
>It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate
>a 10 hour flight
>that landed 1 minute after sunset. To avoid this penalty
>a pilot may
>have to give up soaring an hour early to be sure of
>getting home in
>time, or should he landout a minute from home to save
>the points.
>
>As has been pointed out landing shortly before sunset
>on a westerly
>runway can be hazardous.
>
>May I suggest that the end of soaring flight be determined
>by landing,
>engine start, airspace violation, or sunset time.
>Points earned before
>end of soaring flight should be scored as usual.
>
>Perhaps the same scrutiny should be applied to sunrise.
> I hear some
>ridge flights start quite early.
>
>
>Andy
>
>

[5Z]

Andy wrote:
> It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate a 10 hour flight
> that landed 1 minute after sunset.

Could you be talking about a flight that ended thirty one minutes after
sunset? This would put it into the FAA definition of NIGHT flying.
That is different than the FAR about aircraft lighting after sunset.

I think we all can agree that there is some slack being provided for
"marginal" violations to the OLC. There's always altimeter error and
occasionally a race with the sun to get on the ground. In a sanctioned
contest, errors such as this are typically punished quite brutally on
the scoresheet.

As I said in another response, it is up to ALL of us to conduct
ourselves in a sportsmanlike fashion. If there is any doubt about the
propriety of posting a flight, then DON'T DO IT.

In the western US it's very easy to get involved in a 10+ knot climb
and suddenl realize that the altimeter has already passed 17,500'
indicated. Sometimes, by the time one rolls out and presses on, it
comes darned close to 18K. Then at the end of the day, detailed
analysis with data from a nearby ground station slows you have busted
18K by 100'. I rationalize this on the OLC as a reasonable "glitch".
But if I see a trace - mine or someone else's - that indicates still
circling at 18K, I'll call it into question.

Landing one minute after official sunset, especially if there's some
evidence in the log of trying to get it on the ground is anothercase
that I would probably not challenge.

The whole point of what Doug is doing is not to remove the flights
himself. He is asking the offender to do this, or to add a comment
explaining the discrepancy. We should ALL follow his example,
especially to our immediate fellow pilots. It may mean a worse club
score, but is just the proper way to conduct a sporting event. We
don't want to get into the mess of the Olympics or Tour de France with
their various doping and possible cheating scandals.

-Tom

[Papa3]

Andy wrote:
> Martin Eiler wrote:
>
> > We should be commending the OLC committee for
> > weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
> > should be scored for flights that violated regulations.
> >
>
> It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate a 10 hour flight
> that landed 1 minute after sunset. To avoid this penalty a pilot may
> have to give up soaring an hour early to be sure of getting home in
> time, or should he landout a minute from home to save the points.
>

>
> Andy

So, by that logic Andy, a really spectacular flight that violates an
FAR gets some additional leeway over a not-so-impressive flight?

There was a great article in Soaring maybe a year ago by Brian Collins
about a 1000K flight. One of the key elements of his flight planning
involved getting back on the ground before sunset. Clearly, he could
have gone on to rack up at least another 100K or 200K by ignoring the
FARs, but he chose to make the FARs a key part of his decision making.
So, to answer your question, "Yes, a pilot should give up soaring
early to be sure of getting home in time." Does that have to be
"an hour early"? No. If you fly it the same way you would typically
fly a MAT (i.e. leave a few close in turnpoints for the end of the
day), there's no reason to give up that much of the flyable day.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3

[Andy[_1_]]

5Z wrote:

> Could you be talking about a flight that ended thirty one minutes after
> sunset? This would put it into the FAA definition of NIGHT flying.
> That is different than the FAR about aircraft lighting after sunset.

No, I meant 1 minute after sunset, a violation of 91.207 a) 1


Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

Papa3 wrote:
>
> So, by that logic Andy, a really spectacular flight that violates an
> FAR gets some additional leeway over a not-so-impressive flight?

No that's not what I proposed. If scored soaring flight ends at sunset
the rule is no different for a flight with a sunrise launch than one
that starts 10 minutes before sunset.

Andy

[Ramy]

5Z wrote:
>
> Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
> proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
> stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
> Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.
>
So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

[hans]

Martin Eiler schrieb:
>
> lighting. It would probably be a step in the right
> direction if the OLC software could be modified to
> immediately pick out these irregularities when a
> flight is submitted. Then flag the flight until an
> acceptable explanation is supplied by the pilot.

This function for airspace warnings was implemented by me some years
ago, but the owner of the OLC has decided to deactivate this feature. To
my knowledge this feature is only activated for the German Decentralized
Competition run by the Segelflugszene Ltd. for the German Aeroclub.

[Mike the Strike]

The majority of cross-country pilots violate flight rules to a greater
or lesser extent. The majority of these violations are:

1) Flying too close to terrain or people - common in many ridge flights
out east

2) Flying too close to clouds - common everywhere.

I wonder how long it will be before ridge fliers' igc files are
scrutinized for their proximity to terrain and they are asked for an
explanation?

....and thank goodness clouds don't appear on our igc files - we'd all
be screwed!

Mike

[588]

Ramy wrote:

> So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
> the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
> proof there as well.

What about it? Do you suggest we dedicate our resources to policing
that? It surely would not be nearly so simple to avoid, nor to
monitor, as a time or altitude bust.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.


Jack

[Ramy]

588 wrote:
>
> Sounds like sour grapes to me.
>
>
> Jack

Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my point.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

Well, the ridge-runners will just have to say they were on a 1000 km
long landing pattern.

[588]

Ramy wrote:

[re 91.119 (c) application to ridge flying altitudes]

> Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my point.


You truly see no difference, or are you just being troublesome in
order to entertain yourself on a non-flying afternoon?

I applaud the efforts of SSA-OLC to apply time and altitude FAR's to
the posted flight results in order to keep the playing field level,
and to support a continuing respect for the legalities. There are
limits to what is practical, however. Potentially dooming one whole
aspect of the sport out of spite generated by annoyance that the
simplest rules are being equally applied is incomprehensible.


Jack

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
> against the pilot for airspace violations

Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA seems
to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

>, if they become aware of it.

Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it upon
itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very selective
and retroactive way.

> I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
> to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
> sanction.

Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
sanctioning, I call it policing.

> The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
> the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
> pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.

Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right thing
to do.

> flights that have received formal complaints that appear
> to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"

Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been checking
since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints" came
straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction" (your
word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints", so
that we don't have to speculate?

>> If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
>> Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
>> pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
>> yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?
>
> Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
> Board.

Excuse my improper ways, please. In fact, obviously, I was not trying to but
any new business before the Board -- indeed, I would like to think that the
Board has enough business before it at the moment. Quite the opposite, I was
pointing out the fact that the Board has put too much business before itself
trying to pick and choose which FARs to enforce, which *not* to enforce, and
when.

> SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
> renamed the SSA-OLC.

I don't blame them -- it takes money to run the OLC. However, I happen to
think that inviting the SSA, if they indeed did so, might have been a
mistake on their part.
--
Yuliy

[Ramy]

588 wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
>
> [re 91.119 (c) application to ridge flying altitudes]
>
> > Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my point.
>
>
> You truly see no difference, or are you just being troublesome in
> order to entertain yourself on a non-flying afternoon?
>

No, I am just pointing out hypocrisy.

[Mike the Strike]

Precisely. if you're going to act as a policeman, you can't
selectively choose which rules you're going to enforce and which you're
going to ignore.

Either enforce all equally or none.


Mike



Ramy wrote:
> 588 wrote:
> > Ramy wrote:
> >
> > [re 91.119 (c) application to ridge flying altitudes]
> >
> > > Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my point.
> >
> >
> > You truly see no difference, or are you just being troublesome in
> > order to entertain yourself on a non-flying afternoon?
> >
>
> No, I am just pointing out hypocrisy.

[hans]

Mike the Strike schrieb:
>
> I wonder how long it will be before ridge fliers' igc files are
> scrutinized for their proximity to terrain and they are asked for an
> explanation?
>
You can see from the barograms displayed for every flight, that the
software for this is already implemented.

But aren't you allowed to fly closer to the ground than 500 ft if it is
required for operational reasons.

[Greg Arnold]

hans wrote:
> Mike the Strike schrieb:
>>
>> I wonder how long it will be before ridge fliers' igc files are
>> scrutinized for their proximity to terrain and they are asked for an
>> explanation?
>>
> You can see from the barograms displayed for every flight, that the
> software for this is already implemented.
>
> But aren't you allowed to fly closer to the ground than 500 ft if it is
> required for operational reasons.

I thought you could fly closer than 500' as long as you aren't within
500 feet of people or structures.

[Doug Haluza]

Excellent point. Brian's article actually appeared in the February 2006
issue of Soaring. It describes a long ridge flight last fall. All
througout the description of his filght planning and execution he is
working backwards from a finish before sunset.

Papa3 wrote:
<snip>
> There was a great article in Soaring maybe a year ago by Brian Collins
> about a 1000K flight. One of the key elements of his flight planning
> involved getting back on the ground before sunset. Clearly, he could
> have gone on to rack up at least another 100K or 200K by ignoring the
> FARs, but he chose to make the FARs a key part of his decision making.
> So, to answer your question, "Yes, a pilot should give up soaring
> early to be sure of getting home in time." Does that have to be
> "an hour early"? No. If you fly it the same way you would typically
> fly a MAT (i.e. leave a few close in turnpoints for the end of the
> day), there's no reason to give up that much of the flyable day.
>
> Erik Mann
> LS8-18 P3

[Doug Haluza]

This nonsense is getting quite tedious and is complely
counterproductive. It does us no good to be airing our dirty laundry in
public. I have tried to make the case for keeping these things private,
but some people just don't get it.

But since the genie is out of the bottle, let me try once more to
correct the record:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
> > Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
> > against the pilot for airspace violations
>
> Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA seems
> to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

There are no whimsical turns here. The SSA Board was concerned about
obvious violations in flight logs posted to OLC when they were in the
negotiation process with the OLC organizers. The Board adopted a policy
which has been in effect since last year.

If you joined this thread late, here is the link again:

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf

> >, if they become aware of it.
>
> Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it upon
> itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very selective
> and retroactive way.

Actually we were made aware of the current cases after someone posted a
complaint to r.a.s. After I replied to the post asking people to make
these complaints in private, it must have released some pent-up demand,
since we suddenly received a number of complaints in a short time.

> > I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
> > to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
> > sanction.
>
> Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
> sanctioning, I call it policing.

The OLC Team is relying on the National OLC organizations to handle the
burden of coordinating the activities of the OLC in each host country.
They would probably call it delegation.

> > The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
> > the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
> > pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.
>
> Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right thing
> to do.

We should not have to tell people what is right, and we certainly
should not have to tell them more than once.

> > flights that have received formal complaints that appear
> > to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"
>
> Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been checking
> since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
> request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints" came
> straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction" (your
> word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints", so
> that we don't have to speculate?

The Board asked for a report, and we did check and report earlier in
the year. Then we got busy doing other more productive things like
actually helping people. Perhaps we naively believed that the word had
gotten out, because we stopped checking until the complaint appeared on
r.a.s. Then we were not the only ones checking. No, we will not publish
the formal complaints for reasons that should be obvious. The
complaints were not solicited, other than through the r.a.s posting
asking that they be made in private.

<snip>

And let me ask once more for people to use proper discretion and
decorum in public--r.a.s is not a private forum for glider pilots, it's
a publicly searchable database. You need to think about the
consequences of what you post.

[[email protected]]

500' from people or structures if you are over water or "sparsely
populated" areas. I would think most places we fly would qualify as
sparsely populated.

Of course, and enterprising FAR nazi could go to Google Earth and find
coordinates of structures along high traffic ridge soaring areas...


Greg Arnold wrote:
> hans wrote:
> > Mike the Strike schrieb:
> >>
> >> I wonder how long it will be before ridge fliers' igc files are
> >> scrutinized for their proximity to terrain and they are asked for an
> >> explanation?
> >>
> > You can see from the barograms displayed for every flight, that the
> > software for this is already implemented.
> >
> > But aren't you allowed to fly closer to the ground than 500 ft if it is
> > required for operational reasons.
>
> I thought you could fly closer than 500' as long as you aren't within
> 500 feet of people or structures.

[588]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Precisely. if you're going to act as a policeman, you can't
> selectively choose which rules you're going to enforce and which you're
> going to ignore.
>
> Either enforce all equally or none.

I'd like to hear from a few actual policemen on that subject,
informally of course. I'm pretty sure you are wrong on that score. The
oath aside, one of the first things learned on the job is precisely
that you have to choose your battles, so to speak. And if that lesson
doesn't come from the street, it comes from the system.


Jack

[[email protected]]

Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's ;)

Al

Ramy wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> >
> > Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
> > proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
> > stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
> > Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.
> >
> So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
> the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
> proof there as well.

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:
> I was told by Doug "the Board has directed us to look at Sunset and
> Class-A" so it is indeed the board effort to monitor their members olc
> flights instead of monitoring their financial officers...

come on, Ramy, it's not a like a platoon of auditors was pulled away
from watching the CFO and redirected to the OLC! One guy, who wasn't
watching the CFO to begin with, was directed to look at potential OLC
violations. The directors must attend to many things on their way to
promoting and fostering soaring.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy wrote:
> Papa3 wrote:
>> So, by that logic Andy, a really spectacular flight that violates an
>> FAR gets some additional leeway over a not-so-impressive flight?
>
> No that's not what I proposed. If scored soaring flight ends at sunset
> the rule is no different for a flight with a sunrise launch than one
> that starts 10 minutes before sunset.

Checking for that would make a lot of sense. The pilots I know
attempting records and long flights in wave make very sure they take off
after sunrise, so I'm sure they would approve.


--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Quebec Tango]

I am troubled by two lines of reasoning that appear persistently both
in this thread and in private emails I have been copied on related to
OLC flights. They are troubling to me because they reflect a cultural
value that simply invites increased regulation, enforcement actions and
restrictions from our federal authorities.

The first goes like: "Since the OLC doesn't explicitly say flights must
comply with the FARs then the flights don't need to"

The second goes like: "Since specific violations of a rule were not
enforced correctly in the past then the rule no longer is enforceable."

Sadly, this errant reasoning has also appeared in my work at scoring
national competitions.

So since the absurdness (and counterproductiive impact) of these
positions is apparantly NOT evident on its face to all - here is my
rant.

1. There are some things in life which "just don't need to be said"
because they are so obvious. There is simply no advantage to our sport
(and indeed there are clear disadvantages) for our sporting authorities
to sanction or even appear to be agnostic to violations of the FARs.
Period.

2. It negatively impacts our sport when individuals publicly document
that they operate in violation of the FARs (or give the appearance of
being outside the FARs without explanation). If participants could be
relied on to self enforce and to not submit flights with clear
violations (and preemptively provide explanations for anything that
could be called into question) it would not be necessary for the
sporting authorities to intervene. Of course an occasional inadvertent
error will occur; and in that situation, when it is pointed out
privately to the individual - good sportsmansihp dictates that the
flight be voluntarily withdrawn immediately until adjudicated.

3. It negatively impacts our sport when these same individuals argue
publically that FAR violations should not be disqualifying for sporting
achievements.(Free speech is not without costs).

4. This OLC is great fun, a great competition and an incredibly
valuable learning tool. The last thing we should do (as individuals or
organizationally) is behave in ways that call attention to us as a
"target rich enforcement opportunity" to the federalies. Further, we
should actively work to be publically seen as self-enforcing, which
will work to avoid outside enforcement attention.

I share the disappointment of the pilots whose otherwise very
spectacular flights don't clear the bar - been there and had to forefit
the t-shirt. On the other hand it's not like what is at stake is a
costarring position under Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct 3." ;)

So while it may be quite safe on the golf course to shake your 1 iron
in the air to protest a passing thunderstorm (since "even God can't hit
a 1 iron") it only invites further restrictions and oversight if we do
things that present lightning rods for enforcement attention. This just
seems so obvious.

As a sanctioned participant in the sport we all have an obligation to
behave in ways that protect the sport from further outside interference.

[Mike Schumann]

Just because it is technically too difficult to enforce some rules
diligently, doesn't mean that you shouldn't enforce the rules that you can.

Mike Schumann

"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Precisely. if you're going to act as a policeman, you can't
> selectively choose which rules you're going to enforce and which you're
> going to ignore.
>
> Either enforce all equally or none.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Ramy wrote:
>> 588 wrote:
>> > Ramy wrote:
>> >
>> > [re 91.119 (c) application to ridge flying altitudes]
>> >
>> > > Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my
>> > > point.
>> >
>> >
>> > You truly see no difference, or are you just being troublesome in
>> > order to entertain yourself on a non-flying afternoon?
>> >
>>
>> No, I am just pointing out hypocrisy.
>

[Mike Schumann]

Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an even
more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Mike Schumann

"Yuliy Gerchikov"
nd_.hope.it.travel> wrote
in message ...
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
>> longer than almost anyone can remember.
>
> Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are
> not FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the
> pilots worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
> specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
> airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.
>
> If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in
> the most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
> http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
> Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed
> against them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why
> have some scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing
> lately? *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.
>
> Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
> OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That*
> is what has changed since SSA took over.
>
>> The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.
>
> Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go
> back and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull
> them.
>
> If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
> Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
> pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
> yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?
>
> The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
> over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
> telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
> Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
> rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
> us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
> required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with
> commercial ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the
> Board" could decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the
> image of our sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s.
> Admin" telling us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because
> they make us look bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the
> Internet, you know -- just look at China.
>
> I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my
> OLC the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you
> insist, please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed
> too much of it to my taste.
> --
> Yuliy
>

[Mike Schumann]

Why should everything be swept under the rug? If there are problems with
OLC postings, why shouldn't they be discussed publicly? There are always
going to be bad apples in any sport. Trying to hide them is how you taint
the sport. Publicly exposing the cheaters and relying on the FAA to enforce
the FARs is how the sport can keep its credibility and avoid complicity in
these activities.

Mike Schumann

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> This nonsense is getting quite tedious and is complely
> counterproductive. It does us no good to be airing our dirty laundry in
> public. I have tried to make the case for keeping these things private,
> but some people just don't get it.
>
> But since the genie is out of the bottle, let me try once more to
> correct the record:
>
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>
>> > Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
>> > against the pilot for airspace violations
>>
>> Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA
>> seems
>> to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?
>
> There are no whimsical turns here. The SSA Board was concerned about
> obvious violations in flight logs posted to OLC when they were in the
> negotiation process with the OLC organizers. The Board adopted a policy
> which has been in effect since last year.
>
> If you joined this thread late, here is the link again:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
>
>> >, if they become aware of it.
>>
>> Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it
>> upon
>> itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very
>> selective
>> and retroactive way.
>
> Actually we were made aware of the current cases after someone posted a
> complaint to r.a.s. After I replied to the post asking people to make
> these complaints in private, it must have released some pent-up demand,
> since we suddenly received a number of complaints in a short time.
>
>> > I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
>> > to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
>> > sanction.
>>
>> Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
>> sanctioning, I call it policing.
>
> The OLC Team is relying on the National OLC organizations to handle the
> burden of coordinating the activities of the OLC in each host country.
> They would probably call it delegation.
>
>> > The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
>> > the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
>> > pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.
>>
>> Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right
>> thing
>> to do.
>
> We should not have to tell people what is right, and we certainly
> should not have to tell them more than once.
>
>> > flights that have received formal complaints that appear
>> > to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"
>>
>> Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been
>> checking
>> since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
>> request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints"
>> came
>> straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction"
>> (your
>> word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints",
>> so
>> that we don't have to speculate?
>
> The Board asked for a report, and we did check and report earlier in
> the year. Then we got busy doing other more productive things like
> actually helping people. Perhaps we naively believed that the word had
> gotten out, because we stopped checking until the complaint appeared on
> r.a.s. Then we were not the only ones checking. No, we will not publish
> the formal complaints for reasons that should be obvious. The
> complaints were not solicited, other than through the r.a.s posting
> asking that they be made in private.
>
> <snip>
>
> And let me ask once more for people to use proper discretion and
> decorum in public--r.a.s is not a private forum for glider pilots, it's
> a publicly searchable database. You need to think about the
> consequences of what you post.
>

[Mike Schumann]

You don't have to be 500' above people or structures. You could be 500'
away horizontally.

Mike Schumann

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 500' from people or structures if you are over water or "sparsely
> populated" areas. I would think most places we fly would qualify as
> sparsely populated.
>
> Of course, and enterprising FAR nazi could go to Google Earth and find
> coordinates of structures along high traffic ridge soaring areas...
>
>
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>> hans wrote:
>> > Mike the Strike schrieb:
>> >>
>> >> I wonder how long it will be before ridge fliers' igc files are
>> >> scrutinized for their proximity to terrain and they are asked for an
>> >> explanation?
>> >>
>> > You can see from the barograms displayed for every flight, that the
>> > software for this is already implemented.
>> >
>> > But aren't you allowed to fly closer to the ground than 500 ft if it is
>> > required for operational reasons.
>>
>> I thought you could fly closer than 500' as long as you aren't within
>> 500 feet of people or structures.
>

[Ramy]

Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
> Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's ;)
>
> Al
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > 5Z wrote:
> > >
> > > Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
> > > proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
> > > stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
> > > Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.
> > >
> > So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
> > the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
> > proof there as well.

[[email protected]]

Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-view.asp?threadid=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
> Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.
>
> wrote:
> > Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's ;)
> >
> > Al
> >
> > Ramy wrote:
> > > 5Z wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
> > > > proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
> > > > stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
> > > > Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.
> > > >
> > > So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
> > > the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
> > > proof there as well.

[Ramy]

Sorry folks that you have to read it, but Al seems to ignore the proof
I sent him that there was no class A or restricted area intrusion.
Logger calibration shows 169 feet error and anyone who view the flight
with SeeYou can verify no restricted area intrusion. Apparently Al
didn't like my posts regarding transponders and decided to revenge like
a little child.
The flight is currently under review for landing after sunset only, and
this was justified under FAR 91.3 to prevent an unsafe landout.
My appologize for all pilots which are drawned into Al's childish game.
Those who know Al are probably not surprised.

Ramy


wrote:
> Time to vote people...
>
> http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-view.asp?threadid=2375&posts=0
>
>
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's ;)
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > > Ramy wrote:
> > > > 5Z wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
> > > > > proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
> > > > > stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
> > > > > Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.
> > > > >
> > > > So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
> > > > the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
> > > > proof there as well.

[Ramy]

Al, can you be more specific to which flight you are referring to so we
can vote? I am not aware of any Hilton Cup flight which violated 3
FAR's.


wrote:
> Time to vote people...
>
> http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-view.asp?threadid=2375&posts=0
>
>
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's ;)
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > > Ramy wrote:
> > > > 5Z wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
> > > > > proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
> > > > > stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
> > > > > Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.
> > > > >
> > > > So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
> > > > the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
> > > > proof there as well.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
> questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an
> even more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Gee, Mike, thanks! That's exactly what SSA should be doing. Many were
wondering what SSA was actually doing for the members for their money.
Somebody mentioned the magazine, others said group insurance rates. Well, no
more guessing -- now we know :) .

BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Now, if SSA wanted to take upon itself the burden of inspecting all (or, as
it's been the case, some) of the flights for all (or some) violations and
pass them to FAA, that, actually, would be totally fine with me. I've seen
stranger hobbies. Except, not on my nickel. I just don't need to be a part
of it.
--
Yuliy

[5Z]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
> up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
> pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006" :)

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

[Ramy]

WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

Ramy

5Z wrote:
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
> > up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
> > pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.
>
> Nobody's doing any enforcement!
>
> Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
> remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
> flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
> understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
> for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.
>
> The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
> nuances of regulations.
>
> When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
> consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
> I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
> through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006" :)
>
> If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
> need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
> scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
> conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
> the coffin of our freedom to fly.
>
> There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
> badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
> and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
> want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
> our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
> ramp check - how lucky do you feel?
>
> -Tom

[5Z]

Ramy wrote:
> WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
> know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
> them to the bottom).
> If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
> first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

If you are indeed correct, then there IS a problem. But I would first
like to hear the other side of this accusation...

I have been going on the premise presented in Doug's originalmessage in
this thread. There have been some generalizations made about
"policing" and removing flights, but I thought they were just
overreactions to a polite request to act within applicable FARs and
withdraw one's own flight. If flights are disappearing without the
pilot's knowledge, that is bad, as due process is being violated.

-Tom

[Doug Haluza]

Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the
OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go
along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my
error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this.

Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or
remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the
pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and
putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were
getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints,
but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the
problem.

Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still
working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as
a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other
pilot.

Ramy wrote:
> WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
> know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
> them to the bottom).
> If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
> first) you would have not seen such a reaction.
>
> Ramy
>
> 5Z wrote:
> > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
> > > up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
> > > pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.
> >
> > Nobody's doing any enforcement!
> >
> > Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
> > remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
> > flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
> > understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
> > for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.
> >
> > The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
> > nuances of regulations.
> >
> > When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
> > consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
> > I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
> > through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006" :)
> >
> > If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
> > need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
> > scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
> > conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
> > the coffin of our freedom to fly.
> >
> > There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
> > badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
> > and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
> > want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
> > our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
> > ramp check - how lucky do you feel?
> >
> > -Tom

[Doug Haluza]

And just let people trade escallating accusations and insults on r.a.s
without end?

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
> > questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an
> > even more effective strategy to solve the problem.
>
> Gee, Mike, thanks! That's exactly what SSA should be doing. Many were
> wondering what SSA was actually doing for the members for their money.
> Somebody mentioned the magazine, others said group insurance rates. Well, no
> more guessing -- now we know :) .
>
> BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
> up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
> pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.
>
> Now, if SSA wanted to take upon itself the burden of inspecting all (or, as
> it's been the case, some) of the flights for all (or some) violations and
> pass them to FAA, that, actually, would be totally fine with me. I've seen
> stranger hobbies. Except, not on my nickel. I just don't need to be a part
> of it.
> --
> Yuliy

[Ramy]

Doug, with all due respect, this is not accurate.
I never received any initiated contacts from you, only prompt replies
to my inquiries. In your first reply from 8/31 you stated "the flights
listed below are under review by the SSA-OLC committee, and you should
be receiving correspondence regarding them soon. The flights will not
be removed until you have had a chance to reply."
Well, while waiting for the additional correspondence or decisions,
another flight was zeroed. I know of someone else's flight which was
also zeroed before he received correspondence.

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
> replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the
> OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go
> along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my
> error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this.
>
> Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or
> remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the
> pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and
> putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were
> getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints,
> but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the
> problem.
>
> Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still
> working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as
> a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other
> pilot.
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
> > know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
> > them to the bottom).
> > If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
> > first) you would have not seen such a reaction.
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > 5Z wrote:
> > > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > > BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
> > > > up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
> > > > pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.
> > >
> > > Nobody's doing any enforcement!
> > >
> > > Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
> > > remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
> > > flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
> > > understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
> > > for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.
> > >
> > > The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
> > > nuances of regulations.
> > >
> > > When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
> > > consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
> > > I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
> > > through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006" :)
> > >
> > > If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
> > > need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
> > > scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
> > > conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
> > > the coffin of our freedom to fly.
> > >
> > > There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
> > > badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
> > > and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
> > > want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
> > > our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
> > > ramp check - how lucky do you feel?
> > >
> > > -Tom

[Quebec Tango]

Ramy,
Give it a rest. Along with his day job, Doug puts in many long hours
promoting OLC in the USA. Like the rest of us he is human. He just
doesn't deserve the public trashing you have been directing at him.
QT
Ramy wrote:
> Doug, with all due respect, this is not accurate.
> I never received any initiated contacts from you, only prompt replies
> to my inquiries. In your first reply from 8/31 you stated "the flights
> listed below are under review by the SSA-OLC committee, and you should
> be receiving correspondence regarding them soon. The flights will not
> be removed until you have had a chance to reply."
> Well, while waiting for the additional correspondence or decisions,
> another flight was zeroed. I know of someone else's flight which was
> also zeroed before he received correspondence.
>
> Ramy
>
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
> > replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the
> > OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go
> > along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my
> > error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this.
> >
> > Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or
> > remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the
> > pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and
> > putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were
> > getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints,
> > but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the
> > problem.
> >
> > Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still
> > working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as
> > a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other
> > pilot.
> >
> > Ramy wrote:
> > > WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
> > > know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
> > > them to the bottom).
> > > If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
> > > first) you would have not seen such a reaction.
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > >
> > > 5Z wrote:
> > > > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > > > BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
> > > > > up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
> > > > > pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody's doing any enforcement!
> > > >
> > > > Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
> > > > remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
> > > > flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
> > > > understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
> > > > for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.
> > > >
> > > > The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
> > > > nuances of regulations.
> > > >
> > > > When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
> > > > consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
> > > > I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
> > > > through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006" :)
> > > >
> > > > If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
> > > > need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
> > > > scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
> > > > conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
> > > > the coffin of our freedom to fly.
> > > >
> > > > There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
> > > > badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
> > > > and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
> > > > want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
> > > > our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
> > > > ramp check - how lucky do you feel?
> > > >
> > > > -Tom

[Denis]

Ian Cant a écrit :

> But what about motorgliders with lights and big
> batteries ? Are they allowed to have longer days than
> the rest of us ?

Not only motorgliders. Any glider with proper equipment can be certified
night-VFR and flew OLC flights or records for 50+ hours (BTW there has
been world records up to 55 hours half a century before OLC was created
;-) )

BTW, when will SSA check passports and baptism certificate of pilots and
crew, in order to prove that those flight logs close to possible
terrorism targets were not driven by some islamist fundamuntalists ?

Seems that Big Brother is now a soaring pilot :-(((

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

[Denis]

Doug Haluza a écrit :

> Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
> placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
> meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
> log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.

Is there a sporting aspect to the presence of night lights ? Does it
provide any competitive advantage ? Or does it show up in the flight log ???

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

[Ramy]

No doubt about the fact that Doug is promoting OLC. I don't think I
directed public trashing at him, if it seems like, my appologize. I
(and others) simply pointed out the inaccuracies, consequences and
potential consequences of some of his acts.
I rest my case,

Ramy

Quebec Tango wrote:
> Ramy,
> Give it a rest. Along with his day job, Doug puts in many long hours
> promoting OLC in the USA. Like the rest of us he is human. He just
> doesn't deserve the public trashing you have been directing at him.
> QT

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Well, Tom, the answer, as always, is yes and no. Please see some comments
below.

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
> remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
> flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
> understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
> for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.
>
> The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
> nuances of regulations.

Technically, I have to give it to Doug -- no flights that I know of have
been removed, per se. Instead, the score has been set to zero -- to my
knowledge, without as much as a notice to the pilot -- which has the effect
of moving the flight to the bottom of the very last page in daily results.
So if I am looking at the daily flights on the default OLC page, then the
flight simply won't be there. Do you call this "removed"? Well, yes and no.

(It is interesting to note that this action seems entirely
counter-productive in regards to the SSA-OLC's declared goal of presenting
good image to the FAA. If FAA were to trawl OLC for violations they'd pay no
attention to scores whatsoever.)

> When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
> consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
> I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
> through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006" :)

I'll bet you a buck that this is precisely what Doug does -- download logs
and run them through "OLC Scrutinizer 2006". (Maybe not *all* logs... which
is a problem in and by itself that I already ranted about: how does he pick
the ones to scrutinize? Based on "formal complaints", we were told, but
let's face it -- this is not a transparent process.)

The reason I am so sure is this. Some violations that Doug alleges simply
can not be seen on the OLC flight information pages. Crude barogram in
meters is one example, but the latest wave of allegations (see the subject)
is a better one. Did you notice that takeoff and landing times do not show
anywhere on the OLC flight info page, nor do the local sunrise and sunset
times? Only the start and finish times do. So if a pilot finishes a task
before sunset, then that's what the OLC shows. If said pilot then makes a
straight line dash to the nearest suitable airport for a safe landing, and
meanwhile the Sun happens to cross the imaginary (as anybody who flies in
the mountains would know) line called horizon, then yes, we have a
violation. However, it won't show on the OLC -- instead, the trace will have
to be downloaded, run through the "OLC Scrutinizer 2006" and the actual
landing time extracted and compared to a reliable source of astronomic data.

So one thing I can tell: if anybody does actually benefit from this, this
fella Doug does a heluva lot of work for them.

> -Tom
--
Yuliy

[Doug Haluza]

Denis wrote:
> Doug Haluza a écrit :
>
> > Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
> > placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
> > meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
> > log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.
>
> Is there a sporting aspect to the presence of night lights ? Does it
> provide any competitive advantage ? Or does it show up in the flight log ???
>
> --
> Denis
>
> R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
> Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

The flying past sunset does give a competitive advantage, since it
extends the length of the day, and therefore the distance covered. And
it does show up in the flight log. Since night lighting is very rare on
gliders, the pilot needs to make a note on the OLC claim if the glider
was equipped with lights.

Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this.

[Ramy]

So if a glider is equiped with light, and legally lands 30 minutes
after sunset, it would no longer consider an unfair advantage?

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Denis wrote:
> > Doug Haluza a écrit :
> >
> > > Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
> > > placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
> > > meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
> > > log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.
> >
> > Is there a sporting aspect to the presence of night lights ? Does it
> > provide any competitive advantage ? Or does it show up in the flight log ???
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
> > Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?
>
> The flying past sunset does give a competitive advantage, since it
> extends the length of the day, and therefore the distance covered. And
> it does show up in the flight log. Since night lighting is very rare on
> gliders, the pilot needs to make a note on the OLC claim if the glider
> was equipped with lights.
>
> Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
> with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
> still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
> in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
> in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
> address this.

[Marc Ramsey]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
> with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
> still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
> in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
> in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
> address this.

Being specific:
===
Sport Code - Section 3
4.5.3 Night flight

A flight which continues beyond the hours of legal daylight in the
country concerned shall not be validated, except where the glider and
pilot comply with the laws of that country for night flight.
===

There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

Marc

[Ian Cant]

Is night cross-country in an adequately-equipped glider
inherently more dangerous than night cross-country
in a Cessna ? Each is one failure [loss of lift or
loss of engine] away from that dark field. It might
be more accurate to say that at night you need to give
yourself much wider safety margins than in daylight.

Ian





At 23:12 12 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>
Obviously, night cross country
>in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility
>of an outlanding
>in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until
>someone dies to
>address this.
>
>

[Ramy]

Nicely put, Marc.

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
> public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
> amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
> that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
> glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
> three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
> respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...
>
> Marc

[5Z]

Ramy wrote:
> So if a glider is equiped with light, and legally lands 30 minutes
> after sunset, it would no longer consider an unfair advantage?

Just as it's not an unfair advantage to put every available electronic
device in the cockpit.

Nor is it unfair to file an instrument flight plan to make a wave
flight, etc....

-Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>> Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
>> with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
>> still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
>> in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
>> in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
>> address this.
>
> Being specific:
> ===
> Sport Code - Section 3
> 4.5.3 Night flight
>
> A flight which continues beyond the hours of legal daylight in the
> country concerned shall not be validated, except where the glider and
> pilot comply with the laws of that country for night flight.
> ===
>
> There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
> public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
> amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
> that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
> glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
> three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
> respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

Do you believe requiring pilots to adhere to FAA rules (already in place
before the flight) like airspace and sunset for an OLC flight is
"changing the rules" for an OLC flight? As far as the lights go, I can
imagine the IGC, OLC, or the SSA might decide (sometime in the future)
that competitions would be better if sunset was chosen for the end of
the day. I can't imagine it would happen without the usual discussion
(meaning, for example, Doug H wouldn't decide it on his own); and if it
did, there would be lot of discussion afterwards, and undoubtedly
pressure on our directors to reconsider, so it wouldn't remain for long
as an "arbitrary" decision.

Personally, I would be in favor of an OLC rule that requires landing by
sunset to avoid giving an advantage to the few gliders with lights, and
to discourage pilots from adding lights. It would not require a change
in the sporting code.

I have a 36 ah battery, so I could add lights without too much trouble,
but I think the OLC would be better if I had to land before sunset.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[5Z]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
> public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
> amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
> that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
> glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
> three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
> respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

I don't see this as any kind of rules change. The SSA stated a postion
last year that it is unsportsmanlike to break FARs. The SSA will not
enforce these rules, but suggests we strive to police ourselves.

I am taking it on faith that Doug is not scanning logs for violations,
but is responding to individuals bringing particular flights to his
attention.

-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Do you believe requiring pilots to adhere to FAA rules (already in place
> before the flight) like airspace and sunset for an OLC flight is
> "changing the rules" for an OLC flight?

I was responding to the specific comment "Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this." My response is, perhaps, but I don't know of a single
fatal outlanding accident that has occurred after sunset, but I know of
some that have occurred before. By this reasoning, we would all be
safer if we banned daytime flight.

> As far as the lights go, I can
> imagine the IGC, OLC, or the SSA might decide (sometime in the future)
> that competitions would be better if sunset was chosen for the end of
> the day. I can't imagine it would happen without the usual discussion
> (meaning, for example, Doug H wouldn't decide it on his own); and if it
> did, there would be lot of discussion afterwards, and undoubtedly
> pressure on our directors to reconsider, so it wouldn't remain for long
> as an "arbitrary" decision.

My issue is transparency. If we're going to change rules, rightly or
wrongly, there needs to be a process by which there is public
notification of intent, time for discussion before the directors vote,
rather than afterwards, and plenty of public warning of the impending
change...

Marc

[588]

Marc Ramsey wrote:


> ...they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
> three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
> respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA.

The SSA hasn't changed the OLC rules. They have added a capability to
examine apparent rule breaking that did not previously exist in the OLC
-- a standard and capability not so different from the process in
contests -- and a standard any responsible organization must maintain.

Where's the beef?



Jack

[Mike Schumann]

I suspect that the chance of loosing lift in a glider is significantly
higher than loosing an engine. I personally do not think it is a good idea
to fly at night in a single engine power plane unless you have a full moon
and are over very favorable terrain.

Mike Schumann

"Ian Cant" > wrote in message
...
> Is night cross-country in an adequately-equipped glider
> inherently more dangerous than night cross-country
> in a Cessna ? Each is one failure [loss of lift or
> loss of engine] away from that dark field. It might
> be more accurate to say that at night you need to give
> yourself much wider safety margins than in daylight.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> At 23:12 12 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>>
> Obviously, night cross country
>>in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility
>>of an outlanding
>>in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until
>>someone dies to
>>address this.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[588]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> ...I would be in favor of an OLC rule that requires landing by
> sunset to avoid giving an advantage to the few gliders with lights,
> and to discourage pilots from adding lights.

How about a limit on span? No untoward advantage must accrue to those
who do simply because they can do.


> I have a 36 ah battery, so I could add lights without too much trouble,
> but I think the OLC would be better if I had to land before sunset.

The OLC will only be worse if it starts to supplement official
regulations with its own restrictions. As it is, we are all wound up
because some few don't believe we should conform to the rules that
already exist.

I was very excited about OLC last year. This year has been one
frustration after another, personally and nationally -- but I still like
it, and I think we are making too much out of the difficulties.

The FAA is not going to change the rules for night flight in order to
allow the OLC to conform to Eric's or Jack's preferences. As long as
everybody plays by the same rules, whether lights or no lights, that's
all that matters. If some do fly at night, we'll soon find out what can
be accomplished by doing so. If I don't succeed at gaining the highest
OLC point total simply because I don't fly at night, I'll just have to
live with it.

One of the values of OLC is that we can all see what is possible -- what
is being done -- in other regions, in other gliders, and by other
pilots, and compare this with our own accomplishments. It is a great
motivator, and learning takes place; more flying is done; and the
overall skill level increases, as does enjoyment.

Should we mandate that one may not circle to the right in a thermal? I
don't see much difference between that and making other rules that would
limit some aspects of soaring simply because there are those who don't
want to do those things themselves.

The OLC is right to require adherence to national flight regulations;
the SSA must conform to that aspect of OLC as part of its agreement with
the organizers and to fulfill its duty to its membership and to the
aviation system in the United States. The best methods may be debatable
but not the necessity. There is no alternative.


Jack

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> I suspect that the chance of loosing lift in a glider is significantly
> higher than loosing an engine. I personally do not think it is a good idea
> to fly at night in a single engine power plane unless you have a full moon
> and are over very favorable terrain.

In a typical 15M glider, if you can climb to 17,900 ft MSL an hour
before sunset (which is not uncommon in the western US), what time will
you land if you glide at best L/D to your home airport at 5000 ft MSL?

[Marc Ramsey]

588 wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>
>> ...they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
>> three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
>> respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA.
>
> The SSA hasn't changed the OLC rules. They have added a capability to
> examine apparent rule breaking that did not previously exist in the OLC
> -- a standard and capability not so different from the process in
> contests -- and a standard any responsible organization must maintain.

The contest standards are explicitly written into the contest rules, and
are changed via a somewhat transparent process on a known schedule. The
SSA-OLC standards are bit more murky, particularly when you consider
that the "SSA Position Concerning FAR Violations on Badge, Record, and
OLC Flights" is inconsistent with OLC "US Specific Rules", and both are
inconsistent with certain actions that were apparently taken.

> Where's the beef?

This is usenet, who needs beef?

[588]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> In a typical 15M glider, if you can climb to 17,900 ft MSL an hour
> before sunset (which is not uncommon in the western US), what time will
> you land if you glide at best L/D to your home airport at 5000 ft MSL?

More than 1:30 later, or more than 0:30 after sunset.


Jack

[[email protected]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> I have a 36 ah battery, so I could add lights without too much trouble,
> but I think the OLC would be better if I had to land before sunset.
>

I propose a limit on battery capacity of 12 ah. And that includes the
9-volt in your EDS.

[bumper]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ups.com...

Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this.


I've flown my previous glider, a Stemme S10-VT, in wave at night. A most
beautiful and memorable flight. Fields? Dangerous? I stayed within easy
gliding distance of airports with pilot controlled lighting. The Stemme was
equipped with the required position and anit-collision (strobe) lights.

bumper

[Bob C]

OK, here's a video of flying aerobatics at night, below
1500' in a multi-engine turbine glider. No multi-engine
ticket, no type rating, position lights off, and wingtips
on fire...legally! Should have logged it on OLC just
to stir the pot a bit ;o)

low resolution:
http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/video/nightshow.wmv




At 06:24 13 September 2006, Bumper wrote:
>
>'Doug Haluza' wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>Obviously, night cross country
>in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility
>of an outlanding
>in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until
>someone dies to
>address this.
>
>
>I've flown my previous glider, a Stemme S10-VT, in
>wave at night. A most
>beautiful and memorable flight. Fields? Dangerous?
>I stayed within easy
>gliding distance of airports with pilot controlled
>lighting. The Stemme was
>equipped with the required position and anit-collision
>(strobe) lights.
>
>bumper
>
>
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

588 wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> ...I would be in favor of an OLC rule that requires landing by sunset
>> to avoid giving an advantage to the few gliders with lights,
> > and to discourage pilots from adding lights.
>
> How about a limit on span? No untoward advantage must accrue to those
> who do simply because they can do.

I think the span situation is adequately handled with the handicapping
system, so I don't see any need for a span limit.

>
>> I have a 36 ah battery, so I could add lights without too much
>> trouble, but I think the OLC would be better if I had to land before
>> sunset.
>
> The OLC will only be worse if it starts to supplement official
> regulations with its own restrictions. As it is, we are all wound up
> because some few don't believe we should conform to the rules that
> already exist.

The OLC is a contest, which is not covered by official regulations. The
OLC does incorporate, by reference, the aviation rules of the various
nations, but it also has regulations such as the handicapping rules,
that are clearly not in a country's aviation rules. This is true of any
contest; in fact, our FAI contests have a quite few restrictions on how
one is to fly during the event.

> I was very excited about OLC last year. This year has been one
> frustration after another, personally and nationally -- but I still like
> it, and I think we are making too much out of the difficulties.
>
> The FAA is not going to change the rules for night flight in order to
> allow the OLC to conform to Eric's or Jack's preferences.

Nor do they need to. The kind of soaring flight the OLC measures is the
purview of the OLC itself.

> As long as
> everybody plays by the same rules, whether lights or no lights, that's
> all that matters.

The details of the rules also matter, because they affect the interest
in the OLC. If the flights were not handicapped, we'd still all be
playing by the same rules, but I don't think it would as popular.

> If some do fly at night, we'll soon find out what can
> be accomplished by doing so. If I don't succeed at gaining the highest
> OLC point total simply because I don't fly at night, I'll just have to
> live with it.
>
> One of the values of OLC is that we can all see what is possible -- what
> is being done -- in other regions, in other gliders, and by other
> pilots, and compare this with our own accomplishments. It is a great
> motivator, and learning takes place; more flying is done; and the
> overall skill level increases, as does enjoyment.

I like this part of the OLC; however, allowing night flight (for
example) does shift the focus a bit from "contest" towards "flight trace
repository". I think the popularity of the OLC stems from both aspects,
and it's worth discussing how to improve both aspects. I don't believe
it's an "either/or" choice.
>
> Should we mandate that one may not circle to the right in a thermal? I
> don't see much difference between that and making other rules that would
> limit some aspects of soaring simply because there are those who don't
> want to do those things themselves.

We routinely limit some aspects of soaring in our regional and national
contests. Having limits is part of what makes it a contest. Picking the
right limits to meet the goals of the contest is the tough part, and
these limits have changed over the decades.
>
> The OLC is right to require adherence to national flight regulations;
> the SSA must conform to that aspect of OLC as part of its agreement with
> the organizers and to fulfill its duty to its membership and to the
> aviation system in the United States. The best methods may be debatable
> but not the necessity. There is no alternative.

Amen.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Brian Raven]

Bob C > writes:

> OK, here's a video of flying aerobatics at night, below
> 1500' in a multi-engine turbine glider. No multi-engine
> ticket, no type rating, position lights off, and wingtips
> on fire...legally! Should have logged it on OLC just
> to stir the pot a bit ;o)
>
> low resolution:
> http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/video/nightshow.wmv

Not bad, but at that altitude I would have expected the flack to be
more accurate. Pretty colours, though.

--
Brian Raven

[Bob C]

At 21:54 13 September 2006, Brian Raven wrote:
>Bob C writes:
>
>> OK, here's a video of flying aerobatics at night,
>>below
>> 1500' in a multi-engine turbine glider. No multi-engine
>> ticket, no type rating, position lights off, and wingtips
>> on fire...legally! Should have logged it on OLC just
>> to stir the pot a bit ;o)
>>
>> low resolution:
>> http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/video/nightshow.wmv
>
>Not bad, but at that altitude I would have expected
>the flack to be
>more accurate. Pretty colours, though.
>
>--
>Brian Raven

What flak? Those are anti-missile flares ;o)

If you look close you can see the muzzle flashes from
the 2' mortar tubes mounted to the aft fuselage.

Bob
>

[Doug Haluza]

I agree that night flight withing gliding distance of a lighted airport
is not that dangerous(I would probably do it if I could). That is why I
commented specifically about night cross-country flight in gliders.
Night VFR in airplanes has been shown to be many times more dangerous
than Day VFR in the accident record. I would only expect the situation
to be worse without an engine running.

bumper wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> Obviously, night cross country
> in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
> in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
> address this.
>
>
> I've flown my previous glider, a Stemme S10-VT, in wave at night. A most
> beautiful and memorable flight. Fields? Dangerous? I stayed within easy
> gliding distance of airports with pilot controlled lighting. The Stemme was
> equipped with the required position and anit-collision (strobe) lights.
>
> bumper

[Marc Ramsey]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> I agree that night flight withing gliding distance of a lighted airport
> is not that dangerous(I would probably do it if I could). That is why I
> commented specifically about night cross-country flight in gliders.
> Night VFR in airplanes has been shown to be many times more dangerous
> than Day VFR in the accident record. I would only expect the situation
> to be worse without an engine running.

The vast majority of landings after legal sunset are the result of long
final glides that started before sunset. These are not "night
cross-country flight", except in the legal sense, and would likely have
aborted much earlier if there was doubt about reaching the destination
airport. Legally, they absolutely should be equipped with position
lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
places (Tonopah comes to mind) where it would be more dangerous to abort
the final glide at sunset, and try to find someplace else to land, than
it would be to just continue...

Marc

[Mike Schumann]

Sounds like poor planning if you don't start your final glide early enough
to get back before sunset and you don't have lights.

Mike Schumann

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>> I agree that night flight withing gliding distance of a lighted airport
>> is not that dangerous(I would probably do it if I could). That is why I
>> commented specifically about night cross-country flight in gliders.
>> Night VFR in airplanes has been shown to be many times more dangerous
>> than Day VFR in the accident record. I would only expect the situation
>> to be worse without an engine running.
>
> The vast majority of landings after legal sunset are the result of long
> final glides that started before sunset. These are not "night
> cross-country flight", except in the legal sense, and would likely have
> aborted much earlier if there was doubt about reaching the destination
> airport. Legally, they absolutely should be equipped with position
> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
> places (Tonopah comes to mind) where it would be more dangerous to abort
> the final glide at sunset, and try to find someplace else to land, than it
> would be to just continue...
>
> Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Sounds like poor planning if you don't start your final glide early enough
> to get back before sunset and you don't have lights.

We aren't all perfect, like you obviously are...

[5Z]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few

So Mark, any chance of enlighetning(!) us about these installations?
I'm very interested in finding out how it was done both technically and
of course the legalities for my Standard airworthiness ASH-26E.

Thanks,
-Tom

[588]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> Sounds like poor planning if you don't start your final glide early
>> enough to get back before sunset and you don't have lights.
>
> We aren't all perfect, like you obviously are...


Why would planning to meet an arrival time be any more demanding than
the other planning and decision making that glider pilots do?

It's not a matter of perfection, it's a matter of priorities.


Jack

[Bill Daniels]

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
>> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
>
> So Mark, any chance of enlighetning(!) us about these installations?
> I'm very interested in finding out how it was done both technically and
> of course the legalities for my Standard airworthiness ASH-26E.
>
> Thanks,
> -Tom
>

There was a long thread on rec.aviation.homebuilding last year about home
made LED position lights. It turned out that the FAA specs are pretty
lenient - easily met with high-brightness LED's. The gist is that if you
met the FAA angular, brightness and color specifications, you could build
your own lights and get them signed of - at least for an experimental
airworthiness certificate.

I have seen pictures of glider winglets with red or green plastic (Plexi?)
tips that had high brightness LED's imbedded in them. Looking at the
current draw of these LED arrays it appears that a couple of "D" size
lithium batteries in each winglet would power them for 12 - 24 hours. That
would mean they could be left on for the entire flight so no in-wing wiring
or switches would be needed.

There is also a Nimbus 4DM in, I think, Argentina with an array of ultra
high brightness Luxeon white LED's on the landing gear as a landing light.
I doubt even these would actually light up a runway but they would be bright
enough to produce visible reflections from runway stripes and edge
reflectors.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
>> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
>
> So Mark, any chance of enlighetning(!) us about these installations?
> I'm very interested in finding out how it was done both technically and
> of course the legalities for my Standard airworthiness ASH-26E.

Actually, I understand that Schleicher is one of the companies that will
install the necessary wiring, and even provide an LED-based solution.
Just order a new one, and I'm sure they'll be happy to help you 8^)

Marc

[Ramy]

Interesting. will these LED lights can also help the more common issue
of visibility during day time?

Ramy

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "5Z" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Marc Ramsey wrote:
> >> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
> >> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
> >
> > So Mark, any chance of enlighetning(!) us about these installations?
> > I'm very interested in finding out how it was done both technically and
> > of course the legalities for my Standard airworthiness ASH-26E.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Tom
> >
>
> There was a long thread on rec.aviation.homebuilding last year about home
> made LED position lights. It turned out that the FAA specs are pretty
> lenient - easily met with high-brightness LED's. The gist is that if you
> met the FAA angular, brightness and color specifications, you could build
> your own lights and get them signed of - at least for an experimental
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> I have seen pictures of glider winglets with red or green plastic (Plexi?)
> tips that had high brightness LED's imbedded in them. Looking at the
> current draw of these LED arrays it appears that a couple of "D" size
> lithium batteries in each winglet would power them for 12 - 24 hours. That
> would mean they could be left on for the entire flight so no in-wing wiring
> or switches would be needed.
>
> There is also a Nimbus 4DM in, I think, Argentina with an array of ultra
> high brightness Luxeon white LED's on the landing gear as a landing light.
> I doubt even these would actually light up a runway but they would be bright
> enough to produce visible reflections from runway stripes and edge
> reflectors.
>
> Bill Daniels

[5Z]

Ramy wrote:
> Interesting. will these LED lights can also help the more common issue
> of visibility during day time?

Well, police cars and motorcycles around here are starting to use them.
I visted a couple websites that sell arrays to be mounted on an auto
sunvisor, for example. They have programmable flash patterns and come
in various colors. The specs were 1/3 to 1/2 amp current draw on the
cigarette lighter plug. But this is for fairly rapid flashing. If we
were to flash every 5-10 seconds, the draw may be reasonable.

-Tom

[Bill Daniels]

Under dim lighting conditions, LED position lights probably would help. In
bright noonday sun... well, it's hard to compete with the sun.

Bill Daniels

"Ramy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Interesting. will these LED lights can also help the more common issue
> of visibility during day time?
>
> Ramy
>
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> "5Z" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> >> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who
>> >> have
>> >> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
>> >
>> > So Mark, any chance of enlighetning(!) us about these installations?
>> > I'm very interested in finding out how it was done both technically and
>> > of course the legalities for my Standard airworthiness ASH-26E.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Tom
>> >
>>
>> There was a long thread on rec.aviation.homebuilding last year about home
>> made LED position lights. It turned out that the FAA specs are pretty
>> lenient - easily met with high-brightness LED's. The gist is that if you
>> met the FAA angular, brightness and color specifications, you could build
>> your own lights and get them signed of - at least for an experimental
>> airworthiness certificate.
>>
>> I have seen pictures of glider winglets with red or green plastic
>> (Plexi?)
>> tips that had high brightness LED's imbedded in them. Looking at the
>> current draw of these LED arrays it appears that a couple of "D" size
>> lithium batteries in each winglet would power them for 12 - 24 hours.
>> That
>> would mean they could be left on for the entire flight so no in-wing
>> wiring
>> or switches would be needed.
>>
>> There is also a Nimbus 4DM in, I think, Argentina with an array of ultra
>> high brightness Luxeon white LED's on the landing gear as a landing
>> light.
>> I doubt even these would actually light up a runway but they would be
>> bright
>> enough to produce visible reflections from runway stripes and edge
>> reflectors.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>

[Doug Haluza]

Night flight legally begins after twilight (not sunset). I wasn't
talking about final glides, I was talking about making long flights in
the dark using wave or ridge. Frankly, I think this would not be worth
the substantially increased risk, and we should not encourage it by
giving recognition for this. We dropped endurance records for gliding
when the records were measured in days for the same reason.

So assuming most people agree that Night X/C in gliders is not wise,
then we need to look at whether we want to encourage people to install
position lights so they can fly for a few extra minutes between sunset
and twilight. Or should we discourage this so they can spend their
money installing transponders, or other safety equipment.

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > I agree that night flight withing gliding distance of a lighted airport
> > is not that dangerous(I would probably do it if I could). That is why I
> > commented specifically about night cross-country flight in gliders.
> > Night VFR in airplanes has been shown to be many times more dangerous
> > than Day VFR in the accident record. I would only expect the situation
> > to be worse without an engine running.
>
> The vast majority of landings after legal sunset are the result of long
> final glides that started before sunset. These are not "night
> cross-country flight", except in the legal sense, and would likely have
> aborted much earlier if there was doubt about reaching the destination
> airport. Legally, they absolutely should be equipped with position
> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
> places (Tonopah comes to mind) where it would be more dangerous to abort
> the final glide at sunset, and try to find someplace else to land, than
> it would be to just continue...
>
> Marc

[Doug Haluza]

For an example of good planning, see Brian Collins' article in the
February 2006 Soaring magazine.

588 wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
> > Mike Schumann wrote:
> >> Sounds like poor planning if you don't start your final glide early
> >> enough to get back before sunset and you don't have lights.
> >
> > We aren't all perfect, like you obviously are...
>
>
> Why would planning to meet an arrival time be any more demanding than
> the other planning and decision making that glider pilots do?
>
> It's not a matter of perfection, it's a matter of priorities.
>
>
> Jack

[Doug Haluza]

The requirements are given in AC 20-74, but I would not describe them
as "lenient - easily met." I agree that LED's could be a good solution,
but developing and testing a LED system for an aircraft installation is
not for the faint of heart. You can dowload it here:
http://tinyurl.com/fm6df.

BTW, wouldnt adding position lights on the wingtips violate the span
limits for span limited classes (15m, 18m, 20m)?

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "5Z" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Marc Ramsey wrote:
> >> lights, but it is hardly dangerous (and I know of a few people who have
> >> installed lights for precisely this reason). In fact there are a few
> >
> > So Mark, any chance of enlighetning(!) us about these installations?
> > I'm very interested in finding out how it was done both technically and
> > of course the legalities for my Standard airworthiness ASH-26E.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Tom
> >
>
> There was a long thread on rec.aviation.homebuilding last year about home
> made LED position lights. It turned out that the FAA specs are pretty
> with high-brightness LED's. The gist is that if you
> met the FAA angular, brightness and color specifications, you could build
> your own lights and get them signed of - at least for an experimental
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> I have seen pictures of glider winglets with red or green plastic (Plexi?)
> tips that had high brightness LED's imbedded in them. Looking at the
> current draw of these LED arrays it appears that a couple of "D" size
> lithium batteries in each winglet would power them for 12 - 24 hours. That
> would mean they could be left on for the entire flight so no in-wing wiring
> or switches would be needed.
>
> There is also a Nimbus 4DM in, I think, Argentina with an array of ultra
> high brightness Luxeon white LED's on the landing gear as a landing light.
> I doubt even these would actually light up a runway but they would be bright
> enough to produce visible reflections from runway stripes and edge
> reflectors.
>
> Bill Daniels

[jb92563]

I can think of one way to make a glider more visible with an intensity
equal to the sun and draws absolutley NO POWER and requires NO WIRING

Check this out!

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N14LH/N14LH_2.jpg

In truth the power it requires is in the buffing, but the results are
incredible.

The polish to get this is called Nuvite and costs a lot but with
outstanding results http://www.perfectpolish.com/

Who knew you could polish aluminum to the point of looking like chrome?

Circling flight would make this glider look like a flashing beacon in
the sky.

I have bare wings on my HP-11 and plan on polishing the wings up with
Nuvite for that extra visibility since my flying area is right in the
middle of a victor airway.

Ray

[5Z]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> So assuming most people agree that Night X/C in gliders is not wise,
> then we need to look at whether we want to encourage people to install
> position lights so they can fly for a few extra minutes between sunset
> and twilight. Or should we discourage this so they can spend their
> money installing transponders, or other safety equipment.

I can see a properly equipped two seater making a 24 or more hour
flight in the Andes wave in relatively safety, as long as the pilots
figure out how to stay warm. The key would be to have enough lighted
airfields available for a safe glide.

As for another comment about lights increasing the span: I think that
with LEDs, one could flush mount several at strategic places in the
leading edge and around the wingtip.

-Tom

[Mike Schumann]

What kind of glider is that?

Mike Schumann

"jb92563" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I can think of one way to make a glider more visible with an intensity
> equal to the sun and draws absolutley NO POWER and requires NO WIRING
>
> Check this out!
>
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N14LH/N14LH_2.jpg
>
> In truth the power it requires is in the buffing, but the results are
> incredible.
>
> The polish to get this is called Nuvite and costs a lot but with
> outstanding results http://www.perfectpolish.com/
>
> Who knew you could polish aluminum to the point of looking like chrome?
>
> Circling flight would make this glider look like a flashing beacon in
> the sky.
>
> I have bare wings on my HP-11 and plan on polishing the wings up with
> Nuvite for that extra visibility since my flying area is right in the
> middle of a victor airway.
>
> Ray
>

[Wayne Paul]

Mike,

It is a Schreder HP-14 kit built sailplane designed in 1966. Dick Schreder
won the US Nationals with serial number 1 in 1967.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N4736G.htm

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Borah_Mt.JPG
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder



"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> What kind of glider is that?
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "jb92563" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>I can think of one way to make a glider more visible with an intensity
>> equal to the sun and draws absolutley NO POWER and requires NO WIRING
>>
>> Check this out!
>>
>> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N14LH/N14LH_2.jpg
>>
>> In truth the power it requires is in the buffing, but the results are
>> incredible.
>>
>> The polish to get this is called Nuvite and costs a lot but with
>> outstanding results http://www.perfectpolish.com/

[Bob C]

I have been through this process twice. One certified,
one experimental.

Check your glider's operating limitations. If it is
a certified glider (not experimental), it is probably
placarded against night flying. The only way to change
that is to place it in experimental category. It will
still require an STC (or 337/ field approval, if you
can get one). Whelen lights have been put on everything
from airliners to fighters, yet it requires a totally
new STC for installation on a new make/model. I douby
Whelen is interested in this tiny market segment.

If it is experimental, your ops limits probably state
'Day VFR only, unless equipped according to 91.205'.
They probably also require you to notify FSDO of any
major alterations. Adding lights is a major alteration.

LEDs are very bright, but also very directional. To
meet the angle, color requirements is fairly difficult.
Whelen does make LED wingtip lights, but they are
fairly expensive. You will also need at least two
strobes, and the power supplies to go with them. LEDs
won't currently meet the requirements for strobes.

Unless your motorglider (Stemme, Katana, Ximango) came
factory equipped, or unless someone is paying you to
fly at night, probably more trouble than it's worth.

Bob C.


At 21:00 15 September 2006, Wayne Paul wrote:
>Mike,
>
>It is a Schreder HP-14 kit built sailplane designed
>in 1966. Dick Schreder
>won the US Nationals with serial number 1 in 1967.
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N4736G.htm
>
>Wayne
>HP-14 N990 '6F'
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Borah_Mt.JPG
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
>
>
>
>'Mike Schumann' wrote in message
ink.net...
>> What kind of glider is that?
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>>
>> 'jb92563' wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>I can think of one way to make a glider more visible
>>>with an intensity
>>> equal to the sun and draws absolutley NO POWER and
>>>requires NO WIRING
>>>
>>> Check this out!
>>>
>>> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N14LH/N14LH_2.jpg
>>>
>>> In truth the power it requires is in the buffing,
>>>but the results are
>>> incredible.
>>>
>>> The polish to get this is called Nuvite and costs
>>>a lot but with
>>> outstanding results http://www.perfectpolish.com/
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> "GC flight logs contain a GPS time stamp which is the most exact time
> standard readily available. So, violations of this requirement are
> quite plain to see in these logs."
>
> Unfortunately, sunset doesn't come with a GPS timestamp, so I'm afraid
> this isn't as easy as you make it sound.
>
> Yes, I know there are standard tables of sunset times, but these make
> assumptions that may not be exactly correct and at a given location
> actual sunset may differ from the calculated one by many minutes.
> (Ask any local physicist./astronomer).

I am both of those and I assure you that the time of sunset is well-
defined and readily predicted for any location to a tiny fraction of
a second.

You may have difficulty observing the position of the sun. Like,
it might be cloudy, there might be a mountain in the way, or
you might be indoors. But that is not relevent.

Any regulatory requirement should (and I daresay will) be based
on that well-defined time, or the equally well-defined times of civil,
nautical, or astronomical twilight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_twilight
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.html#top

Obviously you may be safer flying a few minutes after sunset in
a clear sky than a few minutes before sunset in a cloudy sky.
But that is a practical consideration.

You are correct that these definitions are based on certain
assumptions, but the point is that a rule that says you are
supposed to be on the ground by sunset, the end of civil
twilight, or whatever, should be a rule that uses the defined
time, not some local observation. That gives you a clear,
unambiguous requirement.

--

FF

[Doug Haluza]

A minor clarification:

wrote:
> I am both of those and I assure you that the time of sunset is well-
> defined and readily predicted for any location to a tiny fraction of
> a second.

Well, not exactly to the second. Even the USNO only reports sunset time
to the nearest minute (see the "Accuracy of rise/set computations"
section in the link below). And their calculator only accepts Lat/Lon
to the nearest 1/10th of a dagree. So the error in the calculations are
+/- a minute or more. This is a technical point, but it is important to
remember that all measurements have some error.

> You may have difficulty observing the position of the sun. Like,
> it might be cloudy, there might be a mountain in the way, or
> you might be indoors. But that is not relevent.

You are correct that the time of actual sunset is moot, since nobody
regularly observes and records this. The only relevant time is the
official prediction. This prediction is normally in the pilot's favor,
since the sun sets earlier than predicted at high surface elevation and
high temperature due to recuced refraction in the less dense air.

> Any regulatory requirement should (and I daresay will) be based
> on that well-defined time, or the equally well-defined times of civil,
> nautical, or astronomical twilight.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_twilight
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.html#top
>
> Obviously you may be safer flying a few minutes after sunset in
> a clear sky than a few minutes before sunset in a cloudy sky.
> But that is a practical consideration.
>
> You are correct that these definitions are based on certain
> assumptions, but the point is that a rule that says you are
> supposed to be on the ground by sunset, the end of civil
> twilight, or whatever, should be a rule that uses the defined
> time, not some local observation. That gives you a clear,
> unambiguous requirement.
>
> --
>
> FF

[[email protected]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> A minor clarification:
>
> wrote:
> > I am both of those and I assure you that the time of sunset is well-
> > defined and readily predicted for any location to a tiny fraction of
> > a second.
>
> Well, not exactly to the second. Even the USNO only reports sunset time
> to the nearest minute (see the "Accuracy of rise/set computations"
> section in the link below). And their calculator only accepts Lat/Lon
> to the nearest 1/10th of a dagree. So the error in the calculations are
> +/- a minute or more. This is a technical point, but it is important to
> remember that all measurements have some error.

True it is not possible to predict when the sun would be
observed tangent below the horizon, with an accuracy of
better than a minute or so. But that's a silly way to define
sunset in the first place. If the atmospheric conditions
(e.g. clouds) made make the sun unobservable, you wouldn't
say there was no sunset that day. (Though the sun would
still be observable outside of the visible spectrum)

If the "time of sunset" is _defined_ based on nominal atmospheric
conditions that moots the issue, just like defining the horizon
to be 90.8333 degrees from zenith moots the issue of the local
topography.

Those conditions can be defined as accurately as one wants.

Similarly, uncertainty in your lattitute, longitude and elevation
may also be mooted. You may be uncertain as to where
YOU are, but the estimation of the time of sunset for an arbitrary
location (which therefor you can define with arbitrary accuracy)
is uncertain only due to the variablity in the motions of the earth,
uncertainty and variablility in the orbital parameters of the Earth,
and uncertainty and variability in the apparent size of the sun.

Actually, since Universal Time is _defined_ by the orientation
of the Earth and not by atomic time, the time of sunset is
only affected by variabilty in the motions of the Earth because
they affect the place on the horizon where the sun is tangent.
That is why we have leap seconds from time to time, to
keep international atomic time and universal time in agreement
(coordinated) to within one second, though there has been
debate about discontinuing that practice.

Those leap-seconds are pretty important in orbit determination,
which gets us back to something of potential interest to glider
pilots. A GPS satellite moves moves more than a mile in one
second.

--

FF

[Mike the Strike]

Fred:

You should really check your facts before posting twaddle!

Clearly I should have said to ask any physicist or astronomer who is
conversant with atmospheric refraction, which you clearly are not.
Because of variations in refraction, sunset (the time when the limb of
the sun becomes invisible to an observer) may vary by several minutes
from that calculated by the accepted formula. This formula assumes a
constant refraction that is unlikely to be exact for any specific place
or time.


Mike

(also a physicist and astronomer - and who knows a sunset when I see
one!) ;)


>
> I am both of those and I assure you that the time of sunset is well-
> defined and readily predicted for any location to a tiny fraction of
> a second.
>
> You may have difficulty observing the position of the sun. Like,
> it might be cloudy, there might be a mountain in the way, or
> you might be indoors. But that is not relevent.
>
> Any regulatory requirement should (and I daresay will) be based
> on that well-defined time, or the equally well-defined times of civil,
> nautical, or astronomical twilight.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_twilight
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.html#top
>
> Obviously you may be safer flying a few minutes after sunset in
> a clear sky than a few minutes before sunset in a cloudy sky.
> But that is a practical consideration.
>
> You are correct that these definitions are based on certain
> assumptions, but the point is that a rule that says you are
> supposed to be on the ground by sunset, the end of civil
> twilight, or whatever, should be a rule that uses the defined
> time, not some local observation. That gives you a clear,
> unambiguous requirement.
>
> --
>
> FF

[Doug Haluza]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Fred:
>
> You should really check your facts before posting twaddle!
>
> Clearly I should have said to ask any physicist or astronomer who is
> conversant with atmospheric refraction, which you clearly are not.
> Because of variations in refraction, sunset (the time when the limb of
> the sun becomes invisible to an observer) may vary by several minutes
> from that calculated by the accepted formula. This formula assumes a
> constant refraction that is unlikely to be exact for any specific place
> or time.
>
>
> Mike

This is like the advice from the old joke about the guys who get lost
in a balloon, then ask someone on the ground where they are, and the
person on the ground tells them they are up in the air in a balloon.
The joke is that the person on the ground must be a lawyer, beacuse his
answer was technicaly correct, but totally useless.

Same goes for actual sunset. Unless you are on a ship at sea, you won't
have a clear level horizon to observe actual sunset. So the refraction
issue is moot. And if you wait until you observe actual sunset in
flight, the sun will have already set on the ground.

The predicted sunset time is the only thing relevant for flight
planning.

[[email protected]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Fred:
>
> You should really check your facts before posting twaddle!
>
> Clearly I should have said to ask any physicist or astronomer who is
> conversant with atmospheric refraction, which you clearly are not.
> Because of variations in refraction, sunset (the time when the limb of
> the sun becomes invisible to an observer) may vary by several minutes
> from that calculated by the accepted formula. This formula assumes a
> constant refraction that is unlikely to be exact for any specific place
> or time.
>

The issue is not atmospheric refraction.

The issue is not the definition of sunset.

The issue is the defintion of _time_ of sunset.

If the "time of sunset' is defined by a mathematical model,
then the time of sunset is independent of the actual atmospheric
conditions and therefor does not vary with them.

That was my point, and I am sorry that I was unclear.

The issue at hand was what time should be used to determine
if a pilot has landed befor sunset. OP's complaint was that
'time of sunset' was highly uncertain. My point is that it is
only highly uncertain if you use an entirely impractical
definiton of 'time of sunset'.

As an astronomer who knows a sunset when he sees one,
how do you know the sun has set when the sky is overcast?

--

FF

[Mike the Strike]

Fred:

Sorry, but I still disagree.

The time of sunset is the point at which the limb of the sun disappears
to an observer. This is an exact legal definition.

I don't think you'd get far in a court of law if a dozen eyewitnesees
said the sun was still visible but you said your mathematical equation
predicted that it had set!

For convenience, we use a mathematical model that uses a constant term
to correct for atmospheric refraction and you can look up those times
in published tables. However, the correction is approximate and
subject to error.

I merely suggested that since the actual time of sunset was not known,
we should allow folks some slack if they land close to sunset to allow
for this error.

The same goes for pressure altitude, by the way.

Mike

Overcast? What's that - I live in Arizona!


> The issue is not atmospheric refraction.
>
> The issue is not the definition of sunset.
>
> The issue is the defintion of _time_ of sunset.
>
> If the "time of sunset' is defined by a mathematical model,
> then the time of sunset is independent of the actual atmospheric
> conditions and therefor does not vary with them.
>
> That was my point, and I am sorry that I was unclear.
>
> The issue at hand was what time should be used to determine
> if a pilot has landed befor sunset. OP's complaint was that
> 'time of sunset' was highly uncertain. My point is that it is
> only highly uncertain if you use an entirely impractical
> definiton of 'time of sunset'.
>
> As an astronomer who knows a sunset when he sees one,
> how do you know the sun has set when the sky is overcast?
>
> --
>
> FF

[[email protected]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Fred:
>
> Sorry, but I still disagree.
>
> The time of sunset is the point at which the limb of the sun disappears
> to an observer. This is an exact legal definition.
>
> I don't think you'd get far in a court of law if a dozen eyewitnesees
> said the sun was still visible but you said your mathematical equation
> predicted that it had set!

Probably not, even if the law specified that the legal defintion of
sunset was that estimated by the exact legal model. But mens
rea isn' t really at issue here, is it?

>
> For convenience, we use a mathematical model that uses a constant term
> to correct for atmospheric refraction and you can look up those times
> in published tables. However, the correction is approximate and
> subject to error.
>
> I merely suggested that since the actual time of sunset was not known,
> we should allow folks some slack if they land close to sunset to allow
> for this error.

My suggestion for dealing with the ambiguity of the actual time of
sunset is to not use the actual time of sunset. Use the putative
time of sunset, as calculated by a standard formula for the
published lattitude and longitude of the airfield in question instead.
That eliminates the ambiguity. All the pilot needs is to plan
ahead by looking up the putative time of sunset for the various
airfields and an decent clock. If he has a GPS receiver, he
has an extremely accurate clock.

Do you suppose the FAA has addressed this issue?

Allowing them some slack is fine, but does not address the problem.
When does the grace period begin and when does it end?
I'm not addressing the issue of what should be done about
those who land after the deadline, whatever it would be. Only
the practical issue of what to base that deadline on. If you
base it on the 'actual' time of sunset, no one knows what
that deadline is, not in advance, nor even after the fact.

As for what is fair and what is not, IMHO the more objective,
precise, and predicable a rule is, the more fair it is regardless
of how arbitrary it is.

--

FF

[Andy[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> The predicted sunset time is the only thing relevant for flight
> planning.

It is interesting that part 61 and part 91 define regulations that
refer to sunrise and sunset but that the FAA provides no definition of
what those terms mean. At least I couldn't find those definitions. I
expected to find them in part 1.

I used to fly a lot in an Aerona Chief that did not meet night lighting
requirements. A sunrise/sunset time table was always available for
flight planning, but I don't know if it agreed with whatever time table
FAA was using. I once landed a minute before sunset (according to my
table) after an xc flight and was still in motion on the airport after
sunset. Neither tower nor ground control expressed any concern.

I know I can call flight service and ask for sunset time for my local
airport. Their reply is "I can give you sunset for Phoenix, is that
close enough?" If I say yes, does that become the offical sunset time
for my local airport?

Given the uncertainty of the actual official sunset time I repeat my
request that SAA's sunset time be used only to determine the "end of
soaring flight" and not used to determine the validity of the entire
flight.

Andy

[Jack[_6_]]

Andy wrote:

> Given the uncertainty of the actual official sunset time I repeat my
> request that SAA's sunset time be used only to determine the "end of
> soaring flight" and not used to determine the validity of the entire
> flight.

I like that suggestion. What about it Doug?


Jack

[Paul Remde]

Hi Andy,

"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>> The predicted sunset time is the only thing relevant for flight
>> planning.
>
> It is interesting that part 61 and part 91 define regulations that
> refer to sunrise and sunset but that the FAA provides no definition of
> what those terms mean. At least I couldn't find those definitions. I
> expected to find them in part 1.
>
> I used to fly a lot in an Aerona Chief that did not meet night lighting
> requirements. A sunrise/sunset time table was always available for
> flight planning, but I don't know if it agreed with whatever time table
> FAA was using. I once landed a minute before sunset (according to my
> table) after an xc flight and was still in motion on the airport after
> sunset. Neither tower nor ground control expressed any concern.
>
> I know I can call flight service and ask for sunset time for my local
> airport. Their reply is "I can give you sunset for Phoenix, is that
> close enough?" If I say yes, does that become the offical sunset time
> for my local airport?
>
> Given the uncertainty of the actual official sunset time I repeat my
> request that SAA's sunset time be used only to determine the "end of
> soaring flight" and not used to determine the validity of the entire
> flight.
>
> Andy
>

I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of soaring
flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from home or at
altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead and landed on
time.

Paul Remde

[Ramy]

Isn't it exactly the same "advantage" any motorglider has when they
start the engine far from home and get scored up to that point? Andy's
suggestion will allow pilots to land back home safely few minutes after
sunset if necessary rather then land out to get scored, or fly back
home and don't get scored at all...

Ramy

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of soaring
> flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from home or at
> altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead and landed on
> time.
>
> Paul Remde

[5Z]

Ramy wrote:
> Isn't it exactly the same "advantage" any motorglider has when they
> start the engine far from home and get scored up to that point? Andy's
> suggestion will allow pilots to land back home safely few minutes after
> sunset if necessary rather then land out to get scored, or fly back
> home and don't get scored at all...

No it's not the same. The MG is not breaking a FAR by starting the
engine. Flying a sailplane after sunset without position lights is
ILLEGAL. Time and position is something our FRs measure quite
accurately, and "official" sunset is available before the flight.
There is no excuse or "fudge factor" as is possible within some limits
on altitude and SUA penetration.

Until recently, I was unaware of the difference between "night flight"
and need for position lights, so thought it was OK to fly until 30
minutes beyond sunset. I now know it is not. I know I've busted this
rule in the past out of ignorance, but not in the last 5-10 years if I
recall.

As with any law, ignorance is not an excuse, so I would have not
hesitated to witdraw a claim that proves a violation on my part.

-Tom

[Ramy]

Tom, I was referring to the "competitive advantage" comment by Paul,
not to the legal issue. I think it is unlikely that someone will take
advantage of it and plan to land after sunset. But since you mentioned
the FAR, not only many pilots such as you and me were not completely
aware of it, but the badge and record committe as well as some of the
SSA-OLC committe were not aware, and as such many badges and records
over the years (including one state record of mine) were approved
although landed after sunset.

Ramy


5Z wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Isn't it exactly the same "advantage" any motorglider has when they
> > start the engine far from home and get scored up to that point? Andy's
> > suggestion will allow pilots to land back home safely few minutes after
> > sunset if necessary rather then land out to get scored, or fly back
> > home and don't get scored at all...
>
> No it's not the same. The MG is not breaking a FAR by starting the
> engine. Flying a sailplane after sunset without position lights is
> ILLEGAL. Time and position is something our FRs measure quite
> accurately, and "official" sunset is available before the flight.
> There is no excuse or "fudge factor" as is possible within some limits
> on altitude and SUA penetration.
>
> Until recently, I was unaware of the difference between "night flight"
> and need for position lights, so thought it was OK to fly until 30
> minutes beyond sunset. I now know it is not. I know I've busted this
> rule in the past out of ignorance, but not in the last 5-10 years if I
> recall.
>
> As with any law, ignorance is not an excuse, so I would have not
> hesitated to witdraw a claim that proves a violation on my part.
>
> -Tom

[Mike Schumann]

It certainly is a competitive advantage for one pilot to be pushing the
envelope on flying to the point where he is potentially forced to violate
the FARs vs. another pilot who is planning ahead and flying conservatively
enough to make sure that he stays legal.

Mike Schumann

"Ramy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Tom, I was referring to the "competitive advantage" comment by Paul,
> not to the legal issue. I think it is unlikely that someone will take
> advantage of it and plan to land after sunset. But since you mentioned
> the FAR, not only many pilots such as you and me were not completely
> aware of it, but the badge and record committe as well as some of the
> SSA-OLC committe were not aware, and as such many badges and records
> over the years (including one state record of mine) were approved
> although landed after sunset.
>
> Ramy
>
>
> 5Z wrote:
>> Ramy wrote:
>> > Isn't it exactly the same "advantage" any motorglider has when they
>> > start the engine far from home and get scored up to that point? Andy's
>> > suggestion will allow pilots to land back home safely few minutes after
>> > sunset if necessary rather then land out to get scored, or fly back
>> > home and don't get scored at all...
>>
>> No it's not the same. The MG is not breaking a FAR by starting the
>> engine. Flying a sailplane after sunset without position lights is
>> ILLEGAL. Time and position is something our FRs measure quite
>> accurately, and "official" sunset is available before the flight.
>> There is no excuse or "fudge factor" as is possible within some limits
>> on altitude and SUA penetration.
>>
>> Until recently, I was unaware of the difference between "night flight"
>> and need for position lights, so thought it was OK to fly until 30
>> minutes beyond sunset. I now know it is not. I know I've busted this
>> rule in the past out of ignorance, but not in the last 5-10 years if I
>> recall.
>>
>> As with any law, ignorance is not an excuse, so I would have not
>> hesitated to witdraw a claim that proves a violation on my part.
>>
>> -Tom
>

[Graeme Cant]

Paul Remde wrote:
>
> I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of soaring
> flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from home or at
> altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead and landed on
> time.

And exactly which time would that be, Paul?

You seem to have lost track of the story so far:
Doug wants to be able to pick illegal flights on OLC but he's having
trouble deciding which flights are illegal because he doesn't know when
it's "sunset" (as 'un'defined in the FARs) at all the places OLC flights
go to. Last night two astronomers locked horns and are heading for the
jugular over when sunset might be.

Now read on:

I know this won't help but in Oz the rules are:
1. "Night" is the period between the end of evening civil twilight and
the beginning of morning civil twilight.
2. CASA (FAA equivalent) publishes beginning and end of daylight graphs
for latitudes from 0 to 45 throughout the year.
3. Daylight flight occurs between those times after converting local
time to Standard/Daylight Time.

Note that daylight "ceases" at a particular longitude solely dependent
on its latitude. No allowance for terrain, etc.

But the following is also in the AIP:
"Users ... should note that the parameters used in compiling the ...
Graphs do not include the nature of the terrain ... other than a
cloudless sky and unlimited visibility ... Consequently, the presence
of cloud cover, poor visibility or high terrain to the west of an
aerodrome will cause daylight to end ... earlier than that extracted
from the appropriate graph.
Allowance should made for these factors when planning a flight..."

The rules are reasonable but are no help in maintaining a level playing
field for a gliding competition.

So, Doug. Make up your mind what arbitrary rule you would like to
implement for the SSA-OLC and publish it. Let's say - evening civil
twilight at the latitude.

Stop using the FAA as an excuse and a crutch. Stand on your own feet.
Make a rule. Publish it. Enforce it. Cop the flak.

GC

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I have a crazy, wild suggestion.... Fly your task so that you land before
any known definition of sunset and you will never need to worry. That is
what most pilots do. Those that do not are not playing fair - in my
opinion.

Paul Remde


"Graeme Cant" <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote in message
...
> Paul Remde wrote:
>>
>> I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of
>> soaring flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from
>> home or at altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead
>> and landed on time.
>
> And exactly which time would that be, Paul?
>
> You seem to have lost track of the story so far:
> Doug wants to be able to pick illegal flights on OLC but he's having
> trouble deciding which flights are illegal because he doesn't know when
> it's "sunset" (as 'un'defined in the FARs) at all the places OLC flights
> go to. Last night two astronomers locked horns and are heading for the
> jugular over when sunset might be.
>
> Now read on:
>
> I know this won't help but in Oz the rules are:
> 1. "Night" is the period between the end of evening civil twilight and
> the beginning of morning civil twilight.
> 2. CASA (FAA equivalent) publishes beginning and end of daylight graphs
> for latitudes from 0 to 45 throughout the year.
> 3. Daylight flight occurs between those times after converting local time
> to Standard/Daylight Time.
>
> Note that daylight "ceases" at a particular longitude solely dependent on
> its latitude. No allowance for terrain, etc.
>
> But the following is also in the AIP:
> "Users ... should note that the parameters used in compiling the ...
> Graphs do not include the nature of the terrain ... other than a cloudless
> sky and unlimited visibility ... Consequently, the presence of cloud
> cover, poor visibility or high terrain to the west of an aerodrome will
> cause daylight to end ... earlier than that extracted from the appropriate
> graph.
> Allowance should made for these factors when planning a flight..."
>
> The rules are reasonable but are no help in maintaining a level playing
> field for a gliding competition.
>
> So, Doug. Make up your mind what arbitrary rule you would like to
> implement for the SSA-OLC and publish it. Let's say - evening civil
> twilight at the latitude.
>
> Stop using the FAA as an excuse and a crutch. Stand on your own feet.
> Make a rule. Publish it. Enforce it. Cop the flak.
>
> GC

[5Z]

wrote:
> Do you suppose the FAA has addressed this issue?

ARTHUR:
The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the
plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to
our land?
SOLDIER #1:
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
ARTHUR:
Not at all. They could be carried.
SOLDIER #1:
What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
ARTHUR:
It could grip it by the husk!
SOLDIER #1:
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of
weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
ARTHUR:
Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that
Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
SOLDIER #1:
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to
beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
ARTHUR:
Please!
SOLDIER #1:
Am I right?
ARTHUR:
I'm not interested!
SOLDIER #2:
It could be carried by an African swallow!
SOLDIER #1:
Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow.
That's my point.
SOLDIER #2:
Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
ARTHUR:
Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
SOLDIER #1:
But then of course a-- African swallows are non-migratory.
SOLDIER #2:
Oh, yeah.
SOLDIER #1:
So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.
[clop clop clop]
SOLDIER #2:
Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?
SOLDIER #1:
No, they'd have to have it on a line.
SOLDIER #2:
Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
SOLDIER #1:
What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
SOLDIER #2:
Well, why not?

[Ramy]

Well, SeeYou shows the sunset time, so I guess this is what Doug is
using.
Paul, your suggetion will work for short to medium or yoyo tasks when
one can plan to land way before sunset or can abort the task. But this
does not work for long O&R and triangle tasks, especially in the great
basin, where weaker conditions on course can slow you down
significantly. When this happens there are only two choices, to fly
back home and potentially land after sunset, or landout in the middle
of nowhere before sunset, hope you don't break anything, then spend a
freezing night in the cockpit waiting for your retrieve. Which one
would you pick?

Ramy

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a crazy, wild suggestion.... Fly your task so that you land before
> any known definition of sunset and you will never need to worry. That is
> what most pilots do. Those that do not are not playing fair - in my
> opinion.
>
> Paul Remde
>
>
> "Graeme Cant" <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote in message
> ...
> > Paul Remde wrote:
> >>
> >> I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of
> >> soaring flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from
> >> home or at altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead
> >> and landed on time.
> >
> > And exactly which time would that be, Paul?
> >
> > You seem to have lost track of the story so far:
> > Doug wants to be able to pick illegal flights on OLC but he's having
> > trouble deciding which flights are illegal because he doesn't know when
> > it's "sunset" (as 'un'defined in the FARs) at all the places OLC flights
> > go to. Last night two astronomers locked horns and are heading for the
> > jugular over when sunset might be.
> >
> > Now read on:
> >
> > I know this won't help but in Oz the rules are:
> > 1. "Night" is the period between the end of evening civil twilight and
> > the beginning of morning civil twilight.
> > 2. CASA (FAA equivalent) publishes beginning and end of daylight graphs
> > for latitudes from 0 to 45 throughout the year.
> > 3. Daylight flight occurs between those times after converting local time
> > to Standard/Daylight Time.
> >
> > Note that daylight "ceases" at a particular longitude solely dependent on
> > its latitude. No allowance for terrain, etc.
> >
> > But the following is also in the AIP:
> > "Users ... should note that the parameters used in compiling the ...
> > Graphs do not include the nature of the terrain ... other than a cloudless
> > sky and unlimited visibility ... Consequently, the presence of cloud
> > cover, poor visibility or high terrain to the west of an aerodrome will
> > cause daylight to end ... earlier than that extracted from the appropriate
> > graph.
> > Allowance should made for these factors when planning a flight..."
> >
> > The rules are reasonable but are no help in maintaining a level playing
> > field for a gliding competition.
> >
> > So, Doug. Make up your mind what arbitrary rule you would like to
> > implement for the SSA-OLC and publish it. Let's say - evening civil
> > twilight at the latitude.
> >
> > Stop using the FAA as an excuse and a crutch. Stand on your own feet.
> > Make a rule. Publish it. Enforce it. Cop the flak.
> >
> > GC

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and

....and they'll come up with a new one.

That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
aren't defined yet?

> you will never need to worry.
>
> Paul Remde

[Doug Haluza]

Andy wrote:.
>
> It is interesting that part 61 and part 91 define regulations that
> refer to sunrise and sunset but that the FAA provides no definition of
> what those terms mean. At least I couldn't find those definitions. I
> expected to find them in part 1.

This is true; the FAR's do define "Civil Twilight" be referring to the
"American Air Almanac" but do not define Sunrise or Sunset (they
probably didn't anticipate ****house lawyers trying to make this an
observable rather than a predictable phenomenon). It is reasonable to
assume that the American Air Almanac should also be used as the
official source for Sunrise and Sunset as well. It uses the standard
defenition of when the sun is at an azimuth angle of 90.8333 degrees.
This definition is the basis for the calculation used by the USNO, who
also publish the American Air Almanac.

> Given the uncertainty of the actual official sunset time I repeat my
> request that SAA's sunset time be used only to determine the "end of
> soaring flight" and not used to determine the validity of the entire
> flight.

I would personally like to see the time of sunset be the limit for the
end of soaring flight for the OLC universally. This would make
competition the same worldwide, regardless of night flying rules. That
said, however, the SSA Board took a very clear position on FAR
violations in general, and particulalry on Sunset, and your request is
not supported by the SSA policy.

[Doug Haluza]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Do you believe requiring pilots to adhere to FAA rules (already in place
> > before the flight) like airspace and sunset for an OLC flight is
> > "changing the rules" for an OLC flight?
>
> I was responding to the specific comment "Obviously, night cross country
> in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
> in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
> address this." My response is, perhaps, but I don't know of a single
> fatal outlanding accident that has occurred after sunset, but I know of
> some that have occurred before. By this reasoning, we would all be
> safer if we banned daytime flight.

Marc, this is a really an unfair characterization. You ignore the point
that night VFR in airplanes is significantly more dangerous than day
VFR. Obviously, the lack of accidents after dark (not sunset) in
gliders is due to the very low exposure, not a low risk. My point was
that if this became commonplace, eventually there would be accidents,
and these would be preventable if we did not encourage people to do
this by giving them a competitive advantage (i.e. more time to score by
continuing into the night). Your straw-man about banning daytime flight
is rediculous.

> > As far as the lights go, I can
> > imagine the IGC, OLC, or the SSA might decide (sometime in the future)
> > that competitions would be better if sunset was chosen for the end of
> > the day. I can't imagine it would happen without the usual discussion .
>
And that was exactly my point in posting this--to start the discussion.

[Doug Haluza]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Paul Remde wrote:
> >
> > I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of soaring
> > flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from home or at
> > altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead and landed on
> > time.
>
> And exactly which time would that be, Paul?

The time calculated by the USNO, the "the preeminent authority in the
areas of Precise Time and Astrometry" (at least in the US).

> You seem to have lost track of the story so far:
> Doug wants to be able to pick illegal flights on OLC but he's having
> trouble deciding which flights are illegal because he doesn't know when
> it's "sunset" (as 'un'defined in the FARs) at all the places OLC flights
> go to.

First, how dare you decide what I "want" based on what? If you look at
the subject line, and the original post to this thread, a reasonable
person would conclude that I do not want to do as you insinuate, and am
trying to warn pilots in advance, so it does not become a bigger issue.


> Now read on:
>
> I know this won't help but in Oz the rules are:
> 1. "Night" is the period between the end of evening civil twilight and
> the beginning of morning civil twilight.
> 2. CASA (FAA equivalent) publishes beginning and end of daylight graphs
> for latitudes from 0 to 45 throughout the year.
> 3. Daylight flight occurs between those times after converting local
> time to Standard/Daylight Time.
>
> Note that daylight "ceases" at a particular longitude solely dependent
> on its latitude. No allowance for terrain, etc.

And the date of course. This is based on the zenith angle of the sun.

> But the following is also in the AIP:
> "Users ... should note that the parameters used in compiling the ...
> Graphs do not include the nature of the terrain ... other than a
> cloudless sky and unlimited visibility ... Consequently, the presence
> of cloud cover, poor visibility or high terrain to the west of an
> aerodrome will cause daylight to end ... earlier than that extracted
> from the appropriate graph.
> Allowance should made for these factors when planning a flight..."

Yes, and all of these factors make sunset earlier, not later than
predicted by the standard formula for almost all normal soaring
flights. Unless you are flying off of a west facing beach in Winter,
sunset will be earlier than predicted because the horizon will be
higher, and the refraction will be less because the atmosphere is less
dense than standard sea level.

> The rules are reasonable but are no help in maintaining a level playing
> field for a gliding competition.
>
> So, Doug. Make up your mind what arbitrary rule you would like to
> implement for the SSA-OLC and publish it. Let's say - evening civil
> twilight at the latitude.

This is similarly an insulting insinuation. First off, I am not making
the rules, just trying to follow the direction the Committee and I have
been given by the Board. The direction is clear; the flight must end by
sunset, unless approved lighting was used, and this is noted in the
comments section of the OLC claim.

> Stop using the FAA as an excuse and a crutch. Stand on your own feet.
> Make a rule. Publish it. Enforce it. Cop the flak.

Done. Done. and being Done.

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
>
> ...and they'll come up with a new one.
>
> That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
> flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
> violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
> flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
> aren't defined yet?

This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.

Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
source:

6/5/05
Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report

Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
participation in the
program.

During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
is a violation of a Federal
Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
the fore. The committee
agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
involves unsporting behavior as
set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
statement of policy on this
issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
referred to the Badge
and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
the Board of Directors.
Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
proceeding. The sense of the
committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
OLC officials.

ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
be asked for a
statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
flight that
involves the violation of an FAR.

http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf

9/30/05
Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs

Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
the meeting concerning the
issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
in flights posted on the
On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
for badges and records.
This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
Directors.

http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf

10/1/05
Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)

Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
been signed which
gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
gliders as well. SSA did not
write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
had been posted which
showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
be adopted addressing
this problem.

A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
discussion of this and form a task
force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
it passed 14 in
favor, 7 against.

Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
policy of the SSA is
that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
passed unanimously.
A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.

http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf

12/10/05
Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure

Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
would supplement the
Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
in October, 2005. The
enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
which were generally agreed
to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
Committee be
established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
Directors on the number of pilots
that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
mounted on the web site.

ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
established to enforce the
policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
number of pilots
that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.

http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf

2/3/06
Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
.. . .
Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
that FARs must be
observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
discussion, Reid
proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
Directors can,
at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
can, at its discretion
after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
action at any time it
deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
vote against.

http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf

[Robert Backer]

Given the huge amount of prize money involved, it is easy to see why
this thread seems to generate such intense argument.

Bob

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
>> news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
>>> Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
>> ...and they'll come up with a new one.
>>
>> That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
>> flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
>> violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
>> flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
>> aren't defined yet?
>
> This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
>
> Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> source:
>
> 6/5/05
> Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> Memorandum of
> Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> participation in the
> program.
>
> During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> is a violation of a Federal
> Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> the fore. The committee
> agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> involves unsporting behavior as
> set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> statement of policy on this
> issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> referred to the Badge
> and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> the Board of Directors.
> Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> proceeding. The sense of the
> committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> OLC officials.
>
> ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> be asked for a
> statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> flight that
> involves the violation of an FAR.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
>
> 9/30/05
> Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> the meeting concerning the
> issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> in flights posted on the
> On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> for badges and records.
> This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> Directors.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
>
> 10/1/05
> Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> been signed which
> gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> gliders as well. SSA did not
> write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> had been posted which
> showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> be adopted addressing
> this problem.
>
> A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> discussion of this and form a task
> force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> it passed 14 in
> favor, 7 against.
>
> Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> policy of the SSA is
> that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> passed unanimously.
> A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
>
> 12/10/05
> Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
>
> Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> would supplement the
> Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> in October, 2005. The
> enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> which were generally agreed
> to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> Committee be
> established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> Directors on the number of pilots
> that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> mounted on the web site.
>
> ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> established to enforce the
> policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> number of pilots
> that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
>
> 2/3/06
> Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> . . .
> Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> that FARs must be
> observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> discussion, Reid
> proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> Directors can,
> at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> can, at its discretion
> after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> action at any time it
> deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> vote against.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf
>

[Doug Haluza]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Andy wrote:.
> >
> > It is interesting that part 61 and part 91 define regulations that
> > refer to sunrise and sunset but that the FAA provides no definition of
> > what those terms mean. At least I couldn't find those definitions. I
> > expected to find them in part 1.
>
This is true; the FAR's do define "Civil Twilight" be referring to the
"American Air Almanac" but do not define Sunrise or Sunset (they
probably didn't anticipate ****house lawyers trying to make this an
observable rather than a predictable phenomenon). It is reasonable to
assume that the American Air Almanac should also be used as the
official source for Sunrise and Sunset as well. It uses the standard
defenition of when the sun is at a zenith angle of 90.8333 degrees.
This definition is the basis for the calculation used by the USNO, who
also publish the American Air Almanac.


> Given the uncertainty of the actual official sunset time I repeat my
> request that SAA's sunset time be used only to determine the "end of
> soaring flight" and not used to determine the validity of the entire
> flight.


I would personally like to see the time of sunset be the limit for the
end of soaring flight for the OLC universally. This would make
competition the same worldwide, regardless of night flying rules. That
said, however, the SSA Board took a very clear position on FAR
violations in general, and particulalry on Sunset, and your request is
not supported by the SSA policy.

[Doug Haluza]

588 wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > ...I would be in favor of an OLC rule that requires landing by
> > sunset to avoid giving an advantage to the few gliders with lights,
> > and to discourage pilots from adding lights.
>
> How about a limit on span? No untoward advantage must accrue to those
> who do simply because they can do.

I think span is reasonably compensated by the handicap factor. The fact
that OLC is handicapped is what makes it interesting. I have a 1979
glider with fixed gear, and I can still be competitive. So can an SGS
1-26. The handicap levels the playing field enough to make OLC all
inclusive. I think allowing night flying would give too much advantage
to newer motorgliders ordered with lights, and would put the vast
majority of the existing fleet without lights at a severe disadvantage.

[Ramy]

Doug, none of this mention any particular FAR. Since obviously you are
not enforcing all FARs, when exactly was it decided which FARs are to
be enforced?

Ramy


Doug Haluza wrote:
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> > > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
> >
> > ...and they'll come up with a new one.
> >
> > That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
> > flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
> > violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
> > flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
> > aren't defined yet?
>
> This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
>
> Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> source:
>
> 6/5/05
> Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> Memorandum of
> Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> participation in the
> program.
>
> During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> is a violation of a Federal
> Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> the fore. The committee
> agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> involves unsporting behavior as
> set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> statement of policy on this
> issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> referred to the Badge
> and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> the Board of Directors.
> Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> proceeding. The sense of the
> committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> OLC officials.
>
> ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> be asked for a
> statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> flight that
> involves the violation of an FAR.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
>
> 9/30/05
> Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> the meeting concerning the
> issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> in flights posted on the
> On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> for badges and records.
> This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> Directors.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
>
> 10/1/05
> Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> been signed which
> gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> gliders as well. SSA did not
> write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> had been posted which
> showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> be adopted addressing
> this problem.
>
> A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> discussion of this and form a task
> force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> it passed 14 in
> favor, 7 against.
>
> Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> policy of the SSA is
> that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> passed unanimously.
> A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
>
> 12/10/05
> Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
>
> Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> would supplement the
> Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> in October, 2005. The
> enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> which were generally agreed
> to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> Committee be
> established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> Directors on the number of pilots
> that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> mounted on the web site.
>
> ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> established to enforce the
> policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> number of pilots
> that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
>
> 2/3/06
> Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> . . .
> Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> that FARs must be
> observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> discussion, Reid
> proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> Directors can,
> at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> can, at its discretion
> after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> action at any time it
> deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> vote against.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf

[Quebec Tango]

Ramy,

The point is that you are responsible for self enforcing the FARS.
What secondary oversight any other organization engages in shpould be
irrevelent. If you are so focused on determining what is going to be
looked at (with the implication that that is all you have to bother
comply with), then you clearly need to be monitored closely.

Ramy wrote:
> Doug, none of this mention any particular FAR. Since obviously you are
> not enforcing all FARs, when exactly was it decided which FARs are to
> be enforced?
>
> Ramy
>
>
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > > news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> > > > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
> > >
> > > ...and they'll come up with a new one.
> > >
> > > That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
> > > flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
> > > violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
> > > flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
> > > aren't defined yet?
> >
> > This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> > myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> > it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> > origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> > repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> > arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
> >
> > Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> > minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> > section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> > driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> > source:
> >
> > 6/5/05
> > Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
> >
> > Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> > Memorandum of
> > Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> > participation in the
> > program.
> >
> > During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> > is a violation of a Federal
> > Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> > the fore. The committee
> > agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> > involves unsporting behavior as
> > set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> > statement of policy on this
> > issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> > referred to the Badge
> > and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> > the Board of Directors.
> > Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> > proceeding. The sense of the
> > committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> > OLC officials.
> >
> > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> > be asked for a
> > statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> > flight that
> > involves the violation of an FAR.
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
> >
> > 9/30/05
> > Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
> >
> > Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> > the meeting concerning the
> > issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> > in flights posted on the
> > On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> > for badges and records.
> > This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> > Directors.
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
> >
> > 10/1/05
> > Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
> >
> > Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> > been signed which
> > gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> > gliders as well. SSA did not
> > write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> > had been posted which
> > showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> > be adopted addressing
> > this problem.
> >
> > A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> > discussion of this and form a task
> > force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> > it passed 14 in
> > favor, 7 against.
> >
> > Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> > policy of the SSA is
> > that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> > passed unanimously.
> > A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> > Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> > members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
> >
> > 12/10/05
> > Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
> >
> > Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> > would supplement the
> > Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> > in October, 2005. The
> > enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> > which were generally agreed
> > to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> > Committee be
> > established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> > Directors on the number of pilots
> > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> > mounted on the web site.
> >
> > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> > established to enforce the
> > policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> > number of pilots
> > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
> >
> > 2/3/06
> > Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> > . . .
> > Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> > that FARs must be
> > observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> > discussion, Reid
> > proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> > Directors can,
> > at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> > can, at its discretion
> > after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> > action at any time it
> > deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> > vote against.
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf

[Ramy]

No Quebec Tango, this wasn't the point. The point is that Doug claims
that the sunset rule was not arbitrarily enforced, but the quotes he
provided do not mention any particular FAR. So my question remains:
When exactly was it decided which FAR to enforce and which not, and
when/where was it communicated?


Quebec Tango wrote:
> Ramy,
>
> The point is that you are responsible for self enforcing the FARS.
> What secondary oversight any other organization engages in shpould be
> irrevelent. If you are so focused on determining what is going to be
> looked at (with the implication that that is all you have to bother
> comply with), then you clearly need to be monitored closely.
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > Doug, none of this mention any particular FAR. Since obviously you are
> > not enforcing all FARs, when exactly was it decided which FARs are to
> > be enforced?
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> >
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > > > news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> > > > > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
> > > >
> > > > ...and they'll come up with a new one.
> > > >
> > > > That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
> > > > flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
> > > > violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
> > > > flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
> > > > aren't defined yet?
> > >
> > > This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> > > myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> > > it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> > > origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> > > repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> > > arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
> > >
> > > Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> > > minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> > > section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> > > driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> > > source:
> > >
> > > 6/5/05
> > > Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
> > >
> > > Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> > > Memorandum of
> > > Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> > > participation in the
> > > program.
> > >
> > > During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> > > is a violation of a Federal
> > > Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> > > the fore. The committee
> > > agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> > > involves unsporting behavior as
> > > set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> > > statement of policy on this
> > > issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> > > referred to the Badge
> > > and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> > > the Board of Directors.
> > > Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> > > proceeding. The sense of the
> > > committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> > > OLC officials.
> > >
> > > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > > 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> > > be asked for a
> > > statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> > > flight that
> > > involves the violation of an FAR.
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
> > >
> > > 9/30/05
> > > Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
> > >
> > > Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> > > the meeting concerning the
> > > issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> > > in flights posted on the
> > > On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> > > for badges and records.
> > > This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> > > Directors.
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
> > >
> > > 10/1/05
> > > Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
> > >
> > > Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> > > been signed which
> > > gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> > > gliders as well. SSA did not
> > > write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> > > had been posted which
> > > showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> > > be adopted addressing
> > > this problem.
> > >
> > > A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> > > discussion of this and form a task
> > > force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> > > it passed 14 in
> > > favor, 7 against.
> > >
> > > Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> > > policy of the SSA is
> > > that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> > > passed unanimously.
> > > A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> > > Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> > > members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
> > >
> > > 12/10/05
> > > Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
> > >
> > > Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> > > would supplement the
> > > Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> > > in October, 2005. The
> > > enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> > > which were generally agreed
> > > to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> > > Committee be
> > > established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> > > Directors on the number of pilots
> > > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> > > mounted on the web site.
> > >
> > > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > > 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> > > established to enforce the
> > > policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> > > number of pilots
> > > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
> > >
> > > 2/3/06
> > > Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> > > . . .
> > > Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> > > that FARs must be
> > > observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> > > discussion, Reid
> > > proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> > > Directors can,
> > > at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> > > can, at its discretion
> > > after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> > > action at any time it
> > > deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> > > vote against.
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf

[Quebec Tango]

No Ramy, you just don't get it. You consistently argue that it is OK
to cheat if no one is watching. Why whould I ever want you in a game
with me? Your entire premise is wrong and unsportsmanlike.

Ramy wrote:
> No Quebec Tango, this wasn't the point. The point is that Doug claims
> that the sunset rule was not arbitrarily enforced, but the quotes he
> provided do not mention any particular FAR. So my question remains:
> When exactly was it decided which FAR to enforce and which not, and
> when/where was it communicated?
>
>
> Quebec Tango wrote:
> > Ramy,
> >
> > The point is that you are responsible for self enforcing the FARS.
> > What secondary oversight any other organization engages in shpould be
> > irrevelent. If you are so focused on determining what is going to be
> > looked at (with the implication that that is all you have to bother
> > comply with), then you clearly need to be monitored closely.
> >
> > Ramy wrote:
> > > Doug, none of this mention any particular FAR. Since obviously you are
> > > not enforcing all FARs, when exactly was it decided which FARs are to
> > > be enforced?
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > >
> > >
> > > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > > > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> > > > > > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and they'll come up with a new one.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
> > > > > flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
> > > > > violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
> > > > > flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
> > > > > aren't defined yet?
> > > >
> > > > This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> > > > myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> > > > it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> > > > origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> > > > repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> > > > arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> > > > minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> > > > section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> > > > driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> > > > source:
> > > >
> > > > 6/5/05
> > > > Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> > > > Memorandum of
> > > > Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> > > > participation in the
> > > > program.
> > > >
> > > > During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> > > > is a violation of a Federal
> > > > Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> > > > the fore. The committee
> > > > agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> > > > involves unsporting behavior as
> > > > set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> > > > statement of policy on this
> > > > issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> > > > referred to the Badge
> > > > and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> > > > the Board of Directors.
> > > > Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> > > > proceeding. The sense of the
> > > > committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> > > > OLC officials.
> > > >
> > > > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > > > 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> > > > be asked for a
> > > > statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> > > > flight that
> > > > involves the violation of an FAR.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
> > > >
> > > > 9/30/05
> > > > Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> > > > the meeting concerning the
> > > > issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> > > > in flights posted on the
> > > > On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> > > > for badges and records.
> > > > This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> > > > Directors.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
> > > >
> > > > 10/1/05
> > > > Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> > > > been signed which
> > > > gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> > > > gliders as well. SSA did not
> > > > write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> > > > had been posted which
> > > > showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> > > > be adopted addressing
> > > > this problem.
> > > >
> > > > A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> > > > discussion of this and form a task
> > > > force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> > > > it passed 14 in
> > > > favor, 7 against.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> > > > policy of the SSA is
> > > > that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> > > > passed unanimously.
> > > > A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> > > > Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> > > > members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
> > > >
> > > > 12/10/05
> > > > Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> > > > would supplement the
> > > > Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> > > > in October, 2005. The
> > > > enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> > > > which were generally agreed
> > > > to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> > > > Committee be
> > > > established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> > > > Directors on the number of pilots
> > > > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> > > > mounted on the web site.
> > > >
> > > > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > > > 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> > > > established to enforce the
> > > > policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> > > > number of pilots
> > > > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
> > > >
> > > > 2/3/06
> > > > Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> > > > . . .
> > > > Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> > > > that FARs must be
> > > > observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> > > > discussion, Reid
> > > > proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> > > > Directors can,
> > > > at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> > > > can, at its discretion
> > > > after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> > > > action at any time it
> > > > deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> > > > vote against.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf

[Doug Haluza]

Quebec Tango wrote:
> No Ramy, you just don't get it. You consistently argue that it is OK
> to cheat if no one is watching. Why whould I ever want you in a game
> with me? Your entire premise is wrong and unsportsmanlike.
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > No Quebec Tango, this wasn't the point. The point is that Doug claims
> > that the sunset rule was not arbitrarily enforced, but the quotes he
> > provided do not mention any particular FAR. So my question remains:
> > When exactly was it decided which FAR to enforce and which not, and
> > when/where was it communicated?
> >
> >
> > Quebec Tango wrote:
> > > Ramy,
> > >
> > > The point is that you are responsible for self enforcing the FARS.
> > > What secondary oversight any other organization engages in shpould be
> > > irrevelent. If you are so focused on determining what is going to be
> > > looked at (with the implication that that is all you have to bother
> > > comply with), then you clearly need to be monitored closely.
> > >
> > > Ramy wrote:
> > > > Doug, none of this mention any particular FAR. Since obviously you are
> > > > not enforcing all FARs, when exactly was it decided which FARs are to
> > > > be enforced?
> > > >
> > > > Ramy

12/10/05

"Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure

Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
would supplement the
Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
in October, 2005. The enforcement policy was then discussed at length,
the provisions of
which were generally agreed to. The committee asked that a
sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee be established to
enforce this policy and to report to the Board of Directors on the
number of pilots that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
The policy will be mounted on the web site."

http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf

"A posted flight that shows an FAR violation (such as entering Class A
airspace without a clearance or flying past sunset without lights) begs
for FAA action."

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf

Are we done yet?

[Ramy]

QT, If you read carefully the thread you may understand what my (and
few others) point is, but some people don't get. But I am not going to
continue arguing with you in public, you can email me privately and I
can explain it to you.

Quebec Tango wrote:
> No Ramy, you just don't get it. You consistently argue that it is OK
> to cheat if no one is watching. Why whould I ever want you in a game
> with me? Your entire premise is wrong and unsportsmanlike.
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > No Quebec Tango, this wasn't the point. The point is that Doug claims
> > that the sunset rule was not arbitrarily enforced, but the quotes he
> > provided do not mention any particular FAR. So my question remains:
> > When exactly was it decided which FAR to enforce and which not, and
> > when/where was it communicated?
> >
> >
> > Quebec Tango wrote:
> > > Ramy,
> > >
> > > The point is that you are responsible for self enforcing the FARS.
> > > What secondary oversight any other organization engages in shpould be
> > > irrevelent. If you are so focused on determining what is going to be
> > > looked at (with the implication that that is all you have to bother
> > > comply with), then you clearly need to be monitored closely.
> > >
> > > Ramy wrote:
> > > > Doug, none of this mention any particular FAR. Since obviously you are
> > > > not enforcing all FARs, when exactly was it decided which FARs are to
> > > > be enforced?
> > > >
> > > > Ramy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > > > Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> > > > > > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > > > > > news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
> > > > > > > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...and they'll come up with a new one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
> > > > > > flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for what
> > > > > > violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
> > > > > > flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
> > > > > > aren't defined yet?
> > > > >
> > > > > This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> > > > > myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> > > > > it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> > > > > origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> > > > > repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> > > > > arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> > > > > minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> > > > > section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> > > > > driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> > > > > source:
> > > > >
> > > > > 6/5/05
> > > > > Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> > > > > Memorandum of
> > > > > Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> > > > > participation in the
> > > > > program.
> > > > >
> > > > > During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> > > > > is a violation of a Federal
> > > > > Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> > > > > the fore. The committee
> > > > > agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> > > > > involves unsporting behavior as
> > > > > set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> > > > > statement of policy on this
> > > > > issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> > > > > referred to the Badge
> > > > > and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> > > > > the Board of Directors.
> > > > > Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> > > > > proceeding. The sense of the
> > > > > committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> > > > > OLC officials.
> > > > >
> > > > > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > > > > 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> > > > > be asked for a
> > > > > statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> > > > > flight that
> > > > > involves the violation of an FAR.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > 9/30/05
> > > > > Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> > > > > the meeting concerning the
> > > > > issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> > > > > in flights posted on the
> > > > > On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> > > > > for badges and records.
> > > > > This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> > > > > Directors.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > 10/1/05
> > > > > Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> > > > > been signed which
> > > > > gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> > > > > gliders as well. SSA did not
> > > > > write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> > > > > had been posted which
> > > > > showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> > > > > be adopted addressing
> > > > > this problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> > > > > discussion of this and form a task
> > > > > force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> > > > > it passed 14 in
> > > > > favor, 7 against.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> > > > > policy of the SSA is
> > > > > that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> > > > > passed unanimously.
> > > > > A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> > > > > Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> > > > > members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > 12/10/05
> > > > > Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
> > > > >
> > > > > Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> > > > > would supplement the
> > > > > Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> > > > > in October, 2005. The
> > > > > enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> > > > > which were generally agreed
> > > > > to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> > > > > Committee be
> > > > > established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> > > > > Directors on the number of pilots
> > > > > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> > > > > mounted on the web site.
> > > > >
> > > > > ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> > > > > 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> > > > > established to enforce the
> > > > > policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> > > > > number of pilots
> > > > > that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > 2/3/06
> > > > > Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> > > > > . . .
> > > > > Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> > > > > that FARs must be
> > > > > observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> > > > > discussion, Reid
> > > > > proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> > > > > Directors can,
> > > > > at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> > > > > can, at its discretion
> > > > > after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> > > > > action at any time it
> > > > > deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> > > > > vote against.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf

[Ramy]

Yes, thanks Doug. Now I wish it would have been communicated better...

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
>
> "Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
>
> Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> would supplement the
> Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> in October, 2005. The enforcement policy was then discussed at length,
> the provisions of
> which were generally agreed to. The committee asked that a
> sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee be established to
> enforce this policy and to report to the Board of Directors on the
> number of pilots that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
> The policy will be mounted on the web site."
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
>
> "A posted flight that shows an FAR violation (such as entering Class A
> airspace without a clearance or flying past sunset without lights) begs
> for FAA action."
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Policy%20on%20FAR%20Violations.pdf
>
> Are we done yet?

[Jack[_6_]]

Paul Remde wrote:

> "Andy" > wrote in message
> oups.com.

>> Given the uncertainty of the actual official sunset time I repeat my
>> request that SAA's sunset time be used only to determine the "end of
>> soaring flight" and not used to determine the validity of the entire
>> flight.

> I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of soaring
> flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from home or at
> altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead and landed on
> time.

I think calling sunset the end of soaring flight for the OLC is fine if
the pilot is given a few minutes more to land. If the flight continues
beyond that it could be considered sufficient evidence of poor planning,
or bad faith, and the whole flight automatically disallowed.

"SS + 0:05" might work for everybody in determining when to disqualify
an entire flight, and not require the services of both defense counsel
and a battery of astronomers just to mollify a nanny SSA-OLC.

And who cares how far from home the pilot is? Let him land out and walk
home, as long as the ship touched down within a few minutes of whatever
"FAA Official Sunset" might have been at that place and time. There are
no declarations necessary, nor is OLC an assigned task. Next thing we
know, we'll be needing Official Observers.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:
> Well, SeeYou shows the sunset time, so I guess this is what Doug is
> using.
> Paul, your suggetion will work for short to medium or yoyo tasks when
> one can plan to land way before sunset or can abort the task. But this
> does not work for long O&R and triangle tasks, especially in the great
> basin, where weaker conditions on course can slow you down
> significantly. When this happens there are only two choices, to fly
> back home and potentially land after sunset, or landout in the middle
> of nowhere before sunset, hope you don't break anything, then spend a
> freezing night in the cockpit waiting for your retrieve.

We'd all choose to fly home, but we don't have to post that flight on
the OLC. Doug isn't suggesting you do something stupid to get some OLC
points, but he is asking you don't post flights that clearly go beyond
sunset.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:
> No Quebec Tango, this wasn't the point. The point is that Doug claims
> that the sunset rule was not arbitrarily enforced, but the quotes he
> provided do not mention any particular FAR. So my question remains:
> When exactly was it decided which FAR to enforce and which not, and
> when/where was it communicated?

Could we stop using phrases like "enforce the FARs"? Doug
isn't/can't/won't enforce FARs; these are contest rules he is enforcing.
And it should be clear by now that the FARs that concern the SSA are
those that can be checked by looking at the flight file.

I agree that there wasn't much communication about following the FARs,
but I wouldn't have thought much was needed, either. I seem to be wrong.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Doug Haluza]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Well, SeeYou shows the sunset time, so I guess this is what Doug is
> > using.
> > Paul, your suggetion will work for short to medium or yoyo tasks when
> > one can plan to land way before sunset or can abort the task. But this
> > does not work for long O&R and triangle tasks, especially in the great
> > basin, where weaker conditions on course can slow you down
> > significantly. When this happens there are only two choices, to fly
> > back home and potentially land after sunset, or landout in the middle
> > of nowhere before sunset, hope you don't break anything, then spend a
> > freezing night in the cockpit waiting for your retrieve.
>
> We'd all choose to fly home, but we don't have to post that flight on
> the OLC. Doug isn't suggesting you do something stupid to get some OLC
> points, but he is asking you don't post flights that clearly go beyond
> sunset.

Just one thing, it's not just me asking. When I got drafted for the
SSA-OLC Committee assignment earlier this year, this was all a done
deal. I had no part in making it at the SSA level. And I had no part in
making it at the field level either, because I have been landing (just)
before sunset even before the OLC existed.

[Graeme Cant]

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a crazy, wild suggestion.... Fly your task so that you land before
> any known definition of sunset and you will never need to worry. That is
> what most pilots do. Those that do not are not playing fair - in my
> opinion.
>
> Paul Remde

I have a crazy suggestion too. It is absolutely clear the FAA rules
about what constitutes daylight flying are very much open to debate.
They weren't designed to make a level playing field for a glider
competition which is what you and Doug and a number of others want to
use them for. It's clear that all this talk about glider pilots getting
a bad rep, etc, etc is hogwash. You actually think some people are
cheating and you're using the FAA as an excuse to win the point.

So. If the SSA-OLC believes there ought to be a rule about how late a
qualifying flight can end, then it needs TO MAKE ITS OWN RULES! I don't
see why anybody should fly a competition conservatively and using the
FAA as a crutch - as Doug attempted to do - isn't going to work.

So. Paul, Doug, Al, everybody else. Stand on your own feet. Make some
rules. YOUR OWN RULES! Make a decision and defend it! Or else stop
the jaw-flapping. Stop hanging off the FAA!

Can I suggest you do the same WRT 18000feet and SUA boundaries.

The FAA's rules aren't designed to make a fair glider competition.
They're designed to keep pilots safe. If you want to run a competition
where all this stuff is measured to the inch and the second in complete
defiance of commonsense, have the guts to make your own rules. Stop
using the FAA as an excuse.

GC


>
> "Graeme Cant" <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Remde wrote:
>>> I must respectfully disagree. If we just use sunset as the end of
>>> soaring flight that gives an unfair advantage to a pilot that is far from
>>> home or at altitude when the sun sets. He/she should have planned ahead
>>> and landed on time.
>> And exactly which time would that be, Paul?
>>
>> You seem to have lost track of the story so far:
>> Doug wants to be able to pick illegal flights on OLC but he's having
>> trouble deciding which flights are illegal because he doesn't know when
>> it's "sunset" (as 'un'defined in the FARs) at all the places OLC flights
>> go to. Last night two astronomers locked horns and are heading for the
>> jugular over when sunset might be.
>>
>> Now read on:
>>
>> I know this won't help but in Oz the rules are:
>> 1. "Night" is the period between the end of evening civil twilight and
>> the beginning of morning civil twilight.
>> 2. CASA (FAA equivalent) publishes beginning and end of daylight graphs
>> for latitudes from 0 to 45 throughout the year.
>> 3. Daylight flight occurs between those times after converting local time
>> to Standard/Daylight Time.
>>
>> Note that daylight "ceases" at a particular longitude solely dependent on
>> its latitude. No allowance for terrain, etc.
>>
>> But the following is also in the AIP:
>> "Users ... should note that the parameters used in compiling the ...
>> Graphs do not include the nature of the terrain ... other than a cloudless
>> sky and unlimited visibility ... Consequently, the presence of cloud
>> cover, poor visibility or high terrain to the west of an aerodrome will
>> cause daylight to end ... earlier than that extracted from the appropriate
>> graph.
>> Allowance should made for these factors when planning a flight..."
>>
>> The rules are reasonable but are no help in maintaining a level playing
>> field for a gliding competition.
>>
>> So, Doug. Make up your mind what arbitrary rule you would like to
>> implement for the SSA-OLC and publish it. Let's say - evening civil
>> twilight at the latitude.
>>
>> Stop using the FAA as an excuse and a crutch. Stand on your own feet.
>> Make a rule. Publish it. Enforce it. Cop the flak.
>>
>> GC
>
>

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If you look at
> the subject line, and the original post to this thread, a reasonable
> person would conclude that I ... am
> trying to warn pilots in advance, so it does not become a bigger issue.

Just to keep the facts straight, let's say that "in advance" is a bit of an
exaggeration on Doug's part. The thread with the subject "...Warning..." was
posted *after* several flights were suddenly found to appear to be in
violation of the sunset rule.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I think allowing night flying would give too much advantage
> to newer motorgliders ordered with lights, and would put the vast
> majority of the existing fleet without lights at a severe disadvantage.

This "I think" example pretty much sums up the rulemaking "process" on the
SSA-OLC. Despite the long existing OLC rule that clearly *allows* night
flight (if and as permitted by local regulations), we here can "I think" of
a new rule and start applying (or not applying) it when and where we see
fit.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:0b4Rg.694$Vk4.425@trnddc01...
> Ramy wrote:
>> Well, SeeYou shows the sunset time, so I guess this is what Doug is
>> using.
>> Paul, your suggetion will work for short to medium or yoyo tasks when
>> one can plan to land way before sunset or can abort the task. But this
>> does not work for long O&R and triangle tasks, especially in the great
>> basin, where weaker conditions on course can slow you down
>> significantly. When this happens there are only two choices, to fly
>> back home and potentially land after sunset, or landout in the middle
>> of nowhere before sunset, hope you don't break anything, then spend a
>> freezing night in the cockpit waiting for your retrieve.
>
> We'd all choose to fly home, but we don't have to post that flight on the
> OLC. Doug isn't suggesting you do something stupid to get some OLC points,
> but he is asking you don't post flights that clearly go beyond sunset.

And the only lasting result of it is that the rest of us don't get to see
those flights and don't learn from their analysis. And for what higher
purpose do we have to give up this once wonderful resource?

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Doug,
This is a lot of very fascinating reading, but a lo-o-ong way to the punch
line. Most people are interested in flying, then posting flights to OLC and
then reading the proceeds of the SSA BoD (maybe) -- in that order.

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
>> news:KaRQg.200456$1i1.196173@attbi_s72...
>> > Fly your task so that you land before any known definition of sunset
>> > and
>>
>> ...and they'll come up with a new one.
>>
>> That is the problem with the rules being changed on the fly. You submit a
>> flight and never know who, when and why will be scrutinizing it and for
>> what
>> violations. In this atmosphere of FUD, can you guarantee that the next
>> flight that you submit does not break any rules -- including those that
>> aren't defined yet?
>
> This whole subtext of arbitrary rule making is becoming an Internet
> myth, started and nurtured by people who assume that since they did it,
> it must have been OK, and the trolls they feed with this logic. The
> origin of the SSA FAR policy goes back more than a year, and is
> repeatedly documented in the SSA Board Minutes. So it was not
> arbitrary, or secret, or retroactive, or any of this nonsense.
>
> Now I know most SSA members probably do not regularly review the Board
> minutes, but they are published on the SSA website in the members
> section. At the risk of injecting facts into an otherwise assumption
> driven thread, here are the relevant quotes along with the links to the
> source:
>
> 6/5/05
> Agenda Item 16.0 On Line Contest Update Report
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the work done to date on the development of a
> Memorandum of
> Understanding (MOU) with the On Line Contest owners concerning SSA's
> participation in the
> program.
>
> During discussion, an issue of posting flights to the OLC where there
> is a violation of a Federal
> Aviation Administration rule (such as an airspace restriction) came to
> the fore. The committee
> agreed that no badge or record should be approved if the flight
> involves unsporting behavior as
> set out in the FAI Sporting Code. The committee also agreed that a
> statement of policy on this
> issue must be carefully worded. The committee asked that this issue be
> referred to the Badge
> and Record Committee for a policy that can ultimately be approved by
> the Board of Directors.
> Chairman Carswell agreed to review the draft MOU again before
> proceeding. The sense of the
> committee indicates the desire to proceed with an agreement with the
> OLC officials.
>
> ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> 11. The Executive Committee asked that the Badge and Record Committee
> be asked for a
> statement of policy concerning the disallowance of any badge or record
> flight that
> involves the violation of an FAR.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/ExCom_2005_Jun_05_Final.pdf
>
> 9/30/05
> Agenda Item 11.0 SSA/OLC/FARs
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the discussions that had taken place prior to
> the meeting concerning the
> issue of possible violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
> in flights posted on the
> On-Line Contest (OLC), flying in SSA sanctioned contests, and flying
> for badges and records.
> This issue would be further discussed at the meeting of the Board of
> Directors.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-Final%20Draft%20Minutes%209-30.pdf
>
> 10/1/05
> Agenda Item 9.0 Vice Chair Member Services & Information (Garner)
>
> Mr. Garner reported on the On Line Contest (OLC). He advised a MOU had
> been signed which
> gives SSA exclusive right to the OLC in the U.S. This included hang
> gliders as well. SSA did not
> write the rules, just administer them. He reported that some flights
> had been posted which
> showed possible violations of FARs. He requested that a written policy
> be adopted addressing
> this problem.
>
> A lengthy discussion ensued and Mr. Spratt moved to table the
> discussion of this and form a task
> force to recommend SSA policy on FARs. Mr. Reid seconded the motion and
> it passed 14 in
> favor, 7 against.
>
> Mr. Reid moved the SSA adopt as official policy to FAR violations "The
> policy of the SSA is
> that FARs must be observed." Mr. Mockler seconded the motion, and it
> passed unanimously.
> A task force to study the application of this policy was formed with
> Mr. Reid as Chairman, and
> members, Ms. Brickner, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Garner.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/2005_Oct_01_draft.pdf
>
> 12/10/05
> Agenda Item 11 OLC Enforcement Procedure
>
> Mr. Garner introduced a paper with a draft enforcement policy that
> would supplement the
> Federal Aviation Regulation Policy approved by the Board at its meeting
> in October, 2005. The
> enforcement policy was then discussed at length, the provisions of
> which were generally agreed
> to. The committee asked that a sub-committee of the Badge and Record
> Committee be
> established to enforce this policy and to report to the Board of
> Directors on the number of pilots
> that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy. The policy will be
> mounted on the web site.
>
> ACTION ITEMS RESULTING FROM THE MEETING
> 7. A sub-committee of the Badge and Record Committee will be
> established to enforce the
> policy on FAR violations, and report to the Board of Directors on the
> number of pilots
> that are sanctioned under the terms of this policy.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/00-PostedMinutes12-10.pdf
>
> 2/3/06
> Agenda Item 7.0 - Vice Chair - Reid
> . . .
> Reid reported on detailed implementation of the SSA s general policy
> that FARs must be
> observed and referred to the draft motion in the Board Book. After
> discussion, Reid
> proposed and Hines seconded the following motion - "The SSA Board of
> Directors can,
> at its discretion, review the circumstances involving any flight and
> can, at its discretion
> after receiving the advice of any responsible committee, take any
> action at any time it
> deems appropriate". After discussion, the motion was passed with one
> vote against.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/download/2006_Feb_03_draft.pdf
>

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
>
> When you define this in terms of "FAR violation" you are
> making a legal/regulatory judgment that the SSA and OLC
> should not be in the business of making. You are
> immediately drawn into the gray area of deciding whether the
> pilot was reasonable in believing he could get home before
> sunset and whether it was an emergency to continue flight as
> compared to landing elsewhere.

Excellent point, and the one that very few at SSA seem to get or care about.

> It would seem better to just set the rule at the OLC level,

....publish it *before* next OLC season (and in a less obscure way than SSA
BoD minutes), ...

> deny credit

....yes...

> and remove the posted flight since it didn't
> count

....and a respectful no. Scored or not, those flights do count -- we all can
learn a great deal from them. They are, in fact, tend to be the most
valuable lessons, as they are the result of people pushing hard for big
goals. It's easy to follow the rules on a local flight, but there are but
few lessons in those.

Now, some will say that flights with apparent violations are bad lessons --
but that is only assuming we are all monkeys here.

And going back just one more time to "credits" and rules and enforcement
policies... One thing that I grew to hate about the modern SSA-OLC is that
it openly encourages people to look for "violations" in other people's
flights and report them. Otherwise, try to explain the spike in reports and
subsequent "sanctions". This has become one way to improve one's score on
the OLC -- and I hate it. I hate to think that this minute one of my soaring
buddies might be digging through my old traces looking for something to
report. Why? What's the purpose? To bump my score few points down and their
placing few lines up? If so, I sure hope they win a big prize! Zero out all
my scores -- I don't want to be any part of it.

And the most striking thing is that this would be so easy to avoid. Check
the traces automatically on submission, gray out and/or score with zero
those that do not pass and DON'T MESS WITH THEM once accepted. (Definitely
don't mess with them once the OLC statute of limitations -- currently four
weeks -- has passed.) This would reduce the incentive to "report"
"violations" to that of pure self-satisfaction, not even materialized in the
score sheet.

> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
--
Yuliy Gerchikov

[Eric Greenwell]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> news:0b4Rg.694$Vk4.425@trnddc01...
>> Ramy wrote:
>>> Well, SeeYou shows the sunset time, so I guess this is what Doug is
>>> using.
>>> Paul, your suggetion will work for short to medium or yoyo tasks when
>>> one can plan to land way before sunset or can abort the task. But this
>>> does not work for long O&R and triangle tasks, especially in the great
>>> basin, where weaker conditions on course can slow you down
>>> significantly. When this happens there are only two choices, to fly
>>> back home and potentially land after sunset, or landout in the middle
>>> of nowhere before sunset, hope you don't break anything, then spend a
>>> freezing night in the cockpit waiting for your retrieve.
>> We'd all choose to fly home, but we don't have to post that flight on the
>> OLC. Doug isn't suggesting you do something stupid to get some OLC points,
>> but he is asking you don't post flights that clearly go beyond sunset.
>
> And the only lasting result of it is that the rest of us don't get to see
> those flights and don't learn from their analysis.

Those few flights that aren't posted because they appear to blatantly
violate US FARs can be be posted in many different glider forums, or put
on a website somewhere, if they are so important to our enjoyment and
understanding. Since it's the posting of the flights that interests you,
and not the contest aspect, you or like-minded pilots could set up a
repository for them. It should be a lot simpler to set up than the OLC,
since there aren't any rules to check or files to verify.

> And for what higher
> purpose do we have to give up this once wonderful resource?

As for the "once wonderful resource" being lost, I'm still enjoying the
OLC just as much. It's called the OnLine Contest, not "What-I-did forum"
where you post whatever you like, so I'm thinking the higher purpose is
preserving the contest aspect of the OLC.

I am a bit disturbed at the implication that people who willingly or
unwittingly break FARs so obviously it shows on their flight file are
people we should be learning from.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

[Paul Remde]

Well said Eric!

Paul Remde

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:QxYRg.3547$Vk4.1710@trnddc01...
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>> news:0b4Rg.694$Vk4.425@trnddc01...
>>> Ramy wrote:
>>>> Well, SeeYou shows the sunset time, so I guess this is what Doug is
>>>> using.
>>>> Paul, your suggetion will work for short to medium or yoyo tasks when
>>>> one can plan to land way before sunset or can abort the task. But this
>>>> does not work for long O&R and triangle tasks, especially in the great
>>>> basin, where weaker conditions on course can slow you down
>>>> significantly. When this happens there are only two choices, to fly
>>>> back home and potentially land after sunset, or landout in the middle
>>>> of nowhere before sunset, hope you don't break anything, then spend a
>>>> freezing night in the cockpit waiting for your retrieve.
>>> We'd all choose to fly home, but we don't have to post that flight on
>>> the OLC. Doug isn't suggesting you do something stupid to get some OLC
>>> points, but he is asking you don't post flights that clearly go beyond
>>> sunset.
>>
>> And the only lasting result of it is that the rest of us don't get to see
>> those flights and don't learn from their analysis.
>
> Those few flights that aren't posted because they appear to blatantly
> violate US FARs can be be posted in many different glider forums, or put
> on a website somewhere, if they are so important to our enjoyment and
> understanding. Since it's the posting of the flights that interests you,
> and not the contest aspect, you or like-minded pilots could set up a
> repository for them. It should be a lot simpler to set up than the OLC,
> since there aren't any rules to check or files to verify.
>
>> And for what higher purpose do we have to give up this once wonderful
>> resource?
>
> As for the "once wonderful resource" being lost, I'm still enjoying the
> OLC just as much. It's called the OnLine Contest, not "What-I-did forum"
> where you post whatever you like, so I'm thinking the higher purpose is
> preserving the contest aspect of the OLC.
>
> I am a bit disturbed at the implication that people who willingly or
> unwittingly break FARs so obviously it shows on their flight file are
> people we should be learning from.
>
> --
> Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:QxYRg.3547$Vk4.1710@trnddc01...
> It's called the OnLine Contest, not "What-I-did forum"

Well put, Eric. I like the alternative name -- it captures the essence
better. I'd only tweak the pronoun slightly -- plural, perhaps...

Those are the two uses of the same resource, and the emphasis is a question
of individual preferences. Personally, I know many pilots who's biggest (if
not only) interest in OLC is precisely as in "What-I-did" forum (or, rather,
what others did). On the other hand, I can think of only two or three who
actually *compete* there -- meaning they plan their flights for OLC, watch
their placing closely, etc.

> I am a bit disturbed at the implication that people who ... ... break FARs
> ... are people we should be learning from.

Good! Because that means you are willing and able to make your own free,
conscious and informed choice of what to learn from whom and why. (Note how
I said "learn from their [trace] analysis", and not "from them". There is
difference.)

> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
--
Yuliy Gerchikov

[Martin Eiler]

At 02:12 26 September 2006, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

>Personally, I know many pilots who's biggest (if
>not only) interest in OLC is precisely as in
>'What-I-did' forum (or, rather, what others did).
>On the other hand, I can think of only two or three
>who actually *compete* there -- meaning they
>plan their flights for OLC, watch their placing
> closely, etc.

Yuliy

Since you seem to be one of the loudest proponents
of the let me fly as long as I want after sunset
group. Could you give us a little background so
that we can better understand where your coming
from?
We can see from your flight file that you fly a
motor glider. Would you say that having the motor
has any influence on your willingness to fly past
sunset or even twilight?
Also are you a U.S. certificated glider pilot?

Martin Eiler

[Martin Eiler]

At 02:12 26 September 2006, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

>Personally, I know many pilots who's biggest (if
>not only) interest in OLC is precisely as in
>'What-I-did' forum (or, rather, what others did).
>On the other hand, I can think of only two or three
>who actually *compete* there -- meaning they
>plan their flights for OLC, watch their placing
> closely, etc.

Yuliy

Since you seem to be one of the loudest proponents
of the let me fly as long as I want after sunset
group. Could you give us a little background so
that we can better understand where your coming
from?
We can see from your flight file that you fly a
motor glider. Would you say that having the motor
has any influence on your willingness to fly past
sunset or even twilight?
Also are you a U.S. certificated glider pilot?

Martin Eiler

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Martin Eiler" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yuliy
>
> Since you seem to be one of the loudest proponents
> of the let me fly as long as I want after sunset
> group.

Martin,

You seem to have missed every one of my points completely. "[L]et me fly as
long as I want" was not one of them. If you wish a hint, we were talking
about OLC (rules and roles).

> Could you give us a little background so
> that we can better understand where your coming
> from?

Drop me an email and we can discuss my background there -- you don't want me
to bother the entire r.a.s. with my resume.

> Martin Eiler

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Doug,
> This is a lot of very fascinating reading, but a lo-o-ong way to the punch
> line. Most people are interested in flying, then posting flights to OLC and
> then reading the proceeds of the SSA BoD (maybe) -- in that order.
>

Well, the devil is in the details. You have been throwing around a lot
of wild accusations on this forum (which you only recently joined)
including that "rules [are] being changed on the fly." And each time
these accusations are refuted, you just make new ones. So, instead of
admitting that you were wrong about this, you now accuse me of what,
being boring?

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > I think allowing night flying would give too much advantage
> > to newer motorgliders ordered with lights, and would put the vast
> > majority of the existing fleet without lights at a severe disadvantage.
>
> This "I think" example pretty much sums up the rulemaking "process" on the
> SSA-OLC. Despite the long existing OLC rule that clearly *allows* night
> flight (if and as permitted by local regulations), we here can "I think" of
> a new rule and start applying (or not applying) it when and where we see
> fit.

No, the "I think" means that I am expressing my personal opinion only.
The rest of your statement is your personal opionon only. It's also
incorrect.

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> > If you look at
> > the subject line, and the original post to this thread, a reasonable
> > person would conclude that I ... am
> > trying to warn pilots in advance, so it does not become a bigger issue.

> Just to keep the facts straight, let's say that "in advance" is a bit of an
> exaggeration on Doug's part. The thread with the subject "...Warning..." was
> posted *after* several flights were suddenly found to appear to be in
> violation of the sunset rule.

Yes, and the original post says that too. It's a warning to anyone else
who may think that it's OK to follow in your footsteps.

[Doug Haluza]

Graeme Cant wrote:

> I have a crazy suggestion too.

So do I. How about if you actually join the community first by
registering for the OLC and then posting some flights, before you jump
in and start telling us what we should or should not be doing.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> this forum (which you only recently joined)

Is this a fact or an opinion? And does it somehow make you more right?

> "rules [are] being changed on the fly." And each time
> these accusations are refuted, you just make new ones. So, instead of
> admitting that you were wrong about this, you now accuse me of what,
> being boring?

Alright, I admit: I was wrong about this. The rules aren't just being
changed on the fly. They were first buried in the proceedings of the SSA
Board of Directors, and *then* changed on the fly.

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > this forum (which you only recently joined)
>
> Is this a fact or an opinion?

It's an easily verified fact. You have made 26 posts to this group
starting Aug 31, 2006.

>And does it somehow make you more right?

Not necessarily, but it is considered poor USENET netiquette for new
members of a group to start right in immediately generating controversy
within the group. And it's really poor manners in any forum to make
personal attacks that are mostly baseless.

[5Z]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> Alright, I admit: I was wrong about this. The rules aren't just being
> changed on the fly. They were first buried in the proceedings of the SSA
> Board of Directors, and *then* changed on the fly.

Yuliy, "the rules" were presented to you during pilot training, and
then you had to be aware of them during any FAA checkride. The OLC and
ANY flight you make must first comply with these.

If every pilot with your attitude decided to not post to the OLC, I
don't think it would be noticed. Unfortunately, on the Internet, any
minority can create a conspiracy out of anything, and in the process
create unfounded Fear Uncertainty and Doubt among those who never would
have had any otherwise. ....sigh

-Tom

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> > this forum (which you only recently joined)
>>
>> Is this a fact or an opinion?
>
> It's an easily verified fact. You have made 26 posts to this group
> starting Aug 31, 2006.

Doug: you, of all, must know that not verifying facts that you intend to
publish is poor journalism. Intentionally mis-representing the facts,
however, is much worse. You once again have demonstrated your inability to
handle the facts, and your credibility is going through the floor right now.
The saddest thing is that someone so incapable of separating facts from
opinions is responsible for, as we are told, the 99% of SSA-OLC
administration.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_thread/thread/486e319adb2338cb/

(With apologies to everybody else... I did not start this senseless
discussion of seniority on this forum, and fully intended to stay on the OLC
issues and not the personal ones.)

> it's really poor manners in any forum to make
> personal attacks that are mostly baseless.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Tom,

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Yuliy, "the rules" were presented to you during pilot training, and
> then you had to be aware of them during any FAA checkride. The OLC and
> ANY flight you make must first comply with these.

FARs are not the same rules that we are talking about. If you wish to take
FARs to the letter and enforce them in the strictest possible
interpretation, then you should ban most of thermal, ridge and wave flights.
In line with your example, let me just guess that on your checkride you did
not demonstrate a competition finish to impress your examiner -- unless you
happened to be good friends.

The rules we *are* talking about are not FARs but the SSA policies -- in
part but not exclusively related to interpretation of FARs. Precisely the
question is why, when and how should SSA interpret, apply and enforce FARs
on the OLC. On the one hand, if you wish the SSA to take FARs to the
letter... well, I've said it already. On the other hand, it's been pointed
out already that SSA (1) should not be in this business at all to begin
with, and (2) said it was not going to but obviously did.

Let me repeat for the Nth time (no, wait, N it too small, make it the Mth
time) that it's the consistency of SSA-OLC policies and their application is
what I see as a problem. Why some FARs are enforced while others are quietly
ignored? Why do the rules apply to some flights but not to others? Who
decides on the above and how, and is this the way we want it?

> If every pilot with your attitude

If you insist that it's me personally and my attitude that is the problem,
then why don't you tell me just what you think my attitude is. You are
welcome to do so via email to spare others your personal attacks.

> Unfortunately, on the Internet, any
> minority can create a conspiracy out of anything, and in the process
> create unfounded Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

I can't take responsibility for creating any such thing. I called attention
to what I think is wrong with the modern SSA-OLC, shared my personal opinion
on what has caused it and even suggested, although admittedly in only a
somewhat constructive way, some ways to fix it. If you disagree, feel free
to disregard my opinion and stay Fearless, Certain and Doubtless. If you can
do it, so can others -- unless you think everybody else is stupid and
gullible and should be protected from the horrible "any minority".

> -Tom
--
Yuliy

[Bullwinkle]

On 9/28/06 8:56 AM, in article
. com, "5Z"
> wrote:

>
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> Alright, I admit: I was wrong about this. The rules aren't just being
>> changed on the fly. They were first buried in the proceedings of the SSA
>> Board of Directors, and *then* changed on the fly.
>
> Yuliy, "the rules" were presented to you during pilot training, and
> then you had to be aware of them during any FAA checkride. The OLC and
> ANY flight you make must first comply with these.
>
> If every pilot with your attitude decided to not post to the OLC, I
> don't think it would be noticed. Unfortunately, on the Internet, any
> minority can create a conspiracy out of anything, and in the process
> create unfounded Fear Uncertainty and Doubt among those who never would
> have had any otherwise. ....sigh
>
> -Tom
>
Tom,

He's a troll. They are best ignored.

Bullwinkle

[Doug Haluza]

So your point is that making one other post to this forum with a
different ID 5 years ago means you are not trolling now?

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >> > this forum (which you only recently joined)
> >>
> >> Is this a fact or an opinion?
> >
> > It's an easily verified fact. You have made 26 posts to this group
> > starting Aug 31, 2006.
>
> Doug: you, of all, must know that not verifying facts that you intend to
> publish is poor journalism. Intentionally mis-representing the facts,
> however, is much worse. You once again have demonstrated your inability to
> handle the facts, and your credibility is going through the floor right now.
> The saddest thing is that someone so incapable of separating facts from
> opinions is responsible for, as we are told, the 99% of SSA-OLC
> administration.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_thread/thread/486e319adb2338cb/
>
> (With apologies to everybody else... I did not start this senseless
> discussion of seniority on this forum, and fully intended to stay on the OLC
> issues and not the personal ones.)
>
> > it's really poor manners in any forum to make
> > personal attacks that are mostly baseless.