IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

[[email protected]]

OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

[Ramy]

And while awaiting for Al's appology, I decided to no longer post my
flights to olc. I am sure I am not going to be the only one with this
decision .

Signing off,

Ramy



wrote:
> OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.
>
> I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
> Seeyou does not.
>
> FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.
>
> The flight in question is this one here .
> http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
>
> I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
> findings.
>
> If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.
>
> Thanks
>
> Al

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...

> I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
> Seeyou does not.
>
> FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

Strepla is clearly wrong on the altitude, as I told you privately, I
carefully extracted all of the pressure altitude data from the IGC file,
and there wasn't a single fix that exceeded 18,000 feet, once corrected
for the *landing* altitude and calibration error. I invite you to do
the same.

The airspace problem is more complicated, we're talking a hundred or so
feet either side of the boundary. Given that there are not two, but
actually three pieces of software involved (SeeYou, Strepla, and
WinPilot), minor calculation errors in any of them could put one on
either side of the boundary. I have no desire to put any energy into
figuring out how the fixes in the IGC file relate to the published
airspace boundary, but perhaps someone else does.

> If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

I believe you owe Ramy an apology in any case, it is ridiculous to be
wasting time on violations that don't amount to much more than 100 feet,
at worst.

Marc

[JS]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
> apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...
>
> Marc

Total Madness. (Which is a great compilation of ska tunes from a band
that could teach us all to lighten up.)
Jim

[[email protected]]

Marc you TOLD me that you had reviewed please pass along the file or
other data that supports your claim.

Enough hearsay as there is obviously a software error here on either
Seeyou or Strepla.

Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
incursion either way you look at it.
I would be curious to here that form contest scorers.

I remember a case a while back a pilot was allowed a turnpoint in a
contest even though the GPS point was not in the turn zone. It was
later protested out and his flight devalued.

Thanks

Al


Marc Ramsey wrote:
> wrote:
> > OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.
>
> Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
> apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...
>
> > I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
> > Seeyou does not.
> >
> > FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.
>
> Strepla is clearly wrong on the altitude, as I told you privately, I
> carefully extracted all of the pressure altitude data from the IGC file,
> and there wasn't a single fix that exceeded 18,000 feet, once corrected
> for the *landing* altitude and calibration error. I invite you to do
> the same.
>
> The airspace problem is more complicated, we're talking a hundred or so
> feet either side of the boundary. Given that there are not two, but
> actually three pieces of software involved (SeeYou, Strepla, and
> WinPilot), minor calculation errors in any of them could put one on
> either side of the boundary. I have no desire to put any energy into
> figuring out how the fixes in the IGC file relate to the published
> airspace boundary, but perhaps someone else does.
>
> > If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.
>
> I believe you owe Ramy an apology in any case, it is ridiculous to be
> wasting time on violations that don't amount to much more than 100 feet,
> at worst.
>
> Marc

[588]

Ramy wrote:
> And while awaiting for Al's appology, I decided to no longer post my
> flights to olc. I am sure I am not going to be the only one with this
> decision .

Excellent!

If it ever stops raining, I move to the head of the pack -- only need
about 15,000 more points.


Jack

[Doug Haluza]

I think you owe him an apology. Using SeeYou and setting QNH (5888ft)
at the start, gives a max altitude of 18,261 MSL. But this gives a
final altitude of 4819 MSL at an airport elevation of 4697'. This means
the altimeter setting changed during the flight, and the change made
the altitude appear to be high by more than 100' at the end. So this is
a mitigating facor.

Even neglecting this, an 18,261' altitude from this logger is within a
reasonable error budget.

First we have to allow that the pilot is not using the logger as his
primary flight reference altimeter. The altimeter is subject to certain
errors, and the errors increase with altitude. Adding these errors
could explain most, if not all of the 261' deviation in the worst case,
even if the altimeter was calibrated for IFR flight.

Ramy reports that the logger has a calibration error of +169 feet at
18000 feet. We would also need to know the error at around 5000 feet to
account for using field elevation for the initial setting. But unless
the error at 5000' was more than +169 feet (which is unlikely), this
would further mitigate the discrepancy.

The other thing that adds to the error is that the Volkslogger is using
cockpit static venting. This will cause a variable error depending on
canopy sealing, vent position, etc. Also the logger is calibrated at
room temperature, and it was probably quite a bit colder at 18,000'.

The bottom line of this is that we can't say that he did not go above
18,000', but we can't say that he did either. We could reduce the
uncertainty somewhat if we had an ATC altimeter setting, but it's not
likely to change the analysys much. So in this case, we have to take
the pilot at his word when he says he did not bust Class-A. We really
should not get into this kind of hair splitting anyway, because it is
not productive.

This also shows why these kind of disputes are better handled in
private, as I have been repeatedly requesting here. Please contact the
pilot if you can and politely point out your concern. If you do not get
a satisfactory explanation, do not start a confrontation. Contact the
SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org (use the symbols to
get a valid address). We will handle the issue confidentially to
protect all parties from embarrassment. If we find that the flight log
shows a problem, we will ask the pilot to remove the flight claim. If
not, we will put a note on the claim to explain the discrepancy.

Now let me add one note of caution. You will need to allow a safe
margin below 18,000' MSL when flying to account for altimeter (and
pilot) error. A 500' buffer would be prudent, unless you kept your
altimeter calibrated for IFR flight (or had a calibrated transponder
encoder with readout corrected for altimeter setting).

Either this pilot was using a buffer with an altimeter that read low,
or he was not using a buffer with an altimeter that did not read low.
We don't know for sure. But if your altimeter reads low, or the
altimeter setting changes and you don't reset it often, you could have
a bust that cannot be explained away. In this case, all the factors
fell in the pilot's favor, but you may not be so lucky.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

wrote:
> OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.
>
> I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
> Seeyou does not.
>
> FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.
>
> The flight in question is this one here .
> http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
>
> I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
> findings.
>
> If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.
>
> Thanks
>
> Al

[Frank Whiteley]

~ wrote:
> Looking at the barograph on the OLC it does not go above 6000 meters 3 times
> 6000 is 18000ft
>
> Was it flown off a certified tested altimeter as lag and error in the
> altimeter or pressure transducer would account for error as well as pressure
> changes during the day !

however 3.28ft/m*6000m=19680ft

[~]

Looking at the barograph on the OLC it does not go above 6000 meters 3 times
6000 is 18000ft

Was it flown off a certified tested altimeter as lag and error in the
altimeter or pressure transducer would account for error as well as pressure
changes during the day !

[Mike Schumann]

Why the emphasis on keeping everything private all of the time? That just
makes people think that things are being covered up. If there are issues,
there's no reason for them not be discussed civilly in public. That way
everything is on the up and up, and everyone else can learn something in the
process.

Mike Schumann

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I think you owe him an apology. Using SeeYou and setting QNH (5888ft)
> at the start, gives a max altitude of 18,261 MSL. But this gives a
> final altitude of 4819 MSL at an airport elevation of 4697'. This means
> the altimeter setting changed during the flight, and the change made
> the altitude appear to be high by more than 100' at the end. So this is
> a mitigating facor.
>
> Even neglecting this, an 18,261' altitude from this logger is within a
> reasonable error budget.
>
> First we have to allow that the pilot is not using the logger as his
> primary flight reference altimeter. The altimeter is subject to certain
> errors, and the errors increase with altitude. Adding these errors
> could explain most, if not all of the 261' deviation in the worst case,
> even if the altimeter was calibrated for IFR flight.
>
> Ramy reports that the logger has a calibration error of +169 feet at
> 18000 feet. We would also need to know the error at around 5000 feet to
> account for using field elevation for the initial setting. But unless
> the error at 5000' was more than +169 feet (which is unlikely), this
> would further mitigate the discrepancy.
>
> The other thing that adds to the error is that the Volkslogger is using
> cockpit static venting. This will cause a variable error depending on
> canopy sealing, vent position, etc. Also the logger is calibrated at
> room temperature, and it was probably quite a bit colder at 18,000'.
>
> The bottom line of this is that we can't say that he did not go above
> 18,000', but we can't say that he did either. We could reduce the
> uncertainty somewhat if we had an ATC altimeter setting, but it's not
> likely to change the analysys much. So in this case, we have to take
> the pilot at his word when he says he did not bust Class-A. We really
> should not get into this kind of hair splitting anyway, because it is
> not productive.
>
> This also shows why these kind of disputes are better handled in
> private, as I have been repeatedly requesting here. Please contact the
> pilot if you can and politely point out your concern. If you do not get
> a satisfactory explanation, do not start a confrontation. Contact the
> SSA-OLC Committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org (use the symbols to
> get a valid address). We will handle the issue confidentially to
> protect all parties from embarrassment. If we find that the flight log
> shows a problem, we will ask the pilot to remove the flight claim. If
> not, we will put a note on the claim to explain the discrepancy.
>
> Now let me add one note of caution. You will need to allow a safe
> margin below 18,000' MSL when flying to account for altimeter (and
> pilot) error. A 500' buffer would be prudent, unless you kept your
> altimeter calibrated for IFR flight (or had a calibrated transponder
> encoder with readout corrected for altimeter setting).
>
> Either this pilot was using a buffer with an altimeter that read low,
> or he was not using a buffer with an altimeter that did not read low.
> We don't know for sure. But if your altimeter reads low, or the
> altimeter setting changes and you don't reset it often, you could have
> a bust that cannot be explained away. In this case, all the factors
> fell in the pilot's favor, but you may not be so lucky.
>
> Doug Haluza
> SSA-OLC Admin
>
> wrote:
>> OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.
>>
>> I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
>> Seeyou does not.
>>
>> FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.
>>
>> The flight in question is this one here .
>> http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
>>
>> I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
>> findings.
>>
>> If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Al
>

[Mark Dickson]

I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
>OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
>Ramy and myself.
>
>I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
>violations which
>Seeyou does not.
>
>FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
>error at 18000ft.
>
>The flight in question is this one here .
>http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
>
>I ask users of both software to look at this flight
>and report their
>findings.
>
>If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
>Ramy an apology.
>
>Thanks
>
>Al
>
>

[[email protected]]

This boils down to software.

One shows violations the other doesn't.

You have Seeyou or Strepla?
If not don't comment!!


Mark Dickson wrote:
> I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
> of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
> forum. Al, you're a disgrace.
>
> At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
> >OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
> >Ramy and myself.
> >
> >I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
> >violations which
> >Seeyou does not.
> >
> >FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
> >error at 18000ft.
> >
> >The flight in question is this one here .
> >http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
> >
> >I ask users of both software to look at this flight
> >and report their
> >findings.
> >
> >If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
> >Ramy an apology.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Al
> >
> >

[Doug Haluza]

No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

wrote:
> This boils down to software.
>
> One shows violations the other doesn't.
>
> You have Seeyou or Strepla?
> If not don't comment!!
>
>
> Mark Dickson wrote:
> > I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
> > of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
> > forum. Al, you're a disgrace.
> >
> > At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
> > >OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
> > >Ramy and myself.
> > >
> > >I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
> > >violations which
> > >Seeyou does not.
> > >
> > >FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
> > >error at 18000ft.
> > >
> > >The flight in question is this one here .
> > >http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
> > >
> > >I ask users of both software to look at this flight
> > >and report their
> > >findings.
> > >
> > >If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
> > >Ramy an apology.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Al
> > >
> > >

[Doug Haluza]

No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

wrote:
> This boils down to software.
>
> One shows violations the other doesn't.
>
> You have Seeyou or Strepla?
> If not don't comment!!
>
>
> Mark Dickson wrote:
> > I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
> > of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
> > forum. Al, you're a disgrace.
> >
> > At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
> > >OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
> > >Ramy and myself.
> > >
> > >I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
> > >violations which
> > >Seeyou does not.
> > >
> > >FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
> > >error at 18000ft.
> > >
> > >The flight in question is this one here .
> > >http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
> > >
> > >I ask users of both software to look at this flight
> > >and report their
> > >findings.
> > >
> > >If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
> > >Ramy an apology.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Al
> > >
> > >

[[email protected]]

Doug you are wrong here.

I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
errors.
I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.

The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.

Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
check the kerning on a Word document?

No you dont!!

Now what flight analysis software to you use?



Doug Haluza wrote:
> No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> Word, or whatever.
>
> wrote:
> > This boils down to software.
> >
> > One shows violations the other doesn't.
> >
> > You have Seeyou or Strepla?
> > If not don't comment!!
> >
> >
> > Mark Dickson wrote:
> > > I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
> > > of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
> > > forum. Al, you're a disgrace.
> > >
> > > At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
> > > >OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
> > > >Ramy and myself.
> > > >
> > > >I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
> > > >violations which
> > > >Seeyou does not.
> > > >
> > > >FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
> > > >error at 18000ft.
> > > >
> > > >The flight in question is this one here .
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
> > > >
> > > >I ask users of both software to look at this flight
> > > >and report their
> > > >findings.
> > > >
> > > >If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
> > > >Ramy an apology.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >
> > > >Al
> > > >
> > > >

[Marc Ramsey]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> Word, or whatever.

I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
"official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
or output...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

588 wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
>> And while awaiting for Al's appology, I decided to no longer post my
>> flights to olc. I am sure I am not going to be the only one with this
>> decision .
>
> Excellent!
>
> If it ever stops raining, I move to the head of the pack -- only need
> about 15,000 more points.

To paraphrase a contest pilot (Dick Wolters, I think) who said "Look,
honey! I'm ahead of the guy that went home two days ago!" Now it's
"Look, honey! I'm ahead of the guy that stopped posting two months ago!"
I know the feeling - persistence counts, I say.

I wonder if the OLC will pick up some pilots that will now see the
contest as more fair and sportsmanlike?

--
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]

You need to stop tbis before you embarass yourself even more.

wrote:
> Doug you are wrong here.
>
> I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
> errors.
> I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.
>
> The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.
>
> Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
> check the kerning on a Word document?
>
> No you dont!!
>
> Now what flight analysis software to you use?
>
>
>
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> > input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> > goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> > Word, or whatever.

[[email protected]]

No..

You need to answer Marc's and my question before you embarrass yourself
as "official observer".

Over....


Doug Haluza wrote:
> You need to stop tbis before you embarass yourself even more.
>
> wrote:
> > Doug you are wrong here.
> >
> > I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
> > errors.
> > I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.
> >
> > The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.
> >
> > Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
> > check the kerning on a Word document?
> >
> > No you dont!!
> >
> > Now what flight analysis software to you use?
> >
> >
> >
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> > > input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> > > goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> > > Word, or whatever.

[[email protected]]

It is interesting to see Al Macdonald's integrity. Check out the
following flights:
1 - Al at 18635 feet over Mono Lake (care to provide your calibration?)
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=114388&ueb=N&olc=olc-usa&spr=en
2 - Al at 12,500ft inside R4811 on Monday (Mon-Fri GND-15000ft). Need
to open with Seeyou with sectional map to see the violation.
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/2006/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=26404&ueb=N&olc=olc-usa&spr=en

Sorry for making such a disgraceful post, no one but Al deserves
something like this.
And sorry for making it anonymously, I normally don't do it, but
knowing how insane Al is, I can't take the risk. I have a family to
protect.


wrote:
> No..
>
> You need to answer Marc's and my question before you embarrass yourself
> as "official observer".
>
> Over....
>
>
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > You need to stop tbis before you embarass yourself even more.
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Doug you are wrong here.
> > >
> > > I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
> > > errors.
> > > I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.
> > >
> > > The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.
> > >
> > > Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
> > > check the kerning on a Word document?
> > >
> > > No you dont!!
> > >
> > > Now what flight analysis software to you use?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > > No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> > > > input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> > > > goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> > > > Word, or whatever.

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> Why the emphasis on keeping everything private all of the time? That just
> makes people think that things are being covered up.

What kind of things are you talking about? The OLC files are posted
publicly for your inspection, so you and everyone else can look for
these issues. If a pilot decides to withdraw a file from the contest,
does he have to give a reason? The files that remain in the contest are
still there for inspection.

> If there are issues,

If the issues involve violations, or the appearance of violations, why
do we need to know about them? The flight is no longer in the contest.

> there's no reason for them not be discussed civilly in public.

There are some reasons they won't be discussed civilly in public: some
people can't discuss things like this civilly. Take a look at the recent
threads on this subject.

> That way
> everything is on the up and up, and everyone else can learn something in the
> process.

I think we can learn from a discussion, but it doesn't have to be about
identifiable incidents unless the pilot wishes to contribute his/her
experience. Doug (or other OLC person) could also describe the kinds of
problems they are seeing, discuss how they handle them, and suggest ways
to avoid them. All this can be done without "trying the case in the RAS
courtroom".

I think we will have a lot of pilots leaving the OLC if we try to
discuss every potential violation here.

--
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

[[email protected]]

Hey its Ramy again.

Its your IP block from earlier posts on Gliderforum together with a
made up yahoo email address.

Ramy grow some balls don't post anonymous.

First flights data logger is with the aircraft I sold along with
calibration etc etc.
I recall the flight and remember bowling along around Lee vining on a
strong crab angle with spoilers out. Was a classic wave day altimeter
showed within 17K-18K. Kinda cool flight 5 hours duration, 500K O/R
and Diamond Alt all in one trip. Go figure.

Second flight is (according to Strepla) well clear of any airspace.

Looks like Strepla is proving to be more accurate than Seeyou at this
point.

Least I didn't win any international competitions with those flights ;)

Al

wrote:
> It is interesting to see Al Macdonald's integrity. Check out the
> following flights:
> 1 - Al at 18635 feet over Mono Lake (care to provide your calibration?)
> http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=114388&ueb=N&olc=olc-usa&spr=en
> 2 - Al at 12,500ft inside R4811 on Monday (Mon-Fri GND-15000ft). Need
> to open with Seeyou with sectional map to see the violation.
> http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/2006/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=26404&ueb=N&olc=olc-usa&spr=en
>
> Sorry for making such a disgraceful post, no one but Al deserves
> something like this.
> And sorry for making it anonymously, I normally don't do it, but
> knowing how insane Al is, I can't take the risk. I have a family to
> protect.
>
>
> wrote:
> > No..
> >
> > You need to answer Marc's and my question before you embarrass yourself
> > as "official observer".
> >
> > Over....
> >
> >
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > You need to stop tbis before you embarass yourself even more.
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Doug you are wrong here.
> > > >
> > > > I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
> > > > errors.
> > > > I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.
> > > >
> > > > The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.
> > > >
> > > > Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
> > > > check the kerning on a Word document?
> > > >
> > > > No you dont!!
> > > >
> > > > Now what flight analysis software to you use?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > > > No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> > > > > input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> > > > > goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> > > > > Word, or whatever.

[Ramy]

Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> > No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> > input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> > goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> > Word, or whatever.
>
> I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
> "official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
> for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
> no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
> or output...
>
> Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Ramy wrote:
> Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
> discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
> the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
> what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
> matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
> not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
> sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
> expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

[[email protected]]

Hey its Ramy posting as himself again... with the same IP as
too funny.

Anyway issue here is the software has an bug we need to figure out if
its in Seeyou or Strepla.

The calibration of the electronic charts cannot be trusted as the error
in one package or the other would throw off the accuracy of the plot.
Then you get into calibration errors when projecting scanned paper maps
onto an electronic file.
Ever had a fax slip on you when sending? This is the same issue when
calibrating sectionals for programs. Lets not forget the airspace
files which are also suspect.

So Ramy your solution will not work.

The most basic method of checking would be to hand plot a flight on a
paper sectional but the tolerances we are now flying and trusting in
world wide turnpoint exchanges files are so close that a pen width of
ink would not show the true plot.

Al



Ramy wrote:
> Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
> discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
> the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
> what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
> matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
> not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
> sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
> expect the SSA will use the same method.
>
> Ramy
>
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
> > Doug Haluza wrote:
> > > No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
> > > input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
> > > goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
> > > Word, or whatever.
> >
> > I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
> > "official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
> > for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
> > no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
> > or output...
> >
> > Marc

[[email protected]]

EXACTLY...

Hurrah Marc for posting some sense in here.


Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
> > discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
> > the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
> > what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
> > matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
> > not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
> > sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
> > expect the SSA will use the same method.
>
> Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
> One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
> airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
> registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
> the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
> any other program.
>
> If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
> record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
> official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
> along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
> data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
> that is taking place here.
>
> Marc

[Ramy]

Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy


Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
> > discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
> > the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
> > what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
> > matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
> > not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
> > sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
> > expect the SSA will use the same method.
>
> Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
> One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
> airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
> registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
> the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
> any other program.
>
> If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
> record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
> official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
> along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
> data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
> that is taking place here.
>
> Marc

[Pat]

But let's not forget that Ramy's flight was really really good. 1000+
FAI w LS-4 is excellent. Well done Ramy!!!!!!

And by all means, I think every body in Minden area knows 17999 and has
been the quite often. Right Al??? ;)))))))))))

I have no comment about the software issue.






Ramy wrote:
> Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
> officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
> winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
> closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
> around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
> as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
> that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
> this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
> own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramy
>
>
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
> > Ramy wrote:
> > > Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
> > > discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
> > > the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
> > > what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
> > > matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
> > > not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
> > > sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
> > > expect the SSA will use the same method.
> >
> > Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
> > One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
> > airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
> > registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
> > the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
> > any other program.
> >
> > If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
> > record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
> > official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
> > along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
> > data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
> > that is taking place here.
> >
> > Marc

[[email protected]]

Never denied it was a great flight.

Indeed 17999 is a frequent stop in high summer and often broken in wave
season (wave window permitting).

Maybe Nevada should declare UDI and have its own set of airspace
rules!!

Software and source files issue is the issue here.

Until the SSA and or OLC defines a benchmark we can all fly off this
will continue to plague the OLC and other contest scoring.

Al

Pat wrote:
> But let's not forget that Ramy's flight was really really good. 1000+
> FAI w LS-4 is excellent. Well done Ramy!!!!!!
>
> And by all means, I think every body in Minden area knows 17999 and has
> been the quite often. Right Al??? ;)))))))))))
>
> I have no comment about the software issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
> > officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
> > winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
> > closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
> > around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
> > as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
> > that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
> > this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
> > own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> >
> > Marc Ramsey wrote:
> > > Ramy wrote:
> > > > Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
> > > > discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
> > > > the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
> > > > what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
> > > > matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
> > > > not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
> > > > sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
> > > > expect the SSA will use the same method.
> > >
> > > Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
> > > One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
> > > airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
> > > registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
> > > the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
> > > any other program.
> > >
> > > If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
> > > record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
> > > official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
> > > along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
> > > data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
> > > that is taking place here.
> > >
> > > Marc

[Doug Haluza]

This thread is completely out of control, and I want to see this
nonsense stop. If someone has a legitamate issue, contact the SSA
committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org with the specifics, and we
will look into it. Throwing wild accusations around on a public forum
reflects badly on you and on the group. And I do not want to
participate in this circus.

Ramy wrote:
> Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
> officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
> winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
> closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
> around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
> as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
> that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
> this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
> own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ramy
>
>

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

I have not looked at the IGC file nor US airspace.
However I do use the UK AIP to produce airspace files for my LX5000 and
SeeYou for the UK.

In the UK airspace lateral boundaries are given, primarily in terms of
reference points and
Airway widths. I translate that information into boxes of airspace.

I am aware that in the UK there are at least four potential errors for
airspace boundaries:

1) Out out date airspace files
2) typographical errors
3) issues with converting from points and widths to boxes
4) issues with straight lines - rhumb lines v great circle routes

I don't know how you create your US airspace files.

I have identified a number of UK airspace boundaries where the
discrepancy on the straight edge of an airspace
Boundary with accurately plotted end points can be significant.

I have identified some errors of upto 400m on boundaries measuring only
100km or so.
If you are looking at boundaries with endpoints further apart then the
straight line errors will be larger.

So from what I read, you may wish to debate the niceties of what is a
straight line.

Or preferably, just applaud an excellent flight.

Rory


Subject: Re: IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.
Author: Marc Ramsey >
Date/Time: 18:20 10 September 2006

The airspace problem is more complicated, we're talking a hundred or so

feet either side of the boundary. Given that there are not two, but
actually three pieces of software involved (SeeYou, Strepla, and
WinPilot), minor calculation errors in any of them could put one on
either side of the boundary. I have no desire to put any energy into
figuring out how the fixes in the IGC file relate to the published
airspace boundary, but perhaps someone else does.

[Graeme Cant]

wrote:
>
> Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
> incursion either way you look at it.

No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device.
For a glider with a cheap altimeter and a cheap GPS, 1-200 feet is well
within the possible measurement error at 18K. 1000 feet isn't (usually).

Read some of the stuff to do with RVSM.

The calibration of the logger and altimeter doesn't take into account
the position error when connected to the glider static source. Then
there are the gliders where the static source is just cockpit pressure.
Even if it's accurate in the test chamber, God knows what an altimeter
or logger will say when screwed in the glider.

Dick Johnson's reports always begin with calibration of the pitot-static
system and he has been scathing about the inaccuracy of some gliders -
mostly due to poor positioning of static sources. He's found errors of
7 knots in airspeed readings. Imagine what means for altimeter accuracy.

How is a pilot to KNOW that his logger is recording 18,200ft when his
altimeter says 17,900ft? On the OLC, YOU see what the logger said. The
pilot only knew what his altimeter said. When he lands, he has no
evidence that his altimeter never saw a violation.

These are gliders with no natural vibration. Next time you're climbing
through 17,500 feet, tap your altimeter. Ten bucks says it will jump
more than 100 feet if it's more than 5 minutes since your last tap. If
you get to 25,000, it'll jump nearly 200 feet.

Set your altimeter sub-scale to quarter of an inch above QNH, tap it,
then wind it back to QNH and read the altimeter without tapping. Do it
again but start from quarter of an inch below QNH. Even at near sea
level altitudes, many gliders will differ by 50-100ft AT THE SAME QNH!

You've got a lot more faith in cheap instruments than I have, Al.

GC

[Stefan]

Graeme Cant schrieb:

>> Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
>> incursion either way you look at it.

> No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device.

Yes, it is. If your devices are inaccurate, then it's your
responsibility to add some extra safety margin. Simple as that.

Stefan

[kirk.stant]

I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that will cheerfully
exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about everybody else, of
course) during the drive to the gliderport will then pontificate about
minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace bounderies.

Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics! You are safer at
18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring at the
altimeter!

Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed, but what the
hell, it's monday and it's raining....

Kirk
66

[Cliff Hilty]

At 13:24 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that will
>cheerfully
>exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about
>everybody else, of
>course) during the drive to the gliderport will then
>pontificate about
>minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace
>bounderies.
>
>Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics!
> You are safer at
>18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring
>at the
>altimeter!
>
>Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed,
>but what the
>hell, it's monday and it's raining....
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>I have pondered over this in detail after having read
>most of the threads in RAS and here. And I am still
undecided.

When OLC started it was purely fun and easy, now it
has become 'the' entity for showing not only the world
but even more importantly your local flying buddies
your acheivements. For years I flew in relative obscurity
with only a few people knowing what I did, where and
how fast I went. Now with posting to OLC everyone with
any interest in soaring knows.

The question for me now becomes; Do I have a responsibility
to my flying buddies to protect their right to fly
and not bring unwanted attention of allegded violations
of the FAR's to our club and local flying area. To
that question I have to say yes.

On the other hand it makes me angry that a once fun
and purely innocent OLC (after all we are in it for
the money and chics) has been takin over by the aviation's
version of the 'Moral Majority' and turned into the
McCarthyism of everybody looking suspicously at each
others flights and airing those suspiscions publicly
in the name of protecting their right to fly. It just
smacks of Orwell's 1984 'big brother is watching'.
Read Soarpoint's post on RAS.

Then again we don't have to post our flights that violate
the FAR's! So now you see why I am so undecided:)

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I haven't followed this tread closely, but I think I need to point out that
both SeeYou and StrePla automatically offset the altitudes displayed to
account for pressure changes using the takeoff elevation. The feature can
be disabled, but you must know that it exists and know how to disable it. I
am a state soaring record keeper and I recently verified that the altitudes
in SeeYou were offset by using the takeoff elevation to "calibrate" the
pressure altitude data from the logger. I wanted to view the raw data so I
looked in the IGC file and I also was able to disable the calibration
feature in SeeYou and see the raw data in the SeeYou analysis. It works
great, but you have to know it exists.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> This boils down to software.
>
> One shows violations the other doesn't.
>
> You have Seeyou or Strepla?
> If not don't comment!!
>
>
> Mark Dickson wrote:
>> I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
>> of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
>> forum. Al, you're a disgrace.
>>
>> At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
>> >OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
>> >Ramy and myself.
>> >
>> >I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
>> >violations which
>> >Seeyou does not.
>> >
>> >FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
>> >error at 18000ft.
>> >
>> >The flight in question is this one here .
>> >http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8
>> >
>> >I ask users of both software to look at this flight
>> >and report their
>> >findings.
>> >
>> >If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
>> >Ramy an apology.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Al
>> >
>> >
>

[[email protected]]

This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

[SAM 303a]

"JS" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
> >
> > Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
> > apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...
> >
> > Marc
>
> Total Madness. (Which is a great compilation of ska tunes from a band
> that could teach us all to lighten up.)
> Jim
>

But what if he went "One Step Beyond"!?!?!?

[Ramy]

I agree with Doug. But to set things straight before we stopping this
nonsense, here is a quote from the email I received from the SSA-OLC
committe:

"Ramy, I don't see any problem with the Restricted airspace. You cut it
pretty close, but the track is not inside at any point. Even if it was,
we would need to consider that the GPS has an error budget."

Ramy


Doug Haluza wrote:
> This thread is completely out of control, and I want to see this
> nonsense stop. If someone has a legitamate issue, contact the SSA
> committee by email at olc<at>ssa<dot>org with the specifics, and we
> will look into it. Throwing wild accusations around on a public forum
> reflects badly on you and on the group. And I do not want to
> participate in this circus.
>
> Ramy wrote:
> > Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
> > officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
> > winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
> > closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
> > around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
> > as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
> > that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
> > this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
> > own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> >

[Graeme Cant]

Stefan wrote:
> Graeme Cant schrieb:
>
>>> Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
>>> incursion either way you look at it.
>
>> No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device.
>
> Yes, it is. If your devices are inaccurate, then it's your
> responsibility to add some extra safety margin. Simple as that.
>
> Stefan

Rubbish. When it comes to altitude for ATC purposes - and that's what
the 18k limit is for - the reading on your altimeter is what counts.
Provided it's a legal instrument maintained properly, you fly to the
indications of your altimeter. Asking whether this is "accurate" is
irrelevant and meaningless. If you're told to maintain 18k in a powered
aircraft, what "safety margin" should you allow? Fly at 17750? Fly at
18400? Nonsense!

The OLC's problems arise because the legal device Ramy HAS to use when
he might bust a rule is the altimeter, not the logger. But when he
lands only the LOGGER figure is still there. Ramy was only illegal
though, if he flew over 18k on his ALTIMETER.

The madness of all of this is that the accuracy that Al seems to expect
is not expected by any of the authorities whose rules he claims were
broken. He thinks the whole thing is way more accurate than it is and
way more accurate than any of the real airspace users need it to be.

ATC define en route airways on a radar screen where the defining line is
400 yards wide - with fuzzy edges - and a target takes three sweeps to
cross it!! Al's concept that an airspace boundary is a precision line
in space accurately marked like the painted centreline on a road is
laughable.

So is the idea that a glider's position is measured to an inch by a $200
GPS receiver. Ramy may be 400yards outside a boundary on ATC's scope
but his GPS logger may show him as inside the rhumb line between the
coordinates defining the boundary. Or maybe inside the rhumb line but
outside the Great Circle. Was he wrong or right? If the coordinates
are 100 miles apart, the difference between rhumb line and Great Circle
could be a mile or more and what ATC's scope lines show is probably
neither. He's expected to measure his position by - at best - VOR
radial and DME, not GPS, so there's probably an uncertainty circle about
2 miles in diameter!

What Al wants to do with logger barometric readings and GPS positions is
needed by no other airspace users and the system doesn't work to that
level of accuracy.

GC

[Graeme Cant]

wrote:
> This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.
>
> We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
> FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
> true enemy was ourselves.
>
Nicely put.

GC

[Doug Haluza]

Cliff, not sure who your anger is directed at. Let me just say that the
SSA-OLC Committee is trying to provide an outlet for resolving
disputes, without making a public circus of it on r.a.s. Unfortunately,
some people just cant accept this.

I think your MPD on this pretty well sums up the two sides of the
debate. Most of the posters fall into two main groups:

A) Let pilots do what they want, and post any flight, as long as they
live to tell about it.
B) Hold pilots to some kind of reasonable standards to keep the
competition as fair as possible, and keep the feds as far away as
possible.

There are variations of this, for example letting people do A until
they get caught, then make them do B, or trying to make the standards
in B some kind of absolute, or parse them down to the sub-atomic
particle level. Another variation says that since we can't do B 100%,
we should do 0% and default to A.

One of the things we have been doing is trying to continue to grow the
OLC user base. And as the user base grows, the population will
naturally have to include a wider range of opinions and behavior. That
means we will also have to deal with more people holding extreme views,
who won't accept the consensus norms.

The main thing to emphasize is personal responsibility. You hit on that
when you talked about not posting flights that most reasonable people
would find questionable. I think most people get that intuitively. I
think almost everyone can grasp this with a little peer pressure. But
then there are a few people....

Unfortunately, that's just life in the big city. But we don't have to
let them spoil the fun.

Cliff Hilty wrote:
> At 13:24 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
> >I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that will
> >cheerfully
> >exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about
> >everybody else, of
> >course) during the drive to the gliderport will then
> >pontificate about
> >minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace
> >bounderies.
> >
> >Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics!
> > You are safer at
> >18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring
> >at the
> >altimeter!
> >
> >Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed,
> >but what the
> >hell, it's monday and it's raining....
> >
> >Kirk
> >66
> >
> >I have pondered over this in detail after having read
> >most of the threads in RAS and here. And I am still
> undecided.
>
> When OLC started it was purely fun and easy, now it
> has become 'the' entity for showing not only the world
> but even more importantly your local flying buddies
> your acheivements. For years I flew in relative obscurity
> with only a few people knowing what I did, where and
> how fast I went. Now with posting to OLC everyone with
> any interest in soaring knows.
>
> The question for me now becomes; Do I have a responsibility
> to my flying buddies to protect their right to fly
> and not bring unwanted attention of allegded violations
> of the FAR's to our club and local flying area. To
> that question I have to say yes.
>
> On the other hand it makes me angry that a once fun
> and purely innocent OLC (after all we are in it for
> the money and chics) has been takin over by the aviation's
> version of the 'Moral Majority' and turned into the
> McCarthyism of everybody looking suspicously at each
> others flights and airing those suspiscions publicly
> in the name of protecting their right to fly. It just
> smacks of Orwell's 1984 'big brother is watching'.
> Read Soarpoint's post on RAS.
>
> Then again we don't have to post our flights that violate
> the FAR's! So now you see why I am so undecided:)

[Doug Haluza]

FAA enforcement is admittedly a hypothetical situation. I have not
heard of any enforcement actions from a posted log. Even if there were,
a good lawyer could probably poke holes in it. So I don't think this is
the main issue.

We did have a mid-air recently. Since it was in Class-G below 18K, our
reps who are trying to contain the fallout from this don't have to
start by digging out of a hole. And fortunately we have a good working
relationship with the parties as well.

Now if it happened above 18K (without a clearance), the situation would
be completely different, for the pilot and the community. Even a near
miss report from above 18K is going to cause problems for more than
just the pilot involved.

So the question to the community is, which is the slippery slope:

1) Letting people post flights with obvious problems, in effect
encouraging others to emulate this until something bad happens. Then
try to dig out of the hole.

2) Trying to discourage this by asking people to change their behavior,
to make it less likely that we dig a hole in the first place.

P.S. There is also an insurance aspect to this as well. If your log
shows an obvious violation, your insurance could deny payment in the
event of a loss. This will cause a lot more pain than the FAA can.

wrote:
> This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.
>
> We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
> FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
> true enemy was ourselves.

[Ramy]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> FAA enforcement is admittedly a hypothetical situation. I have not
> heard of any enforcement actions from a posted log. Even if there were,
> a good lawyer could probably poke holes in it. So I don't think this is
> the main issue.
>
> We did have a mid-air recently. Since it was in Class-G below 18K, our
> reps who are trying to contain the fallout from this don't have to
> start by digging out of a hole. And fortunately we have a good working
> relationship with the parties as well.
>
> Now if it happened above 18K (without a clearance), the situation would
> be completely different, for the pilot and the community. Even a near
> miss report from above 18K is going to cause problems for more than
> just the pilot involved.
>
> So the question to the community is, which is the slippery slope:
>
> 1) Letting people post flights with obvious problems, in effect
> encouraging others to emulate this until something bad happens. Then
> try to dig out of the hole.
>
> 2) Trying to discourage this by asking people to change their behavior,
> to make it less likely that we dig a hole in the first place.
>

There is also number 3, which is the only one relevant to the accident
you mentioned, but from some reason it is discounted buy many, and it
is:

3) Encourage pilots to install a transponder and turn it on.


> P.S. There is also an insurance aspect to this as well. If your log
> shows an obvious violation, your insurance could deny payment in the
> event of a loss. This will cause a lot more pain than the FAA can.

This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.


>
> wrote:
> > This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.
> >
> > We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
> > FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
> > true enemy was ourselves.

[Doug Haluza]

Ramy wrote:
> Encourage pilots to install a transponder and turn it on.
>
Agreed, transponder use is a good thing. This is why we need to
actively discourage posting >18K flights on OLC (without an
explanation). People use the OLC to see what more experienced pilots
do. If they see this, they will emulate it. And if they do they will
have to turn their transponders off, otherwise ATC will see them going
over 18K. So clearly this would compromise safety in multiple ways.

Now if you can follow that argument, the sunset argument is not that
different. If people see flights continuing well past sunset, they will
think that's OK, and they will do it too. If they are trying to be
competitive, they will stretch the limits even further. So clearly we
need to discourage this as well.

We don't need anarchists arguing that any attempts at self governance
is futile. And we don't need ****house lawyers trying to parse the
meaning of "is." We just need people to realize the common sense in
this and do the right thing.

[Cliff Hilty]

Doug, No real anger here! Just alittle disappointment
in what started out to be fun competition turning into
a lot of work and 'Big brother' watching me. It seems
that that was done in the interest of 'protecting'
our right to fly and as such the percieved notion that
the FAA/CIA/ homeland security or any other name you
might want to put here is going to punish the entire
group for the infractions of one. This leads to the
McCarthyism and self appointed enforcer mentality that
started this thread! It Just seems pointless, and has
diminished the growth of the OLC. Had it stayed the
same as last year I would suspect that it would have
grown at a much higher rate than it did.

Interesting though that you combined posts from Kirk
and I that are from two different forum's? Mine was
posted to gliderforum and Kirks here on RAS. Although
I totally agree with my old flying buddy, I only lay
claim to the last half of the post you quote.

At 03:36 14 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
>Cliff, not sure who your anger is directed at. Let
>me just say that the
>SSA-OLC Committee is trying to provide an outlet for
>resolving
>disputes, without making a public circus of it on r.a.s.
>Unfortunately,
>some people just cant accept this.
>
>I think your MPD on this pretty well sums up the two
>sides of the
>debate. Most of the posters fall into two main groups:
>
>A) Let pilots do what they want, and post any flight,
>as long as they
>live to tell about it.
>B) Hold pilots to some kind of reasonable standards
>to keep the
>competition as fair as possible, and keep the feds
>as far away as
>possible.
>
>There are variations of this, for example letting people
>do A until
>they get caught, then make them do B, or trying to
>make the standards
>in B some kind of absolute, or parse them down to the
>sub-atomic
>particle level. Another variation says that since we
>can't do B 100%,
>we should do 0% and default to A.
>
>One of the things we have been doing is trying to continue
>to grow the
>OLC user base. And as the user base grows, the population
>will
>naturally have to include a wider range of opinions
>and behavior. That
>means we will also have to deal with more people holding
>extreme views,
>who won't accept the consensus norms.
>
>The main thing to emphasize is personal responsibility.
>You hit on that
>when you talked about not posting flights that most
>reasonable people
>would find questionable. I think most people get that
>intuitively. I
>think almost everyone can grasp this with a little
>peer pressure. But
>then there are a few people....
>
>Unfortunately, that's just life in the big city. But
>we don't have to
>let them spoil the fun.
>
>Cliff Hilty wrote:
>> At 13:24 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>> >I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that
>>>will
>> >cheerfully
>> >exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about
>> >everybody else, of
>> >course) during the drive to the gliderport will then
>> >pontificate about
>> >minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace
>> >bounderies.
>> >
>> >Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics!
>> > You are safer at
>> >18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring
>> >at the
>> >altimeter!
>> >
>> >Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed,
>> >but what the
>> >hell, it's monday and it's raining....
>> >
>> >Kirk
>> >66
>> >
>> >I have pondered over this in detail after having read
>> >most of the threads in RAS and here. And I am still
>> undecided.
>>
>> When OLC started it was purely fun and easy, now it
>> has become 'the' entity for showing not only the world
>> but even more importantly your local flying buddies
>> your acheivements. For years I flew in relative obscurity
>> with only a few people knowing what I did, where and
>> how fast I went. Now with posting to OLC everyone
>>with
>> any interest in soaring knows.
>>
>> The question for me now becomes; Do I have a responsibility
>> to my flying buddies to protect their right to fly
>> and not bring unwanted attention of allegded violations
>> of the FAR's to our club and local flying area. To
>> that question I have to say yes.
>>
>> On the other hand it makes me angry that a once fun
>> and purely innocent OLC (after all we are in it for
>> the money and chics) has been takin over by the aviation's
>> version of the 'Moral Majority' and turned into the
>> McCarthyism of everybody looking suspicously at each
>> others flights and airing those suspiscions publicly
>> in the name of protecting their right to fly. It just
>> smacks of Orwell's 1984 'big brother is watching'.
>> Read Soarpoint's post on RAS.
>>
>> Then again we don't have to post our flights that
>>violate
>> the FAR's! So now you see why I am so undecided:)
>
>

[Papa3]

Ramy wrote:

> This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
> yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
> accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.
>

Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
(don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
This includes but is not limited to:

- Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
- Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
Flight Review, etc.)
- Operation is conducted within FARs
- etc.

The concept of "no fault" primarily exists in some personal auto
policies (depending on the state) and all worker's compensation
policies. Other than that, fault is absolutely one of the first
things that is looked at.

Imagine the scenario where a collision occurs between a glider at
18,500 and a Piper Malibu on a flight plan. In the best case, let's
assume that both the Piper and glider pilot escape with their lives.
Now, there's this little problem of $500K worth of damage to the Piper
in addition to the written-off glider. The insurance company for the
Piper figures out that the glider shouldn't have been there and
immediately subrogates to collect back their $500K from the glider
pilot's insurance company. At the trial, it is determined early on
that the glider pilot was in fact not cleared into Class A airpspace.
Guess who is going to be stuck, not only with the cost of their glider,
but the $500K in damages to the Piper as well? Hint: It's not the
glider pilot's insurance company, nor is it the Piper pilot's insurance
company.

My firm is currently managing the claims information systems for one of
the 800lb gorillas in the global insurance business. We see that they
contract out investigations for especially costly aviation incidents to
specialists who do nothing but try to find out if one party or the
other was operating outside of the regs. These sorts of folks are
pilots like us, and they will use every method (including some pretty
unethical approaches) to make sure their employer doesn't get stuck
with a $500K bill if they can help it.

Bottom line: Operating at the margins our outside of the FARs will
mor than likely invalidate your insurance in the event of a claim and
may have very severe financial repurcussions for the pilot.

For more on this, you can check out this sobering article by John
Yodice in AOPA Pilot Magazine:
http://www.aopaia.com/display_article_07.cfm

Erik Mann

[jcarlyle]

Erik,

Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
the law will find in favor of the insuree <unless> the policy
specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.

I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
with the FAA, but that's another matter!

Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
"If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.

Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.

-John

Papa3 wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
>
> > This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
> > yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
> > accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.
> >
>
> Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
> (don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
> companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
> claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
> This includes but is not limited to:
>
> - Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
> required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
> - Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
> Flight Review, etc.)
> - Operation is conducted within FARs
> - etc.
>
> Erik Mann

[jcarlyle]

Further to my last note. I forgot to point out that there are two
fundamental concepts in Erik's post that are being convolved. One is:
do you have insurance coverage? The second is: who pays for damages?

As I said above, if something isn't explicitly excluded in your
insurance contract, then you do have insurance coverage. This means you
will be defended by the insurance company in the lawsuit which will be
held to find fault, and that you will be reimbursed for your loss.

The second issue, who pays, is what I think Erik was really getting at.
In the lawsuit following an accident, someone will be found at fault.
If it's you, then your insurance company must pay the other party as
well as you. If it's the other party, then their insurance company will
pay you and their insuree.

Hope this clears up any confusion I might have left in people's minds.

-John


jcarlyle wrote:
> Erik,
>
> Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
> that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
> insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
> the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
> it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
> the law will find in favor of the insuree <unless> the policy
> specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.
>
> I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
> Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
> in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
> accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
> violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
> happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
> with the FAA, but that's another matter!
>
> Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
> required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
> "If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
> Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
> flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
> valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
> to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
> Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
> Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.
>
> Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
> something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.
>
> -John
>
> Papa3 wrote:
> > Ramy wrote:
> >
> > > This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
> > > yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
> > > accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.
> > >
> >
> > Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
> > (don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
> > companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
> > claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
> > This includes but is not limited to:
> >
> > - Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
> > required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
> > - Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
> > Flight Review, etc.)
> > - Operation is conducted within FARs
> > - etc.
> >
> > Erik Mann

[Mike Schumann]

The other thing to remember is that your insurance coverage has $ limits.
If you engage in activity that makes you liable, and the damage exceeds your
insurance liability limits, you will still be personally on the hook for the
balance. It's not hard to imagine this being a real issue if you are at
18,500 ft without a clearance and get hit by a business jet.

Mike Schumann

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Further to my last note. I forgot to point out that there are two
> fundamental concepts in Erik's post that are being convolved. One is:
> do you have insurance coverage? The second is: who pays for damages?
>
> As I said above, if something isn't explicitly excluded in your
> insurance contract, then you do have insurance coverage. This means you
> will be defended by the insurance company in the lawsuit which will be
> held to find fault, and that you will be reimbursed for your loss.
>
> The second issue, who pays, is what I think Erik was really getting at.
> In the lawsuit following an accident, someone will be found at fault.
> If it's you, then your insurance company must pay the other party as
> well as you. If it's the other party, then their insurance company will
> pay you and their insuree.
>
> Hope this clears up any confusion I might have left in people's minds.
>
> -John
>
>
> jcarlyle wrote:
>> Erik,
>>
>> Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
>> that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
>> insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
>> the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
>> it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
>> the law will find in favor of the insuree <unless> the policy
>> specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.
>>
>> I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
>> Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
>> in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
>> accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
>> violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
>> happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
>> with the FAA, but that's another matter!
>>
>> Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
>> required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
>> "If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
>> Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
>> flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
>> valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
>> to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
>> Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
>> Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.
>>
>> Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
>> something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.
>>
>> -John
>>
>> Papa3 wrote:
>> > Ramy wrote:
>> >
>> > > This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
>> > > yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like
>> > > car
>> > > accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
>> > (don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
>> > companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
>> > claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
>> > This includes but is not limited to:
>> >
>> > - Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
>> > required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
>> > - Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
>> > Flight Review, etc.)
>> > - Operation is conducted within FARs
>> > - etc.
>> >
>> > Erik Mann
>

[jcarlyle]

Mike,

Quite true - you can certainly be underinsured! One way to remedy that
is to buy higher limits, or you can also get an umbrella liability
policy that would cover your home, your car and your plane.

But to me the interesting issue is whether you have insurance coverage
if you violate the FARs. I'm sure that I would be covered, given how my
policy reads, but it's possible that others may have different
language.

Does anyone have an aviation insurance policy that specifically states
that they won't be covered if they are in violation of the FARs?

-John

Mike Schumann wrote:
> The other thing to remember is that your insurance coverage has $ limits.
> If you engage in activity that makes you liable, and the damage exceeds your
> insurance liability limits, you will still be personally on the hook for the
> balance. It's not hard to imagine this being a real issue if you are at
> 18,500 ft without a clearance and get hit by a business jet.

[Mike Schumann]

If you get hit by a business jet, you could easily see property damages in
the $10-20 Million range plus damages for personal injury or death claims.

I don't think there are very many pilots who have liability coverage that
comes anywhere close to this.

Mike Schumann

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mike,
>
> Quite true - you can certainly be underinsured! One way to remedy that
> is to buy higher limits, or you can also get an umbrella liability
> policy that would cover your home, your car and your plane.
>
> But to me the interesting issue is whether you have insurance coverage
> if you violate the FARs. I'm sure that I would be covered, given how my
> policy reads, but it's possible that others may have different
> language.
>
> Does anyone have an aviation insurance policy that specifically states
> that they won't be covered if they are in violation of the FARs?
>
> -John
>
> Mike Schumann wrote:
>> The other thing to remember is that your insurance coverage has $ limits.
>> If you engage in activity that makes you liable, and the damage exceeds
>> your
>> insurance liability limits, you will still be personally on the hook for
>> the
>> balance. It's not hard to imagine this being a real issue if you are at
>> 18,500 ft without a clearance and get hit by a business jet.
>

[Ramy]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Encourage pilots to install a transponder and turn it on.
> >
> Agreed, transponder use is a good thing. This is why we need to
> actively discourage posting >18K flights on OLC (without an
> explanation). People use the OLC to see what more experienced pilots
> do. If they see this, they will emulate it. And if they do they will
> have to turn their transponders off, otherwise ATC will see them going
> over 18K. So clearly this would compromise safety in multiple ways.
>

I sure hope that pilots don't turn off their transponders if they
accidentally go over 18K, this would be a serious and intention
violation. At least with a transponder on, while violating the FARs,
they pose less collision risk then below 18K without a transponder.

> Now if you can follow that argument, the sunset argument is not that
> different. If people see flights continuing well past sunset, they will
> think that's OK, and they will do it too. If they are trying to be
> competitive, they will stretch the limits even further. So clearly we
> need to discourage this as well.
>

Agreed, but you would have achieved much better results and response if
instead of enforcing it retroactively you would clearly publish the
rules (instead of hidden behind the "about" link) and enforce it going
forward (preferably automatically). The olc currently has a repository
of 4 years worth of thousands of flights, including quiet a few winning
flights, which ended after sunset. Should we remove them all?

Ramy

[Doug Haluza]

Cliff, I'm sorry, but this 'Big Brother' thing is a great big Red
Herring. The OLC is intended to be a public forum. One of the main
purposes of the OLC is for pilots to be able to share their flight
experiences with the entire worldwide soaring community (and anyone
else who may be interested). The posted flight logs are downloadable so
people can view your flights by design, not by accident. So there
should be absolutely no expectation of privacy.

I suspect that there are a lot of competition pilots who have received
penalties in contests that they didn't think were fair. And I think we
may have inadvertently hit that raw nerve by confronting people with
flights they really should not have posted in the first place. But this
is not intended to be a punitive action to punish the individual, it is
intended to protect the integrity of the competition.

I also think we are getting side tracked on the regulatory issues,
which are not the main point. There is an interesting side thread on
insurance issues, which may shed a different light on this. But the
biggest issue is monkey-see monkey-do.

You should expect that other people will be studying your flight logs
to learn from your example. Some of these people may not realize that
they should not emulate your bad behavior because they are dumb like a
post. Others will do it to try to beat you because they are dumb like a
fox. Niether of these is a positive result.

You are correct that the rate of growth of the OLC has slowed, but I
think this has more to do with market saturation among the more
experienced pilots. To continue to grow the OLC, we will need to
attract less experienced pilots. Learning from other OLC participants
is probably the best selling point to this market segment. So we need
to make sure we don't have people learning bad habits.

Let me sum it up this way. If we don't discourage posting bad examples
to OLC, we will just see more bad examples, so that raises our 'Bad
Cholesterol'. At
some point, people will become disgusted, or discouraged by this, and
that will lower our 'Good Cholesterol'. So the net result is bad for
the health of the OLC. You may not like the cholesterol medicine, but
not taking it is worse.

Cliff Hilty wrote:
> Doug, No real anger here! Just alittle disappointment
> in what started out to be fun competition turning into
> a lot of work and 'Big brother' watching me. It seems
> that that was done in the interest of 'protecting'
> our right to fly and as such the percieved notion that
> the FAA/CIA/ homeland security or any other name you
> might want to put here is going to punish the entire
> group for the infractions of one. This leads to the
> McCarthyism and self appointed enforcer mentality that
> started this thread! It Just seems pointless, and has
> diminished the growth of the OLC. Had it stayed the
> same as last year I would suspect that it would have
> grown at a much higher rate than it did.
>
> Interesting though that you combined posts from Kirk
> and I that are from two different forum's? Mine was
> posted to gliderforum and Kirks here on RAS. Although
> I totally agree with my old flying buddy, I only lay
> claim to the last half of the post you quote.
>
> At 03:36 14 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
> >Cliff, not sure who your anger is directed at. Let
> >me just say that the
> >SSA-OLC Committee is trying to provide an outlet for
> >resolving
> >disputes, without making a public circus of it on r.a.s.
> >Unfortunately,
> >some people just cant accept this.
> >
> >I think your MPD on this pretty well sums up the two
> >sides of the
> >debate. Most of the posters fall into two main groups:
> >
> >A) Let pilots do what they want, and post any flight,
> >as long as they
> >live to tell about it.
> >B) Hold pilots to some kind of reasonable standards
> >to keep the
> >competition as fair as possible, and keep the feds
> >as far away as
> >possible.
> >
> >There are variations of this, for example letting people
> >do A until
> >they get caught, then make them do B, or trying to
> >make the standards
> >in B some kind of absolute, or parse them down to the
> >sub-atomic
> >particle level. Another variation says that since we
> >can't do B 100%,
> >we should do 0% and default to A.
> >
> >One of the things we have been doing is trying to continue
> >to grow the
> >OLC user base. And as the user base grows, the population
> >will
> >naturally have to include a wider range of opinions
> >and behavior. That
> >means we will also have to deal with more people holding
> >extreme views,
> >who won't accept the consensus norms.
> >
> >The main thing to emphasize is personal responsibility.
> >You hit on that
> >when you talked about not posting flights that most
> >reasonable people
> >would find questionable. I think most people get that
> >intuitively. I
> >think almost everyone can grasp this with a little
> >peer pressure. But
> >then there are a few people....
> >
> >Unfortunately, that's just life in the big city. But
> >we don't have to
> >let them spoil the fun.
> >
> >Cliff Hilty wrote:
> >> At 13:24 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
> >> >I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that
> >>>will
> >> >cheerfully
> >> >exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about
> >> >everybody else, of
> >> >course) during the drive to the gliderport will then
> >> >pontificate about
> >> >minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace
> >> >bounderies.
> >> >
> >> >Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics!
> >> > You are safer at
> >> >18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring
> >> >at the
> >> >altimeter!
> >> >
> >> >Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed,
> >> >but what the
> >> >hell, it's monday and it's raining....
> >> >
> >> >Kirk
> >> >66
> >> >
> >> >I have pondered over this in detail after having read
> >> >most of the threads in RAS and here. And I am still
> >> undecided.
> >>
> >> When OLC started it was purely fun and easy, now it
> >> has become 'the' entity for showing not only the world
> >> but even more importantly your local flying buddies
> >> your acheivements. For years I flew in relative obscurity
> >> with only a few people knowing what I did, where and
> >> how fast I went. Now with posting to OLC everyone
> >>with
> >> any interest in soaring knows.
> >>
> >> The question for me now becomes; Do I have a responsibility
> >> to my flying buddies to protect their right to fly
> >> and not bring unwanted attention of allegded violations
> >> of the FAR's to our club and local flying area. To
> >> that question I have to say yes.
> >>
> >> On the other hand it makes me angry that a once fun
> >> and purely innocent OLC (after all we are in it for
> >> the money and chics) has been takin over by the aviation's
> >> version of the 'Moral Majority' and turned into the
> >> McCarthyism of everybody looking suspicously at each
> >> others flights and airing those suspiscions publicly
> >> in the name of protecting their right to fly. It just
> >> smacks of Orwell's 1984 'big brother is watching'.
> >> Read Soarpoint's post on RAS.
> >>
> >> Then again we don't have to post our flights that
> >>violate
> >> the FAR's! So now you see why I am so undecided:)
> >
> >

[Rory O'Conor[_1_]]

I think this is the nub of it. As an aspiring soaring pilot, I try to
learn from my betters, but not repeat their mistakes nor fly outside my
competance zone.

If I download and look at an Andean wave flight, I do not immediately
think - Oh, I can also go and fly at 30,000 feet in rotor and next to
large mountains, because I would probably kill myself due to lack of
oxygen, structural damage and CFIT. That does not mean that the flight
should not have been posted.

Similarly if I review an open class competitor flight with a marginal
final glide low over difficult terrain and some low scrapes, I would be
foolish to attempt to emulate it.

Nor if I see a flight with a mistake eg clipping airspace, landing late,
starting engine too low etc etc do I think - Oh I should try and emulate
these mistakes. No, I think that I should try to avoid a similar mistake
myself or that I have a different level of risk assessment.

If I thought of flying in the US (unlikely due to disagreements about
global politics) then I would study US flights, but not so that I could
repeat mistakes.

I suspect that the vast majority of pilots try to learn from the
mistakes of others, rather than try to emulate them.

But then I regard the OLC as an opportunity to learn and share
experiences rather than a full-blooded competition.

I have no problems with the authorities analysing OLC flights which
might result in a competition win/place or badge claim or record claim
or ranking for entry into a restricted places competition eg nationals,
to a detailed scrutiny, but my views are that the remainder should be
left so that pilots can learn from others' experiences.

Why don't you limit detailed scrutiny to flights which might impact on
your local US competition places ie probably the top 5-10 pilots?
So what if some infringements alter the different positions between
persons ranking 50th and 60th.

Rory, UK


Author: Doug Haluza >
Date/Time: 03:00 15 September 2006
------------------------------------------------------------
"The OLC is intended to be a public forum. One of the main purposes of
the OLC is for pilots to be able to share their flight experiences with
the entire worldwide soaring community (and anyone else who may be
interested). The posted flight logs are downloadable so people can view
your flights by design, not by accident. So there should be absolutely
no expectation of privacy."

"But the biggest issue is monkey-see monkey-do."

"You should expect that other people will be studying your flight logs
to learn from your example. Some of these people may not realize that
they should not emulate your bad behavior because they are dumb like a
post. Others will do it to try to beat you because they are dumb like a
fox. Niether of these is a positive result."

[Papa3]

jcarlyle wrote:
> Erik,
>
> Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
> that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
> insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
> the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
> it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
> the law will find in favor of the insuree <unless> the policy
> specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.
>
> I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
> Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
> in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
> accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
> violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
> happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
> with the FAA, but that's another matter!
>
> Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
> required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
> "If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
> Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
> flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
> valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
> to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
> Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
> Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.
>
> Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
> something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.
>
> -John
>
> Papa3 wrote:

John,

Absolutely correct. I was operating from memory without the benefit
of having my SSA Group Policy in front of me. I had a policy in the
past which specifically had verbiage to the effect that the aircraft
must be "operated in compliance with all applicable federal regulations
under CFR parts..." I'll see if I can dig that one up.

A few comments related to your post.

- As you note, the SSA Group Policy does in fact specify pilot and
aircraft airworthiness qualifications. There is an endorsement which
modifies the section you cited to include Experimental Airworthiness.
- In practice, the insurer can and will use any limitations to their
benefit if there is a major claim. Everyone needs to remember that
the insurer's goal is to avoid paying claims. So, even if
airworthiness (for example) is not the cause of an accident, that can
be used to void coverage (see the case history in Yodice's article).
I have several more examples of this available.
- As far as all of the different company names and addresses on your
policy, that has to do with the fact that insurance is regulated by the
states. Insurers typically acquire or establish entities in a given
state in order to meet licensing requirements. In our case (SSA Group
Policy) it all rolls back to AIG.

I guess my bigger mission was to point out that there is a significant
personal, financial risk involved in operating at the boundaries of
what is legal. Since the altruistic approach of looking out for our
fellow sportsmen doesn't always work, I hoped that the idea of looking
out for one's selfish interests might be additional incentive to play
by the rules.

Regards,

Erik

[jcarlyle]

Erik,

I'm really intrigued that at one time there was specific language
that nullified aviation insurance coverage if you weren't operating
in compliance with the FARs. If you could find the exact phrase they
used, I'd love to see it.

Agreed - insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid a
payout, and it's smart to keep that in mind. Probably it would also
be wise to note that most (all?) US states have an insurance department
or agency. There's a very good reason for this - 100 years ago
there wasn't much difference between an insurance company and a
privateer.

The reason I gave my insurance company name and address was to make an
ironic point, and it clearly failed. You see, the company was formed in
Pittsburgh, PA, while the address is in New York. Furthermore, I live
in Pennsylvania. Oh, well...

I understand your mission to persuade/coerce people to play by the
rules. My own incentive to stay legal is simple - if it weren't for
bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all. Thus any rule I try to bend
will bite me in the butt. Instant rule enforcement!

-John

Papa3 wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Absolutely correct. I was operating from memory without the benefit
> of having my SSA Group Policy in front of me. I had a policy in the
> past which specifically had verbiage to the effect that the aircraft
> must be "operated in compliance with all applicable federal regulations
> under CFR parts..." I'll see if I can dig that one up.
>
> A few comments related to your post.
>
> - As you note, the SSA Group Policy does in fact specify pilot and
> aircraft airworthiness qualifications. There is an endorsement which
> modifies the section you cited to include Experimental Airworthiness.
> - In practice, the insurer can and will use any limitations to their
> benefit if there is a major claim. Everyone needs to remember that
> the insurer's goal is to avoid paying claims. So, even if
> airworthiness (for example) is not the cause of an accident, that can
> be used to void coverage (see the case history in Yodice's article).
> I have several more examples of this available.
> - As far as all of the different company names and addresses on your
> policy, that has to do with the fact that insurance is regulated by the
> states. Insurers typically acquire or establish entities in a given
> state in order to meet licensing requirements. In our case (SSA Group
> Policy) it all rolls back to AIG.
>
> I guess my bigger mission was to point out that there is a significant
> personal, financial risk involved in operating at the boundaries of
> what is legal. Since the altruistic approach of looking out for our
> fellow sportsmen doesn't always work, I hoped that the idea of looking
> out for one's selfish interests might be additional incentive to play
> by the rules.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

I'd like to point out one self-contradiction and one outright outrageous
assumption in this post.

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The OLC is intended to be a public forum. One of the main
> purposes of the OLC is for pilots to be able to share their flight
> experiences with the entire worldwide soaring community (and anyone
> else who may be interested).

This contradicts the following:

> I suspect that there are a lot of competition pilots who have received
> penalties in contests that they didn't think were fair.
> [confronting people] is not intended to be a punitive action to punish the
> individual, it is
> intended to protect the integrity of the competition.

So is OLC a public forum, or a competition? If former, you will do the
public a huge favour if you quit "protecting" forum's integrity. If latter,
then yes, it should be controlled more strictly, but then don't call it
"public" anymore -- only a fraction of pilots are interested in real
contests.

The control that SSA began to exercise over the OLC-US (called SSA-OLC
now -- note how OLC used to come first) pushes it towards the contest side
of it. Why? Or, more relevantly, what for? If you wish to run it this way,
don't be surprised if it becomes as popular as other SSA-sanctioned contests
in this country.

> Some of these people may not realize that
> they should not emulate your bad behavior because they are dumb like a
> post. Others will do it to try to beat you because they are dumb like a
> fox.

Aside from these two groups, do you think there are any intelligent people
left around? Because for a second you sounded as if, one way or the other,
everybody is dumb around you -- like a post or like a fox. Maybe you are
spending too much effort protecting us from us.
--
Yuliy

P.S.: "This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make mistakes. We
want to help them, which means control them and their decisions, but in
doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)." -- [apparently by Ernest
Christley]

[Papa3]

jcarlyle wrote:
> Erik,
>
> I'm really intrigued that at one time there was specific language
> that nullified aviation insurance coverage if you weren't operating
> in compliance with the FARs. If you could find the exact phrase they
> used, I'd love to see it.
>
> Agreed - insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid a
> payout, and it's smart to keep that in mind. Probably it would also
> be wise to note that most (all?) US states have an insurance department
> or agency. There's a very good reason for this - 100 years ago
> there wasn't much difference between an insurance company and a
> privateer.
>
> The reason I gave my insurance company name and address was to make an
> ironic point, and it clearly failed. You see, the company was formed in
> Pittsburgh, PA, while the address is in New York. Furthermore, I live
> in Pennsylvania. Oh, well...
>
> I understand your mission to persuade/coerce people to play by the
> rules. My own incentive to stay legal is simple - if it weren't for
> bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all. Thus any rule I try to bend
> will bite me in the butt. Instant rule enforcement!
>
> -John
>
> Papa3 wrote:
> >

Sorry I was slow on the irony uptake. Friday and all that...

I filed away old hardcopy insurance policies when we moved and assume
they are buried somewhere beneath a godawful ugly cut glass picture
frame we got as a wedding present and some outgrown kids clothes. But
I digress.

I'm sure I recall the exclusion I mentioned. Googling around leads
to various aviation insurance brokers and court cases, and several
mention failure to operate in compliance with FARs as a potential
Exclusion. All of them very clearly point out the issues related to
pilot qualification and airworthiness. Articles include:

http://www.globalair.com/discussions/legal_services/article~/msgID=133

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A49420EE0F8959C588256FC500824CBC/$file/0316671o.pdf

Interestingly, AVEMCO hilights the fact that they have "done away with
blanket FAR exclusions", implying at least that these used to exist.


Regardless, as others pointed out, $1M limit of liability that most
people carry won't scratch the surface if they were involved in a
serious accident where they were clearly at fault. Just another reason
not to tempt fate...

P3

[hans]

Yuliy Gerchikov schrieb:

>
> The control that SSA began to exercise over the OLC-US (called SSA-OLC
> now -- note how OLC used to come first) pushes it towards the contest side
> of it. Why? Or, more relevantly, what for? If you wish to run it this way,
> don't be surprised if it becomes as popular as other SSA-sanctioned contests
> in this country.

The OLC puts the name of other organizations infront of the name if they
help to organize the competition, and puts just the abbreviated name of
the country after the TLC OLC, when the OLC for said country is managed
by the OLC team only.

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> I'd like to point out one self-contradiction and one outright outrageous
> assumption in this post.
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The OLC is intended to be a public forum. One of the main
> > purposes of the OLC is for pilots to be able to share their flight
> > experiences with the entire worldwide soaring community (and anyone
> > else who may be interested).
>
> This contradicts the following:
>
> > I suspect that there are a lot of competition pilots who have received
> > penalties in contests that they didn't think were fair.
> > [confronting people] is not intended to be a punitive action to punish the
> > individual, it is
> > intended to protect the integrity of the competition.
>
> So is OLC a public forum, or a competition? If former, you will do the
> public a huge favour if you quit "protecting" forum's integrity. If latter,
> then yes, it should be controlled more strictly, but then don't call it
> "public" anymore -- only a fraction of pilots are interested in real
> contests.
>
I believe the Online Contest is a contest, which is the same as a
competition in my dictionary (if not it was misnamed by the
organizers). The competitors post their flight logs to a public forum
as part of the competition. There is no contradiction.

FWIW, I have no interest in organized contests either (except as a
spectator). My total contest experience conists of one day as seat
ballast in the Sport's Class Nationals last year. I prefer to use my
limited vacation days to fly in the best conditions possible, and I am
fortunate enough to be able to do this.

This is why I am such a big supporter of the OLC format. I was one of
the few participants in the old r.a.s. League organized by Guenther
Eichhorn, which never really took off. It was eventually surpassed by
the OLC, in part because OLC used an automatic scoring algorithm based
on IGC files. This was a major improvement in the decentralized
competition format, and has won worldwide acceptance (except in Britan,
where the BGC league was already well established).

But posting IGC files to the public forum of the OLC requires
responsible behavior with reasonable limits, not unlike those imposed
on otherwise "free speech" in a public forum. Yes, we have had to
confront less than 1% of the SSA-OLC participants to deliver this
message. Fortunately, most of them were reasonable, and did not try to
confuse the issue by playing attack the messenger, at least not for
this long anyway.

[hans]

Doug Haluza schrieb:

>
> This is why I am such a big supporter of the OLC format. I was one of
> the few participants in the old r.a.s. League organized by Guenther
> Eichhorn, which never really took off. It was eventually surpassed by
> the OLC, in part because OLC used an automatic scoring algorithm based
> on IGC files. This was a major improvement in the decentralized
> competition format, and has won worldwide acceptance (except in Britan,
> where the BGC league was already well established).

There are several countries that have elected to work together with
Segelflugszene Ltd., the company that runs the OLC. These countries are
France, Belgium and UK. Austria work together with Segelflugszene Ltd.
in the past, but has now its own system, as Segelflugszene was not able
to adopt to the needs of Austria.

Before I started the OLC together with Mr. Rose in 1998 I tried to
convince Guenther Eichhorn to change to an automatic scoring of the
r.a.s League, but for some reason we did not do it together.


>
> But posting IGC files to the public forum of the OLC requires
> responsible behavior with reasonable limits, not unlike those imposed
> on otherwise "free speech" in a public forum. Yes, we have had to
> confront less than 1% of the SSA-OLC participants to deliver this
> message. Fortunately, most of them were reasonable, and did not try to
> confuse the issue by playing attack the messenger, at least not for
> this long anyway.
>

Attacking the messenger would be much more unlikely if the competitors
would be informed at the time of submitting the flight by an automatic
process. The process is implemented with the current software, but
disabled for unknown reasons.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> ...most of them ... did not ... attack the messenger

I thought so far we were discussing the OLC and not the persons. However,
and *only* if you prefer to view it as more of a personal attack, then I
must say that you are being way too modest. Your role in SSA-OLC is more
than a messenger -- it's rather like an owner: the one who is free to
invent, change, apply, not apply or mis-apply the rules at will.

Enjoy your contest. Hope you win a big prize.