The SSA-OLC

[KM]

I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys XC
every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I read
with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest, just
a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation from
these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According to
pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
Thanks,
K. Urban

[Ramy]

Excellent points, KM.
I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
"find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
rules in this respect)
also very sad".
Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...

Ramy


KM wrote:
> I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys XC
> every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I read
> with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
> warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
> SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
> in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
> thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
> where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest, just
> a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation from
> these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
> some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
> interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
> for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
> SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According to
> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
> Thanks,
> K. Urban

[5Z]

KM wrote:
> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?

Absolutely NOT!

Look at various club statistics (I'm in the Black Forest Soaring
Society) and you'll see a complete spectrum of flight claims. ALL are
welcome. Even flights of less than 50 points, which don't count for
club totals are encouraged, as some clubs may use these for creating
internal contests, etc.

> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?

I'll answer the gist of your post here...

The SSA has NOT hijacked the OLC. If the SSA description of the OLC is
missing the entertainment and educational angle, then that is an
unfortunate omission. The intent of the OLC as I understand it is that
it can and does fit many types of pilots. Some are out to score the
most points, while others are out to document their (sometimes
fantastic, but generally modest) flights in a public online forum.

Since this is an open forum, and the SSA is providing some sponsorship,
it just makes sense that it must also, at some level, take
responsibility for its content. It is hoped, and generally does
happen, that individual posters will analyze their flights prior to
submission, and if there is any appearance of impropriety (paticularly
FAR related), then the flight will not be posted. If the pilot wants
to teach a lesson, or expose some personal error, then perhaps the
flight can be posted with appropriate comments and a request of the
sponsor to not include it in overall scoring.

Some sailplane pilots have landed at an airport, and an FAA inspector
just happened to be there, and decided to do a "ramp check". At Hobbs
this year a pilot was reprimanded for not having the required dataplate
nor a copy of the SSA's exemption letter. The next day, copies of this
letter were handed out to a large percentage of the competitors who
knew nothing about this requirement. There wasn't a rush among those
of in compliance to report the others to the FAA. We just made sure
they were now legal.

The current "angst" on RAS has been fueled mostly by a tiny handful of
pilots who feel that ignorance of the regulations is a license to post
and claim flights that break them. These individuals feel that "the
big, bad SSA" is out the "get them". This is not true. They feel that
the SSA must post every FAR, and how it will be interpreted. Hey,
we're all adults here, can read, are generally law abiding, so it's ON
US to be aware if OUR flight is legal or not. If you're not sure, ASK
SOMEONE!

The partner check program is set up in the OLC (worldwide) to allow
fellow pilots to quietly report claims that may need a closer look.
Again, most of the "noise" on other threads has been the result of a
warning posted to RAS about an FAR that some of us don't fully
understand (flying after sunset - which many of us have done in the
past), but because of the presentation in the IGC file, is extremely
easy to validate.

I think your interpretation of the SSA's position regarding enforcement
actions is also misguided. The intent here is that if the IGC file
indicates a FAR violation, and the pilot refuses to withdraw it, and if
the FAA somehow gets involved, "the SSA" will most likely help the FAA
in evaluating the log, and assessing the circumstances of the purported
violation.

Long ago I used to participate in a monthly auto "rally" that took
place on a Friday night. The objective was to maintain a predetermined
speed over various course segments, all typically on residential
streets and within city limits. This average was ALWAYS below the
posted speed limits. However, if one got lost between checkpoints, it
could be necessary to exceed the speed limit. If we would have had GPS
recorders, then these competitors would no longer be able to "cheat" in
this way. Not so long ago, we only had a barograph and camera. There
was no mechanical means of proving what time of day the flight took
place. Now there is, and we just have to live with that.

-Tom

[Paul Remde]

OK. I just can't resist this one.

You seem to be twisting things, not just a little, but a lot.

My guess is that the statement by Mr. Reiner (if it is true) that the
"recent developments are sad" was probably because he was very surprised to
see that any glider pilot would post a flight on a public forum that could
make all the rest of us glider pilots look bad. Most glider pilots would
hope that such a pilot would remove his flight when someone questioned it.
Most glider pilots would. My guess is that your addition of the
"paraphrase" "(meaning that the SSA has changed the rules in this respect)"
is putting incorrect words into his mouth.

Paul Remde


"Ramy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Excellent points, KM.
> I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
> "find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
> rules in this respect)
> also very sad".
> Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
> SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
> Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
> flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...
>
> Ramy
>
>
> KM wrote:
>> I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys XC
>> every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I read
>> with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
>> warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
>> SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
>> in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
>> thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
>> where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest, just
>> a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation from
>> these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
>> some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
>> interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
>> for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
>> SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According to
>> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
>> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
>> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
>> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
>> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
>> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
>> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
>> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
>> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
>> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
>> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
>> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>> Thanks,
>> K. Urban
>

[Paul Remde]

"KM" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys XC
> every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I read
> with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
> warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
> SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
> in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
> thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
> where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest, just
> a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation from
> these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
> some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
> interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
> for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
> SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According to
> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> HELPING the FAA come after me?

- The SSA and the SSA-OLC committee has never helped the FAA come after
anyone. The SSA-OLC committee has had reports sent to us of flights ending
after dark or at altitudes that break FARs. The pilots that made the
reports thought the flights were not very sporting, not fair competition,
and worse, could make all other glider pilots look bad. The SSA-OLC
committee then did its job and asked the pilots to remove the flights from
this public forum. The SSA-OLC committee (I'm on it) would prefer to never
have to do that.

I think this forum is interesting because, in my opinion, the many pilots
that would never submit a flight that includes an obvious FAR breach are not
speaking up. They are tired of hearing the few outspoken pilots the seem to
be OK with pilots submitting flights that breach FARs. The silent majority
is hesitant to post their thoughts because they fear that the outspoken ones
will rip them appart for their opinon.

I for one am a big fan of the OLC. I am OK with the SSA-OLC committee
asking pilots to remove flights that break FARs. So should every glider
pilot that wants to keep the priveledge of using US airspace. The SSA-OLC
committee shoudn't need to ask the pilots to remove the flight logs that
break FARs, but if necessary, they will. The SSA-OLC committee does NOT go
looking for flights like that. They only look at flights that are brought
to their attention.

I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC. I
also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on the
OLC.

The bad guys in this are the pilots that submitted flights that break FARs.
Worse yet are the pilots that would not remove them when asked. They are
the ones taking the fun out of the OLC, not the SSA-OLC committee. They are
trying to make the SSA-OLC committee into the bad guys here. They are
shouting loudly and trying to mis-direct everyone. It makes me sick how
they are ruining such a great thing.

Silent majority, please speak up. If you agree that flights that break FARs
should not be on the OLC, please say so here.

Paul Remde

>Bizarre
> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
> Thanks,
> K. Urban
>

[Ramy]

Paul, you are absolutly wrong, again.
I will privately email you the source of the statement (since it was a
private email) and you will draw your own conclusion. I hope you will
reply to the forum with your conclusion if I twisted things or not!

Ramy

Paul Remde wrote:
> OK. I just can't resist this one.
>
> You seem to be twisting things, not just a little, but a lot.
>
> My guess is that the statement by Mr. Reiner (if it is true) that the
> "recent developments are sad" was probably because he was very surprised to
> see that any glider pilot would post a flight on a public forum that could
> make all the rest of us glider pilots look bad. Most glider pilots would
> hope that such a pilot would remove his flight when someone questioned it.
> Most glider pilots would. My guess is that your addition of the
> "paraphrase" "(meaning that the SSA has changed the rules in this respect)"
> is putting incorrect words into his mouth.
>
> Paul Remde
>
>
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Excellent points, KM.
> > I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
> > "find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
> > rules in this respect)
> > also very sad".
> > Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
> > SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
> > Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
> > flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> >
> > KM wrote:
> >> I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys XC
> >> every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I read
> >> with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
> >> warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
> >> SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
> >> in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
> >> thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
> >> where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest, just
> >> a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation from
> >> these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
> >> some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
> >> interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
> >> for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
> >> SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
> >> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> >> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According to
> >> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
> >> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
> >> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
> >> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
> >> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> >> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> >> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
> >> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
> >> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
> >> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> >> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> >> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> >> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> >> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
> >> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
> >> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
> >> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
> >> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> >> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> >> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
> >> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> >> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
> >> Thanks,
> >> K. Urban
> >

[Wayne Paul]

KM wrote:
> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>

KM,

I am one of those guys that posts everything over 50 km. I have never had
any negative feedback. I will never be the top point earning pilot;
however, the few point I earn do become part of the Seattle Glider Council
totals.

The SSA-OLC does indeed foster cross-country soaring and the SSA is correct
in not awarding points for flights that violate FAA regulations. Though my
flights are not spectacular the SSA-OLC does also provide me a venue for a
little "show-and-tell." It is a great asset to the sport of soaring. I
really don't understand why a person would have a problem with the SSA
excluding flights that violate FARs. This whole thread seems to be about a
few rebels who think they are above the law and should be rewarded for it.

Respectfully,

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg

[Andy[_1_]]

Paul Remde wrote:
>I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC. I
>also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on the
>OLC.

I think you probably mean that you hope pilots with FAR violations
detectable in the flight log will not post to OLC. It's more about the
appearance of being violation free than actually being violation free.

If I understand the SAA rules for scrutiny of OLC logs a pilot that
flys 1000k in the blue and lands 10 seconds after sunset, an infraction
that would draw no attention from FAA, would be asked to withdraw the
flight. Another pilot that flew 1000k in streeting conditions, and
used the clouds to their best advantage, and landed 10 seconds before
sunset would get full credit for the flight.

The difference between the flights is that SSA can determine sunset
time and landing time to one second accuracy but SSA has no means to
detect proximity to cloud base.

How many people on this group that actually fly long cross countries
believe one of these flights is worth zero points? If so which one?

I am on record at my local club for speaking out about landing long
after sunset but remain a vocal opponent of discarding OLC flights
because of sunset time infractions since neither the means of
determining sunset time at the place of landing, nor the allowable
tolerance between sunset time and landing time, is defined.

If, and when, SSA decides to define these be sure to also specify the
maximum allowable logger interval for SSA OLC flights as well. I
currently run at 2 second interval but that obviously exposes me to far
more scrutiny than if I ran at the slowest allowable rate.

Andy

[[email protected]]

KM wrote:
> I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys XC
> every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I read
> with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
> warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
> SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
> in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
> thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
> where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest, just
> a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation from
> these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
> some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
> interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
> for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
> SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According to
> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
> Thanks,
> K. Urban

Clarification:
The SSA policy which I will simplify slightly says " It is the policy
of the SSA that all FAR's will be observed". Basically that is it. It
is intended to provide strong incentive to pilots NOT to post flights
having FAR violations which could be used against them by the FAA if it
so chooses. If a pilot posts such a flight, he is providing evidence
against himself. It would seem obvious that encouraging withdrawal of
such a flight is a favor to the pilot. It also avoids building a file
of flights with violations which would imply that SSA sanctions such
activity. The same thing is done in contest flying with the exception
that the pilot gets a serious point penalty.
As to whether you should post your flights HECK YES- go for it.
Have fun
UH

[Eric Greenwell]

KM wrote:
> According to
> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did" flights
> is discouraged.

Not so! I encourage pilots to post their flights. Perhaps this comment I
made was the one that mislead you:

"It's called the OnLine Contest, not the "What-I-did forum" where you
post whatever you like,"

The key part is the "where you post whatever you like"; i.e., there are
some rules about what can be posted. You can, and I hope you will, post
any flight that meets those few rules.

> So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC?

I'm not out to win, but I do enjoy seeing how well other pilots are
doing around the country and the world, and the handicap system makes it
easier to see that. It's not perfect, of course, because weather
differences aren't adjusted for, but it's good enough to be interesting.

> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> HELPING the FAA come after me?

This won't happen for several reasons: you won't send in a flight with
'something stupid' on it caused by the flight recorder (you do look at
the flight before you'd send it in, right?), and if you did, the SSA is
smart enough to recognize that, and help you fix the problem, and if the
FAA still got ahold of it, the SSA has the expertise with flight
recorder interperation to help you convince the FAA nothing bad was done.

> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.

Punitive? There are no penalities, just a private request to remove a
flight that doesn't meet the rules. If the pilot refuses, then the
flight might be removed anyway. Is that "punitive"? To the pilots
abiding by the rules, that doesn't seem like punishment, just fair play,
because the flight should never have been submitted.

> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?

Heck no! Even if you are flying a Nimbus 4 - no laughter!

> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?

I've posted over 80 flights on the SSA-OLC with no politics and no
flaming - just help (on request) from the OLC and SSA-OLC when
occasional problems arose. You plan to fly in an entirely legal manner,
so no one will question your flights, either. Inspect your flights for
obvious problems before posting, then post them on the SSA-OLC, where
the rest of the USA can enjoy them.

--
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

[Andy[_1_]]

wrote:
>" It is the policy of the SSA that all FAR's will be observed".
>The same thing is done in contest flying with the exception
> that the pilot gets a serious point penalty.

Hank,

You and I have flown enough sanctioned contests to know that just not
true! Only infractions that show in the log are enforced. Ask any
contest pilot about their experiences running cloud streets if they
believe all FAR are observed.


Andy (GY)

[Denis]

Paul Remde a écrit :

> I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC. I
> also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on the
> OLC.
>
> The bad guys in this are the pilots that submitted flights that break FARs.

What about the pilots that flew 5' after sunset and did not submit their
flights ? Are them not bad guys too ? Do you imply that anyone may break
any FAR's provided that they don't publish their flights ?

And what about some posters that confessed here that they've happened to
fly after the sunset without lights ? Why don't you ask them to cancel
their posts, and/or forward their posts to the FAA in order to prosecute
them ?


--
Denis

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

[5Z]

Andy wrote:
> The difference between the flights is that SSA can determine sunset
> time and landing time to one second accuracy but SSA has no means to
> detect proximity to cloud base.

Andy, this is where the partner check comes in. At least one flight
under discussion had a landing over a half hour after sunset - not 10
seconds. The USNO (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html)
only provides data to the nearest minute.

We certainly COULD penalize the person landing "10 seconds" after
sunset, but I think most OLC participants would allow it to be scored.
As to where to draw the line, that will, IMO, have to be handled on a
case by case basis.

As has been said elsewhere, a few anti-establishment nit-pickers are
trying to force the OLC to set hard, deterministic rules for every
aspect of the flight. They are spoiling the fun for everyone else by
complaining and demanding these rigorous rules (think Olympics, etc.).
The rest of us are happy with reasonable fudge factors being applied to
the flights. And "reasonable" will always be a variable open to
interpretation.

If I happen to examine a flight with a few bumps above 18K, I'll then
look closely at these points to see if the pilot was thermalling
through 18K and still circling several hundred feet above this
altitude. Or maybe the pilot rolled out of the lift at 17.7K, then
"bounced" some lift on exit and happened to exceed 18K. I'll see how
often this happened, and make a subjective decision whether to
challenge the flight or not. If the flight is being submitted for a
FAI award of some type, then an objective analysis must be made and
perhaps the FAI claim not made, but the OLC claim can stand.

That is, IMO, the most sporting way to keep things fun and simple for
all of us.

-Tom

[Andy[_1_]]

I apologize. This reply was intended to have been sent to Hank only
and not to the group.

[Paul Remde]

Hi Denis,

I don't get your point. I recommend that all soaring pilots follow the
FARs, or the rules for their country - regardless of whether or not they
plan to submit the flights. However, when they do break the FARs (on
purpose or by accident), then it would be unsportsmanlike to submit the
flight.

Paul Remde

"Denis" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Remde a écrit :
>
>> I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC.
>> I also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on
>> the OLC.
>>
>> The bad guys in this are the pilots that submitted flights that break
>> FARs.
>
> What about the pilots that flew 5' after sunset and did not submit their
> flights ? Are them not bad guys too ? Do you imply that anyone may break
> any FAR's provided that they don't publish their flights ?
>
> And what about some posters that confessed here that they've happened to
> fly after the sunset without lights ? Why don't you ask them to cancel
> their posts, and/or forward their posts to the FAA in order to prosecute
> them ?
>
>
> --
> Denis
>
> R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
> Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

[Wayne Paul]

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Andy wrote:
>> The difference between the flights is that SSA can determine sunset
>> time and landing time to one second accuracy but SSA has no means to
>> detect proximity to cloud base.
>
> Andy, this is where the partner check comes in. At least one flight
> under discussion had a landing over a half hour after sunset - not 10
> seconds. The USNO (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html)
> only provides data to the nearest minute.
>

Tom,

I noticed that my flight logs, when viewed in SeeYou, show sunrise and
sunset to the second. Does SeeYou get its' data from an external source or
is it calculated by the program based on takeoff and landing coordinates,
altitude, date/time, etc.?

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg

[Paul Remde]

Hi Ramy,

I received your note with the e-mail conversation mentioned below. I have
no idea whether it proves or disproves what you quoted. I don't read German
very well and I don't know who made the translation to English found in the
note. It was as useless to me as this thread.

However, I shouldn't have suggested that you twisted his words. I don't
know what he said and I shouldn't have guessed.

Paul Remde


"Ramy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Paul, you are absolutly wrong, again.
> I will privately email you the source of the statement (since it was a
> private email) and you will draw your own conclusion. I hope you will
> reply to the forum with your conclusion if I twisted things or not!
>
> Ramy
>
> Paul Remde wrote:
>> OK. I just can't resist this one.
>>
>> You seem to be twisting things, not just a little, but a lot.
>>
>> My guess is that the statement by Mr. Reiner (if it is true) that the
>> "recent developments are sad" was probably because he was very surprised
>> to
>> see that any glider pilot would post a flight on a public forum that
>> could
>> make all the rest of us glider pilots look bad. Most glider pilots would
>> hope that such a pilot would remove his flight when someone questioned
>> it.
>> Most glider pilots would. My guess is that your addition of the
>> "paraphrase" "(meaning that the SSA has changed the rules in this
>> respect)"
>> is putting incorrect words into his mouth.
>>
>> Paul Remde
>>
>>
>> "Ramy" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Excellent points, KM.
>> > I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
>> > "find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
>> > rules in this respect)
>> > also very sad".
>> > Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
>> > SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
>> > Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
>> > flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...
>> >
>> > Ramy
>> >
>> >
>> > KM wrote:
>> >> I am new to the R.A.S. and I am an aspiraring contest pilot who flys
>> >> XC
>> >> every chance I get,but I have never persued a badge or a contest.I
>> >> read
>> >> with some interest and amusement the thread about the OLC sunset
>> >> warning.This inspired me to look up all of the OLC information on the
>> >> SSA website.I also looked up the German OLC site.I had heard about OLC
>> >> in the past, and had a bit of a clue what it was about, But I never
>> >> thought about participating.In my state, we have a active Yahoo group
>> >> where pilots post flights during the season.This is not a contest,
>> >> just
>> >> a way to report on the local happenings.I drew alot of insperation
>> >> from
>> >> these flight reports on Yahoo, and I thought it would be of benefit to
>> >> some of the local pilots if I posted on OLC.What I found that was
>> >> interesting is that the German OLC website states that the OLC exists
>> >> for this purpose and to encorage more cross country flights, but the
>> >> SSA website made almost no mention of this.And judging by the gist of
>> >> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
>> >> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.According
>> >> to
>> >> pilots like Eric G and Paul M, the posting of "Look what I did"
>> >> flights
>> >> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
>> >> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
>> >> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
>> >> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>> >> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>> >> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
>> >> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
>> >> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
>> >> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>> >> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>> >> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>> >> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>> >> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
>> >> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
>> >> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
>> >> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
>> >> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple
>> >> of
>> >> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>> >> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed
>> >> at?
>> >> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>> >> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> K. Urban
>> >
>

[Kilo Charlie]

Some good points KM. After lurking for a long time re this I finally feel
compelled to share my thoughts as one of the "silent" folks out here.

I do not want you to call the police with my license plate number should I
pass you going over the speed limit. Nor do I want you to call my HOA
should I paint my house a slightly different shade of brown without their
permission. Nor do I wish you to report me to the club when I move my golf
ball slightly out of the rough.

Nor do I want you to review every one of my OLC flights in order to look for
infractions. Yup I bust 18K once in a great while. And not that I'm a
religious person but I think that "Let he without sin cast the first stone"
fits this discussion perfectly.

Before some squeaker writes back with yet another scenario of gliders
getting sucked into a 747 engine and offing all 400 souls on board resulting
in gliding being shut down forever I'll say that I am sure I could come up
with at least a dozen other equally harrowing potential conflicts but that
I'd suggest that all of those scenarios are statistically more likely to
occur where we all fly most frequently......between sunrise and sunset and
under 18K. That's why I have a transponder.

If you happened to notice that there are a couple of bad apples that
consistently fly outside the rules or if there is a gross infraction on any
given flight then pull them aside and ask them if they had considered how
that could impact not only them but the rest of us. But everyone looking
over everyone elses shoulder....come on folks.....pick up a good book or
play with your kids for a few minutes more each day instead.

Finally is there any data to show that this is really a problem i.e. the
discussions here have centered around one or two pilots and one or two
flights. The rest of the discussion has been conjecture. Let's go have fun
for God's sake and quit giving new pilots the impression that we're all a
bunch of paranoid anal retentive old farts.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Doug Haluza]

Ramy wrote:
> Excellent points, KM.
> I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
> "find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
> rules in this respect)
> also very sad".
> Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
> SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
> Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
> flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...
>
> Ramy

Ramy, why don't you post the whole quote in context so we can interpret
it for ourselves, instead of giving us your obviously biased
interpretation. The SSA-OLC team has been in constant contact with the
OLC-i team, including Mr. Reiner Rose, so he is well aware of the
situation, and he has not expressed such reservations to us. I will let
him speak for himself, though.

Also your statement about posting under any country is incorrect. The
flights you made from Truckee that you claimed to Brazil were caught by
the OLC-i admin, and moved back to the US. His email to me indicated
that he was quite annoyed about this. So please stop, and do not
encourage others to do the same.

Also, would you please disclose if you had any contact with KM before
he made the post you so wholehartedly endorsed here.

[Doug Haluza]

Sunset can be calculated to any precision you like, but the USNO rounds
it to the nearest minute. I have emailed Team SeeYou about thier sunset
calculation, and whether they are using a calculation for a sun zenith
angle of 90 degrees or the more complex but standardized 90.83333
degree calcualtion. The sunset times in SeeYou are earlier than USNO,
which suggests the former, but they have not confirmed this.

Wayne Paul wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I noticed that my flight logs, when viewed in SeeYou, show sunrise and
> sunset to the second. Does SeeYou get its' data from an external source or
> is it calculated by the program based on takeoff and landing coordinates,
> altitude, date/time, etc.?
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg

[5Z]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> If you happened to notice that there are a couple of bad apples that
> consistently fly outside the rules or if there is a gross infraction on any
> given flight then pull them aside and ask them if they had considered how
> that could impact not only them but the rest of us. But everyone looking
> over everyone elses shoulder....come on folks.....pick up a good book or
> play with your kids for a few minutes more each day instead.

That's essentially what the OLC team wants as well. And I think the
bad apples have unfortunately exposed themselves here because they
don't like the private counselling they got.

-Tom

[Doug Haluza]

Denis wrote:
> Paul Remde a écrit :
>
> > I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC. I
> > also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on the
> > OLC.
> >
> > The bad guys in this are the pilots that submitted flights that break FARs.
>
> What about the pilots that flew 5' after sunset and did not submit their
> flights ? Are them not bad guys too ? Do you imply that anyone may break
> any FAR's provided that they don't publish their flights ?
>
> And what about some posters that confessed here that they've happened to
> fly after the sunset without lights ? Why don't you ask them to cancel
> their posts, and/or forward their posts to the FAA in order to prosecute
> them ?

If we ask a pilot to remove a flight claim, we are trying to help them
recognize their mistake. It's called self-policing, not a police
action. We are looking to avoide outside scrutiny, not encourage it.

Making a mistake is a bad thing. Adults recognize this, and take
responsibility for their mistakes. Trying to deflect blame is not adult
behavior, it's what children do.

So if you bust a reg, that's bad. But if you brag about it, that's
worse.

[Doug Haluza]

Andy wrote:
> wrote:
> >" It is the policy of the SSA that all FAR's will be observed".
> >The same thing is done in contest flying with the exception
> > that the pilot gets a serious point penalty.
>
> Hank,
>
> You and I have flown enough sanctioned contests to know that just not
> true! Only infractions that show in the log are enforced. Ask any
> contest pilot about their experiences running cloud streets if they
> believe all FAR are observed.
>

Yes, and that's what's really at the root of this. The whole issue
started with the Robert Harris altitude record in 1986. There were
questions about whether he had a proper ATC clearance for the airspace
at the time. Although he was ultimately awarded the record, the
consensus that followed was that it would be counterproductive for the
SSA to encourage, or even create the appearance of encouraging FAR
violations to enhance a soaring performance.

Now that was in the days of barographs and cameras for flight evidence,
Now we are dealing with IGC loggers, and need to update our thinking to
reflect the changes in technology. So yes, we are talking about
violations that are obvious in the IGC log files, because that is the
evidence we have. We don't have usable evidence of cloud bases, so that
point is moot.

Just because we can't see every violation does not mean we should
ignore the ones in plain sight. Certainly if evidence was found that
someone was competing while their certificate was revoked, they would
also be disqualified. Who would argue against this? Never mind, I'm
sure there are some people on r.a.s who would.

[Doug Haluza]

5Z wrote:
> Kilo Charlie wrote:
> > If you happened to notice that there are a couple of bad apples that
> > consistently fly outside the rules or if there is a gross infraction on any
> > given flight then pull them aside and ask them if they had considered how
> > that could impact not only them but the rest of us. But everyone looking
> > over everyone elses shoulder....come on folks.....pick up a good book or
> > play with your kids for a few minutes more each day instead.
>
> That's essentially what the OLC team wants as well. And I think the
> bad apples have unfortunately exposed themselves here because they
> don't like the private counselling they got.
>
> -Tom

Let me emphasize that in these two specific cases, there was extensive
private email communication, and also personal communication from their
SSA Regional Director. So your comment about private conselling is
accurate. They chose to go public, repeatedly making baseless
accusations to try to support thier positions. So instead of using our
limited volunteer time to build and foster the OLC, we are forced to
take this unnecessary side trip to nowhere.

[Andy[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
>So yes, we are talking about violations that are obvious in the IGC log files, because that >is the evidence we have. We don't have usable evidence of cloud bases, so that
>point is moot.

Doug,

I don't have any problem at all with rejecting flight logs that have
evidence of gross FAR violation.

All I have lobbied for is a more reasonable interpretation of the
sunset rule. I have stated that many, if not most, if not all, pilots
break some FARs and I get tired of the preaching from those that seem
to claim they never had a flight that ever broke one FAR.

End soaring flight at sunset and reject logs with gross violations of
the sunset rule and I'll say no more. Let the FAA decide if they want
to take enforcement action against a pilot that lands a few minutes
after sunset.

If you do that I don't care how you define sunset. The consequence of
landing a minute after SSA sunset time will be an insignificant number
of points.

Andy

[KM]

Paul Remde wrote:
>
> - The SSA and the SSA-OLC committee has never helped the FAA come after
> anyone. The SSA-OLC committee has had reports sent to us of flights ending
> after dark or at altitudes that break FARs. The pilots that made the
> reports thought the flights were not very sporting, not fair competition,
> and worse, could make all other glider pilots look bad. The SSA-OLC
> committee then did its job and asked the pilots to remove the flights from
> this public forum. The SSA-OLC committee (I'm on it) would prefer to never
> have to do that.

Paul,
First of all, I am sorry that you find this thread so useless.I was
trying to get some insight from a very active user group, and not start
another flame fest like the "Sunset" thread.If you could humor my
useless opinion here, I would like to explain my original post.
First, I did not mean to say that it is wrong to remove posts to OLC
where there have been flagerant disregard of FARs.What I took issue
with was the SSA memo on the OLC portion of their website.Imagine if
you will, a memo like this being posted on the AOPA website.My guess is
that AOPA members would storm the headquarters in Maryland (Or wherever
they are).I would rather see the SSA use this goodwill they have with
the feds to mitigate any enforcement action.Judging by Toms post, this
is hopefully the case.It wouldnt hurt the SSA to change the wording of
this memo.
Second, and this is in reference to the "OLC Sunset Warning" on the SSA
website.If we can put the "sunset" part of that memo to bed and just
deal with the altitude portion for a minute, it is clear that the guy
who wrote it doesnt have much of an understanding of this issue and how
the Feds interpret it.I use a Cambridge model 20 with version 6.0 and
this reports both GPS and pressure altitudes.I have never flown my ship
above 17300 feet, and yet on days with a low altimeter, my box has
shown on or about 18K.Now of course this is not a safety issue because
ATC will not assign FL180 to IFR traffic on days with low pressure, but
I dont like the thought of having to explain this to the guy that typed
the "Sunset" memo.
Another concern is the lateral part of the box.I use Aero Explorer 1.1
(and I am not very good with any of this stuff yet), and I do not have
any type of map feature.All of the turn points are just dots on a white
backround and there is no reference to any airspace.What would happen
if you flew across a TFR (Inavertantly of course) or something and the
Feds wanted to see the flight log?Would the SSA cheerfully hand it
over?
Now the main gist of my post Paul, was that I am amazed amount of
infighting on R.A.S. over the SSA-OLC.I thought it would be prudent to
post straight to the OLC in Germany and forgo all of this.
K Urban

[Doug Haluza]

Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset time--there is no
arbitrary SSA definition of sunset. USNO makes online calculators
available that compute sunrise and sunset for any place, for a single
day, or a table for an entire year. So the data is easily accessible.

Now as far as what to do, the SSA policy is uniform for OLC, B&R and
contests--the flights are to be "disqualified". For contests, that
means zero points for the day, plus a possible penalty. For B&R it
means the claim is denied. For OLC, to be consistent with the
international practices, we request that the pilot remove the claim.

If you think this is too severe, you need to make that request to the
SSA Board. But I don't think they will accept that an "insignificant"
penalty is consistent with the SSA policy that FAR's must be observed.

Andy wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> >So yes, we are talking about violations that are obvious in the IGC log files, because that >is the evidence we have. We don't have usable evidence of cloud bases, so that
> >point is moot.
>
> Doug,
>
> I don't have any problem at all with rejecting flight logs that have
> evidence of gross FAR violation.
>
> All I have lobbied for is a more reasonable interpretation of the
> sunset rule. I have stated that many, if not most, if not all, pilots
> break some FARs and I get tired of the preaching from those that seem
> to claim they never had a flight that ever broke one FAR.
>
> End soaring flight at sunset and reject logs with gross violations of
> the sunset rule and I'll say no more. Let the FAA decide if they want
> to take enforcement action against a pilot that lands a few minutes
> after sunset.
>
> If you do that I don't care how you define sunset. The consequence of
> landing a minute after SSA sunset time will be an insignificant number
> of points.
>
> Andy

[Doug Haluza]

Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset time--there is no
arbitrary SSA definition of sunset. USNO makes online calculators
available that compute sunrise and sunset for any place, for a single
day, or a table for an entire year. So the data is easily accessible.

Now as far as what to do, the SSA policy is uniform for OLC, B&R and
contests--the flights are to be "disqualified". For contests, that
means zero points for the day, plus a possible penalty. For B&R it
means the claim is denied. For OLC, to be consistent with the
international practices, we request that the pilot remove the claim.

If you think this is too severe, you need to make that request to the
SSA Board. But I don't think they will accept that an "insignificant"
penalty is consistent with the SSA policy that FAR's must be observed.

Andy wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> >So yes, we are talking about violations that are obvious in the IGC log files, because that >is the evidence we have. We don't have usable evidence of cloud bases, so that
> >point is moot.
>
> Doug,
>
> I don't have any problem at all with rejecting flight logs that have
> evidence of gross FAR violation.
>
> All I have lobbied for is a more reasonable interpretation of the
> sunset rule. I have stated that many, if not most, if not all, pilots
> break some FARs and I get tired of the preaching from those that seem
> to claim they never had a flight that ever broke one FAR.
>
> End soaring flight at sunset and reject logs with gross violations of
> the sunset rule and I'll say no more. Let the FAA decide if they want
> to take enforcement action against a pilot that lands a few minutes
> after sunset.
>
> If you do that I don't care how you define sunset. The consequence of
> landing a minute after SSA sunset time will be an insignificant number
> of points.
>
> Andy

[Ramy]

Doug, until this post you acted somewhat professionally, but you lost
it.
Here are my responses to your comments, then I'm out of this public
flaim war.
1 - I will email you privately the email. I would not post it
publically. I would never go as low as twisting someone words or take
them out of context. But I probably should have not quote him either.
2 - I have absolutly no idea which flights you are claiming I posted to
Brazil. This is a complete BS. My last flight out of Truckee was on 9/4
and was posted to the SSA- OLC and I haven't been to Truckee since. It
was also the last flight I posted to OLC.
3 - I have no idea who KM is and I never had any contact with him
before.

Doug, I must say I am very disappointed. You would have done a favor to
your credibility if you would have checked the facts first.

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Excellent points, KM.
> > I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
> > "find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
> > rules in this respect)
> > also very sad".
> > Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
> > SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
> > Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
> > flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Ramy, why don't you post the whole quote in context so we can interpret
> it for ourselves, instead of giving us your obviously biased
> interpretation. The SSA-OLC team has been in constant contact with the
> OLC-i team, including Mr. Reiner Rose, so he is well aware of the
> situation, and he has not expressed such reservations to us. I will let
> him speak for himself, though.
>
> Also your statement about posting under any country is incorrect. The
> flights you made from Truckee that you claimed to Brazil were caught by
> the OLC-i admin, and moved back to the US. His email to me indicated
> that he was quite annoyed about this. So please stop, and do not
> encourage others to do the same.
>
> Also, would you please disclose if you had any contact with KM before
> he made the post you so wholehartedly endorsed here.

[KM]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Also, would you please disclose if you had any contact with KM before
> he made the post you so wholehartedly endorsed here.

Doug, I gotta ask, what does this matter?For your info, I have never
had any contact with anyone on R.A.S. exept for Paul Remde when I am
interested in buying stuff , and you with some questions about
OLC.Thanks for the response by the way.My intention here is not to
start another OLC flamerama, it was just to ask around and see if
posting on OLC was worth it with all the infighting and contention
going on.All of the legality issues really dont concern me much. I
think your argument here is really with someone else because I never
took issue with removing illegal flights from OLC.My issue was with the
content of the SSA's OLC portion of the website.
K. Urban

[Ramy]

Doug, do you mind exposing your credibility by pointing to us which
flight you are claiming that I posted under Brazil???

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> > Excellent points, KM.
> > I saw a comment from the originator of the olc, Mr. Reiner, that he
> > "find this development (meaning the fact that the SSA has changed the
> > rules in this respect)
> > also very sad".
> > Yes, you can post under any country and club you wish and bypass the
> > SSA-OLC. Some of us considering doing it, some already are.
> > Also you can post any length of flight, there are many who post local
> > flights as well. And 200-300 miles is not a short flight...
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Ramy, why don't you post the whole quote in context so we can interpret
> it for ourselves, instead of giving us your obviously biased
> interpretation. The SSA-OLC team has been in constant contact with the
> OLC-i team, including Mr. Reiner Rose, so he is well aware of the
> situation, and he has not expressed such reservations to us. I will let
> him speak for himself, though.
>
> Also your statement about posting under any country is incorrect. The
> flights you made from Truckee that you claimed to Brazil were caught by
> the OLC-i admin, and moved back to the US. His email to me indicated
> that he was quite annoyed about this. So please stop, and do not
> encourage others to do the same.
>
> Also, would you please disclose if you had any contact with KM before
> he made the post you so wholehartedly endorsed here.

[Eric Greenwell]

KM wrote:
I use a Cambridge model 20 with version 6.0 and
> this reports both GPS and pressure altitudes.I have never flown my ship
> above 17300 feet, and yet on days with a low altimeter, my box has
> shown on or about 18K.Now of course this is not a safety issue because
> ATC will not assign FL180 to IFR traffic on days with low pressure, but
> I dont like the thought of having to explain this to the guy that typed
> the "Sunset" memo.

You won't have anything to explain, because you didn't bust 18,000' msl.
Your logger records pressure altitude and GPS altitude, but _not_ msl
altitude (what your altimeter reads). The pressure altitude from the
logger file must be corrected for the barometric pressure during the
flight to determine your altitude, and this will show you were at 17,300
(for the flight mentioned).

> Another concern is the lateral part of the box.I use Aero Explorer 1.1
> (and I am not very good with any of this stuff yet), and I do not have
> any type of map feature.All of the turn points are just dots on a white
> backround and there is no reference to any airspace.What would happen
> if you flew across a TFR (Inavertantly of course) or something and the
> Feds wanted to see the flight log? Would the SSA cheerfully hand it
> over?

They wouldn't have to, because YOU posted it to the OLC, and the FAA
could simply download it like any other person visiting the site. If you
were lucky, the airspace violation would be notice and reported by
someone in time for you to remove the flight before the Feds noticed it.

> Now the main gist of my post Paul, was that I am amazed amount of
> infighting on R.A.S. over the SSA-OLC.I thought it would be prudent to
> post straight to the OLC in Germany and forgo all of this.

The controversy here doesn't affect the big majority of OLC posters, who
don't even know there is any controversy unless they read it here. It's
too bad your introduction to the OLC started during this period - in
this case, ignorance would be bliss. As a pilot that intends to fly with
careful attention to the regs, none of this is pertinent to you, so if
you find it upsetting instead of interesting or educational, I hope you
will just ignore the thread.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

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

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

[Yuliy Gerchikov[_1_]]

KM,

Good points and observations,

"KM" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>I am new to the R.A.S

I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some of the
loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed to state my opinions
here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA takes over R.A.S and turns
it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.

> we have a active Yahoo group
> where pilots post flights during the season.

Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without bothering
themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside the
rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No one will
tell you which flights you can or can't look at and learn from? Wow... what
a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so disturbingly lax here on OLC
since the sanitation of traces started under SSA rule. Certainly your Yahoo
group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's part. Good thing you have
mentioned it here, so it can be looked at and fixed soon. What is the URL?

> This is not a contest, just
> a way to report on the local happenings.

Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so different
is the "C" in its name.

> judging by the gist of
> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.

Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most people
use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on running it as a hard
core contest.

> How did the SSA get a
> monopoly on the OLC in the US,

Beats me!

> and why did they change its intent?

Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say, what we
see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing, you see.

> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> enforce FARs"

Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA officials
pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation of FARs".

> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre

If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely, absolutely,
positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance or
breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest possibility of
violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make absolutely sure
that even with the ever-increasing level of scrutiny no one will ever find
(or suggest) and "report" any violations in them.

For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights, because
most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) -- even though this violation
is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is inexplicably "OK" for
SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any flights that look like running the
cloud streets (easily recognizable by high-speed flat "tops" and little or
no thermalling for extended periods of time), because somebody may report
you, alleging cloud clearance violations. For the same reason do not post
any wave flights on days when medium to high RH was observed at your flight
altitudes.

This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are. Everything else
you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you feel lucky.

> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?

That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to 3
hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the score sheet
to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to your flights. So keep in
mind what you might not want to post.

> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?

One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you correctly
pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight flown
entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC -- or not at all.

> K. Urban
--
Yuliy

[Graeme Cant]

Paul, with the greatest respect, you are wrong here. I do not fly in
the US but my pursuit of this issue is because I was a professional
pilot for most of my life and your attitude is quite unacceptable. You
and Doug seem to be almost deliberately obtuse in failing to see the
basic point:

It is NO PLACE of the SSA or any of its affiliates to decide whether a
breach of FARs has occurred. You have no operational enforcement role.
WRT the FARs you are just a bunch of vigilante busybodies.

Yet you continually make yourself judge and jury:
> ...many pilots that would never submit a flight that includes
> an obvious FAR breach...

> ...The SSA-OLC committee has had reports sent to us of
> flights ending after dark or at altitudes that break FARs...

> ...I am OK with the SSA-OLC committee asking pilots to remove
> flights that break FARs...

> ...The bad guys in this are the pilots that submitted
> flights that break FARs...

> ...I also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post
> their flights...

> If you agree that flights that break FARs should not be
> on the OLC, please say so here....

This is NOT your role and the many professional pilots who are SSA
members will be unhappy if you start moving in on the FAA's territory.
The licence YOU use to fly a glider for fun is the licence THEY use to
earn a living.

In a mealy-mouthed attempt to have it both ways, you accept that the SSA
and your Committee are committed to stirring up FAA action against those
you decide have breached FARs but begin your post by saying "The SSA and
the SSA-OLC committee has never helped the FAA come after anyone".

....Yet.

In most parts of the world this vigilantism would be seen as completely
unlawful and improper but I guess the US has different traditions and it
does seem to be a matter for debate in your country. You might notice
you're getting no support for your stance from the home of the OLC and
its neighbours.

The SSA has a perfect right to make whatever rules it likes for SSA-OLC
flights and to promulgate them as the rules for its competition but the
SSA (and, by extension, its OLC sub-committee) have no operational
responsibilities and is not in the business of saying that a flight is
in breach of FARs.

As I said in an earlier post, you do not even have the data to say that
a breach of FARs has occurred. A logger trace is only an official
record in your private competition. The real evidence for an SUA
boundary breach or 18000ft altitude exceedance or whether the glider
flew after sunset without lights is simply not available to you. Your
witch hunt is so important though that you want to reverse the onus of
proof and demand that anybody who YOU think MAY have breached FARs
should justify why they HAVEN'T.

Finally, It IS clear from your posts that the breach of FARs is not what
upsets you, it's the apparent unfair advantage you see some as getting
that really riles you. The previous poster ("KM")is correct - the US is
significantly more competitive about the OLC than it's originators
intended and your interpretation of Reiner's comment seems quite unlikely.

The solution to your problem is simple. you're on the SSA-OLC
committee. Make your own rules and declare the logger trace to be
evidence of a breach of YOUR RULES. Publish the rules AS THE RULES OF
YOUR COMP. Stop hiding behind FARs.

GC

Paul Remde wrote:

>> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
>> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
>> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
>> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
>> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
>> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>> HELPING the FAA come after me?
>
> - The SSA and the SSA-OLC committee has never helped the FAA come after
> anyone. The SSA-OLC committee has had reports sent to us of flights ending
> after dark or at altitudes that break FARs. The pilots that made the
> reports thought the flights were not very sporting, not fair competition,
> and worse, could make all other glider pilots look bad. The SSA-OLC
> committee then did its job and asked the pilots to remove the flights from
> this public forum. The SSA-OLC committee (I'm on it) would prefer to never
> have to do that.
>
> I think this forum is interesting because, in my opinion, the many pilots
> that would never submit a flight that includes an obvious FAR breach are not
> speaking up. They are tired of hearing the few outspoken pilots the seem to
> be OK with pilots submitting flights that breach FARs. The silent majority
> is hesitant to post their thoughts because they fear that the outspoken ones
> will rip them appart for their opinon.
>
> I for one am a big fan of the OLC. I am OK with the SSA-OLC committee
> asking pilots to remove flights that break FARs. So should every glider
> pilot that wants to keep the priveledge of using US airspace. The SSA-OLC
> committee shoudn't need to ask the pilots to remove the flight logs that
> break FARs, but if necessary, they will. The SSA-OLC committee does NOT go
> looking for flights like that. They only look at flights that are brought
> to their attention.
>
> I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC. I
> also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on the
> OLC.
>

> Worse yet are the pilots that would not remove them when asked. They are
> the ones taking the fun out of the OLC, not the SSA-OLC committee. They are
> trying to make the SSA-OLC committee into the bad guys here. They are
> shouting loudly and trying to mis-direct everyone. It makes me sick how
> they are ruining such a great thing.
>
> Silent majority, please speak up. If you agree that flights that break FARs
> should not be on the OLC, please say so here.
>
> Paul Remde
>
>> Bizarre
>> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
>> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
>> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
>> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
>> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>> Thanks,
>> K. Urban
>>
>
>

[Graeme Cant]

Andy wrote:
> I apologize. This reply was intended to have been sent to Hank only
> and not to the group.
>
No need to apologise. It's a very good point.

GC

[Doug Haluza]

Ramy wrote:
> Doug, until this post you acted somewhat professionally, but you lost
> it.
> Here are my responses to your comments, then I'm out of this public
> flaim war.
> 1 - I will email you privately the email. I would not post it
> publically. I would never go as low as twisting someone words or take
> them out of context. But I probably should have not quote him either.

I received your private email, and an explanation from Reiner Rose
directly. The issue they has was with the notification to the pilot,
not with the position on the FAR's. As I have already explained, the
notification in Ramy's case was delayed by the internal workings of the
all volunteer committee, but was under way. This is all new to us, so
we are trying our best to deal with the issues as the arise. SSA and
OLC are in agreement that all changes to claims require notification to
the pilot.

> 2 - I have absolutly no idea which flights you are claiming I posted to
> Brazil. This is a complete BS. My last flight out of Truckee was on 9/4
> and was posted to the SSA- OLC and I haven't been to Truckee since. It
> was also the last flight I posted to OLC.

I must apologize to Ramy for this, it was the other pilot who made
these claims from Brazil. When I saw Ramy's post supporting this, I
mistakenly associated it with him.

[Wayne Paul]

Doug,

Thank you for all the work you are doing for the SSA-OLC and the SSA
website. Please don't let the critics get you down. There are by far more of
us who appreciate your work then there are critics!!!

Again, thank you.

Wayne

HP-14 "6F"

http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg


"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset time--there is no
> arbitrary SSA definition of sunset. USNO makes online calculators
> available that compute sunrise and sunset for any place, for a single
> day, or a table for an entire year. So the data is easily accessible.
>
> Now as far as what to do, the SSA policy is uniform for OLC, B&R and
> contests--the flights are to be "disqualified". For contests, that
> means zero points for the day, plus a possible penalty. For B&R it
> means the claim is denied. For OLC, to be consistent with the
> international practices, we request that the pilot remove the claim.
>
> If you think this is too severe, you need to make that request to the
> SSA Board. But I don't think they will accept that an "insignificant"
> penalty is consistent with the SSA policy that FAR's must be observed.
>
> Andy wrote:
>> Doug Haluza wrote:
>> >So yes, we are talking about violations that are obvious in the IGC log
>> >files, because that >is the evidence we have. We don't have usable
>> >evidence of cloud bases, so that
>> >point is moot.
>>
>> Doug,
>>
>> I don't have any problem at all with rejecting flight logs that have
>> evidence of gross FAR violation.
>>
>> All I have lobbied for is a more reasonable interpretation of the
>> sunset rule. I have stated that many, if not most, if not all, pilots
>> break some FARs and I get tired of the preaching from those that seem
>> to claim they never had a flight that ever broke one FAR.
>>
>> End soaring flight at sunset and reject logs with gross violations of
>> the sunset rule and I'll say no more. Let the FAA decide if they want
>> to take enforcement action against a pilot that lands a few minutes
>> after sunset.
>>
>> If you do that I don't care how you define sunset. The consequence of
>> landing a minute after SSA sunset time will be an insignificant number
>> of points.
>>
>> Andy
>

[Denis]

Paul Remde a écrit :
> Hi Denis,
>
> I don't get your point. I recommend that all soaring pilots follow the
> FARs, or the rules for their country - regardless of whether or not they
> plan to submit the flights. However, when they do break the FARs (on
> purpose or by accident), then it would be unsportsmanlike to submit the
> flight.

I understand that flights logs which enter class A airspace should not
be filed* (unless there has been a ATC clearance). But I find strange to
put that rule of lights between sunset and sunset + 30' on the same
level than entering heavy croaded class A airspace...

*although it is the case of most flights filed in another OLC country -
but that's another debate

--
Denis

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

[Paul Remde]

Hi Yuliy,

Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on making
some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
discouraging cross country flight.

I for one am a big fan of the OLC and I love to promote cross-country
flight.

I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings from
you, but it is an open forum and I like that about it.

Paul Remde

"Yuliy Gerchikov" > wrote in
message ...
> KM,
>
> Good points and observations,
>
> "KM" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>I am new to the R.A.S
>
> I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some of the
> loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed to state my opinions
> here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA takes over R.A.S and
> turns it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.
>
>> we have a active Yahoo group
>> where pilots post flights during the season.
>
> Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
> scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
> community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without bothering
> themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside the
> rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No one will
> tell you which flights you can or can't look at and learn from? Wow...
> what a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so disturbingly lax here
> on OLC since the sanitation of traces started under SSA rule. Certainly
> your Yahoo group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's part. Good thing
> you have mentioned it here, so it can be looked at and fixed soon. What is
> the URL?
>
>> This is not a contest, just
>> a way to report on the local happenings.
>
> Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so different
> is the "C" in its name.
>
>> judging by the gist of
>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.
>
> Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most people
> use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on running it as a
> hard core contest.
>
>> How did the SSA get a
>> monopoly on the OLC in the US,
>
> Beats me!
>
>> and why did they change its intent?
>
> Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say, what we
> see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing, you see.
>
>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>> enforce FARs"
>
> Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA
> officials pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation of
> FARs".
>
>> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
>
> If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely, absolutely,
> positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance or
> breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest possibility of
> violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make absolutely
> sure that even with the ever-increasing level of scrutiny no one will ever
> find (or suggest) and "report" any violations in them.
>
> For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights, because
> most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) -- even though this
> violation is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is inexplicably "OK"
> for SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any flights that look like
> running the cloud streets (easily recognizable by high-speed flat "tops"
> and little or no thermalling for extended periods of time), because
> somebody may report you, alleging cloud clearance violations. For the same
> reason do not post any wave flights on days when medium to high RH was
> observed at your flight altitudes.
>
> This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
> knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are. Everything
> else you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you feel lucky.
>
>> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>
> That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to 3
> hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the score
> sheet to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to your flights. So
> keep in mind what you might not want to post.
>
>> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>
> One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you correctly
> pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight flown
> entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC -- or not at all.
>
>> K. Urban
> --
> Yuliy
>

[Paul Remde]

Hi Graeme,

The SSA-OLC committee is not out to get anyone or so send anything to the
FAA.

This is not a witch hunt.

You are correct that I miss your point. Or perhaps I just disagree with
you.

What really bugs me about this entire thing is that most pilots would never
intentionally post a flight that could get them in trouble, or make other
glider pilots look bad. It makes me very sad that a few pilots seem to want
to make all glider pilots look bad. It also makes me very sad that this
thread can't just be dropped because it is hurting the OLC and discouraging
cross-country flying.

Paul Remde


"Graeme Cant" <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote in message
...
> Paul, with the greatest respect, you are wrong here. I do not fly in the
> US but my pursuit of this issue is because I was a professional pilot for
> most of my life and your attitude is quite unacceptable. You and Doug
> seem to be almost deliberately obtuse in failing to see the basic point:
>
> It is NO PLACE of the SSA or any of its affiliates to decide whether a
> breach of FARs has occurred. You have no operational enforcement role.
> WRT the FARs you are just a bunch of vigilante busybodies.
>
> Yet you continually make yourself judge and jury:
> > ...many pilots that would never submit a flight that includes
> > an obvious FAR breach...
>
> > ...The SSA-OLC committee has had reports sent to us of
> > flights ending after dark or at altitudes that break FARs...
>
> > ...I am OK with the SSA-OLC committee asking pilots to remove
> > flights that break FARs...
>
> > ...The bad guys in this are the pilots that submitted
> > flights that break FARs...
>
> > ...I also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post
> > their flights...
>
> > If you agree that flights that break FARs should not be
> > on the OLC, please say so here....
>
> This is NOT your role and the many professional pilots who are SSA members
> will be unhappy if you start moving in on the FAA's territory. The licence
> YOU use to fly a glider for fun is the licence THEY use to earn a living.
>
> In a mealy-mouthed attempt to have it both ways, you accept that the SSA
> and your Committee are committed to stirring up FAA action against those
> you decide have breached FARs but begin your post by saying "The SSA and
> the SSA-OLC committee has never helped the FAA come after anyone".
>
> ...Yet.
>
> In most parts of the world this vigilantism would be seen as completely
> unlawful and improper but I guess the US has different traditions and it
> does seem to be a matter for debate in your country. You might notice
> you're getting no support for your stance from the home of the OLC and its
> neighbours.
>
> The SSA has a perfect right to make whatever rules it likes for SSA-OLC
> flights and to promulgate them as the rules for its competition but the
> SSA (and, by extension, its OLC sub-committee) have no operational
> responsibilities and is not in the business of saying that a flight is in
> breach of FARs.
>
> As I said in an earlier post, you do not even have the data to say that a
> breach of FARs has occurred. A logger trace is only an official record in
> your private competition. The real evidence for an SUA boundary breach or
> 18000ft altitude exceedance or whether the glider flew after sunset
> without lights is simply not available to you. Your witch hunt is so
> important though that you want to reverse the onus of proof and demand
> that anybody who YOU think MAY have breached FARs should justify why they
> HAVEN'T.
>
> Finally, It IS clear from your posts that the breach of FARs is not what
> upsets you, it's the apparent unfair advantage you see some as getting
> that really riles you. The previous poster ("KM")is correct - the US is
> significantly more competitive about the OLC than it's originators
> intended and your interpretation of Reiner's comment seems quite unlikely.
>
> The solution to your problem is simple. you're on the SSA-OLC committee.
> Make your own rules and declare the logger trace to be evidence of a
> breach of YOUR RULES. Publish the rules AS THE RULES OF YOUR COMP. Stop
> hiding behind FARs.
>
> GC
>
> Paul Remde wrote:
>
>>> is discouraged.So this begs the question that if a pilot is not out to
>>> win, why even post a flight on the SSA-OLC? How did the SSA get a
>>> monopoly on the OLC in the US, and why did they change its intent?
>>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>>> enforce FARs" and yet it ends with a statement that the SSA will
>>> partner with the FAA to go after any pilot who violates the regs.This
>>> same kind of mentality is expressed on the "OLC Sunset Warning"
>>> elsewhere on the site.Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>>> HELPING the FAA come after me?
>>
>> - The SSA and the SSA-OLC committee has never helped the FAA come after
>> anyone. The SSA-OLC committee has had reports sent to us of flights
>> ending after dark or at altitudes that break FARs. The pilots that made
>> the reports thought the flights were not very sporting, not fair
>> competition, and worse, could make all other glider pilots look bad. The
>> SSA-OLC committee then did its job and asked the pilots to remove the
>> flights from this public forum. The SSA-OLC committee (I'm on it) would
>> prefer to never have to do that.
>>
>> I think this forum is interesting because, in my opinion, the many pilots
>> that would never submit a flight that includes an obvious FAR breach are
>> not speaking up. They are tired of hearing the few outspoken pilots the
>> seem to be OK with pilots submitting flights that breach FARs. The
>> silent majority is hesitant to post their thoughts because they fear that
>> the outspoken ones will rip them appart for their opinon.
>>
>> I for one am a big fan of the OLC. I am OK with the SSA-OLC committee
>> asking pilots to remove flights that break FARs. So should every glider
>> pilot that wants to keep the priveledge of using US airspace. The
>> SSA-OLC committee shoudn't need to ask the pilots to remove the flight
>> logs that break FARs, but if necessary, they will. The SSA-OLC committee
>> does NOT go looking for flights like that. They only look at flights
>> that are brought to their attention.
>>
>> I hope most glider pilots will continue to post their flights to the OLC.
>> I also hope that pilots that break FARs will NOT post their flights on
>> the OLC.
>>
>
>> Worse yet are the pilots that would not remove them when asked. They are
>> the ones taking the fun out of the OLC, not the SSA-OLC committee. They
>> are trying to make the SSA-OLC committee into the bad guys here. They
>> are shouting loudly and trying to mis-direct everyone. It makes me sick
>> how they are ruining such a great thing.
>>
>> Silent majority, please speak up. If you agree that flights that break
>> FARs should not be on the OLC, please say so here.
>>
>> Paul Remde
>>
>>> Bizarre
>>> I have a backround as a check airman and safety inspector, and we
>>> looked at rules violations from a standpoint of education and
>>> prevention, not the punitive standpoint the SSA has.
>>> So in conclusion, I was hoping the list members could field a couple of
>>> questions, First, if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>>> And two, is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>>> Thanks,
>>> K. Urban
>>>
>>

[Paul Remde]

Wayne,

I couldn't agree more. I'm a member of the SSA-OLC committee, but Doug has
done 99% of the hard work this year. He has been amazing at helping pilots
get there flight logs submitted successfully when there were issues. He has
seen all the issues and knows how to work around them. He has forwarded the
issues to the OLC team for future fixes. I've been copied on hundreds of
e-mails in which he helped someone enjoy the OLC.

Well done Doug!!!!!

Paul Remde

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Doug,
>
> Thank you for all the work you are doing for the SSA-OLC and the SSA
> website. Please don't let the critics get you down. There are by far more
> of us who appreciate your work then there are critics!!!
>
> Again, thank you.
>
> Wayne
>
> HP-14 "6F"
>
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Near_Arco.jpg
>
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset time--there is no
>> arbitrary SSA definition of sunset. USNO makes online calculators
>> available that compute sunrise and sunset for any place, for a single
>> day, or a table for an entire year. So the data is easily accessible.
>>
>> Now as far as what to do, the SSA policy is uniform for OLC, B&R and
>> contests--the flights are to be "disqualified". For contests, that
>> means zero points for the day, plus a possible penalty. For B&R it
>> means the claim is denied. For OLC, to be consistent with the
>> international practices, we request that the pilot remove the claim.
>>
>> If you think this is too severe, you need to make that request to the
>> SSA Board. But I don't think they will accept that an "insignificant"
>> penalty is consistent with the SSA policy that FAR's must be observed.
>>
>> Andy wrote:
>>> Doug Haluza wrote:
>>> >So yes, we are talking about violations that are obvious in the IGC log
>>> >files, because that >is the evidence we have. We don't have usable
>>> >evidence of cloud bases, so that
>>> >point is moot.
>>>
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> I don't have any problem at all with rejecting flight logs that have
>>> evidence of gross FAR violation.
>>>
>>> All I have lobbied for is a more reasonable interpretation of the
>>> sunset rule. I have stated that many, if not most, if not all, pilots
>>> break some FARs and I get tired of the preaching from those that seem
>>> to claim they never had a flight that ever broke one FAR.
>>>
>>> End soaring flight at sunset and reject logs with gross violations of
>>> the sunset rule and I'll say no more. Let the FAA decide if they want
>>> to take enforcement action against a pilot that lands a few minutes
>>> after sunset.
>>>
>>> If you do that I don't care how you define sunset. The consequence of
>>> landing a minute after SSA sunset time will be an insignificant number
>>> of points.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset time--there is no
> arbitrary SSA definition of sunset. USNO makes online calculators
> available that compute sunrise and sunset for any place, for a single
> day, or a table for an entire year. So the data is easily accessible.

Would you please ask the SSA OLC committee to have this definition
included in the rules for SSA OLC. FARs have no such definition of
sunset.

thanks

Andy

[Al Eddie]

At 14:42 28 September 2006, Andy wrote:

Doug Haluza wrote:
>Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset
>time-->there is no arbitrary SSA definition of sunset.
>USNO makes >online calculators available that compute
>sunrise and sunset >for any place, for a single day,
>or a table for an entire year. >So the data is easily
>accessible.

Go here and make your own tables...

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear_draft.html

[KM]

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi Yuliy,
>
> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on making
> some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
> discouraging cross country flight.

Paul, let me tell you what is taking the "fun" out of OLC.It was the
post from Doug on another part of this thread that explained how we can
take the sun angle down to 90 point some odd thousand of a degree so he
can measure sunset to the second.Somehow you and Doug have taken the
SSA mandate to remove flights that make us look bad down to the second?
Is this "fun" for you?How about we post a history of the 500 millbar
charts so we can correct everyones pressure altitude readout down to
the inch?When I started this thread I was hoping to get some insight
from real world OLC participants after all the flaming I read on the
"sunset " thread.Now I am begining to see where all the contention is
originating.I kind of doubt the SSA OLC board had this in mind when
they ask you to remove posts from
pilots who have busted a reg.
>
> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings from
> you

Do you have to get personal?Yuliy's post was kinda funny (Made me
laugh).You called my post useless and now you suggest who shouldnt post
here.As a business owner, you might want to consider how you are coming
off.I spoke with you a few weeks ago about a 302 upgrade that I am
planning this winter.Has it occured that you are not the only Cambridge
dealer around?
>
> Paul Remde
>

[[email protected]]

This "making us look bad" argument seems highly theoretical. How many
people outside the gliding community actually download and look in
detail at OLC flight logs? My guess is approximately zero. I think
we're flattering ourselves to think otherwise. We are inventing
imaginary demons to scare ourselves with.

[Eric Greenwell]

KM wrote:
> Paul Remde wrote:
>> Hi Yuliy,
>>
>> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on making
>> some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
>> discouraging cross country flight.
>
> Paul, let me tell you what is taking the "fun" out of OLC.It was the
> post from Doug on another part of this thread that explained how we can
> take the sun angle down to 90 point some odd thousand of a degree so he
> can measure sunset to the second.Somehow you and Doug have taken the
> SSA mandate to remove flights that make us look bad down to the second?

You aren't getting that from Doug's posts: he has consistently said
there isn't a hard number for various reason, as have other posters. The
claim that the SSA is going to ask a pilot to remove a flight because it
is a few seconds, or even minutes, over is wrong.

You are making this far more difficult than it is. You really need to
skip this thread, do some flying, post your flights on the OLC, and sit
back and enjoy looking at the flights the other pilots are doing and are
happily posing every day.

> Is this "fun" for you?How about we post a history of the 500 millbar
> charts so we can correct everyones pressure altitude readout down to
> the inch?

There is no need to do this, as the information is already in the flight
file - it's the elevation of the departure and arrival airports. This
will be adequate for almost all the flights. If, for unusual weather
situations (perhaps a frontal passage) or flights that cover a very
large area, an accurate surface barometric pressure is needed in middle
of the flight to resolve what appears to be a gross violation of an
altitude limit, that is readily available online from a variety of
sources. You don't need the 500 millibar charts, and we don't need to do
it to the inch to resolve an excess of hundreds of feet.

I'm surprised a professional pilot would make such a statement about
atltitude measurement. Don't you ever have get a barometric pressure
reading to correct your altimeter while you are flying?

> When I started this thread I was hoping to get some insight
> from real world OLC participants

You've gotten plenty of insight from real world participants who have
posted for years will no calls to remove their flights, but you appear
to ignore it in favor of a few pilots unhappy with posting limitations
on flights that show "substantial" variations from the FARS. Since you
plan to fly well within the FARs, you should know by now that YOU will
have no problems. So, why do you continue to worry about this?

> after all the flaming I read on the
> "sunset " thread.Now I am begining to see where all the contention is
> originating.I kind of doubt the SSA OLC board had this in mind when
> they ask you to remove posts from
> pilots who have busted a reg.

>> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings from
>> you
>
> Do you have to get personal?Yuliy's post was kinda funny (Made me
> laugh).You called my post useless and now you suggest who shouldnt post
> he

Paul never called your post "useless". At least, I couldn't find it,
even with a Google Groups search, but if you'll point out the post, I'll
be happy to read it. And, he did not suggest Yuily shouldn't post here,
only that he didn't want to read his posts.

> As a business owner, you might want to consider how you are coming
> off.I spoke with you a few weeks ago about a 302 upgrade that I am
> planning this winter.Has it occured that you are not the only Cambridge
> dealer around?

I hope he hasn't considered it when it comes to posting here, as I think
we'd lose some very useful comments. I'm appalled that you consider
Paul's stand one issue is a suitable reason to buy somewhere else, and
attempt to silence him with an economic threat.

If Paul's only interest in the sport was to suck as much money off the
participants, he'd just be posting happy talk about all the great stuff
he has to sell you. Paul is committed to this sport because he thinks
it's a great one, and he works hard at making it better. He does this in
a variety of ways, from very helpful comparison tables on his website,
to running glider software classes at the conventions, and now the
Contest Manager for the 2007 18M/Open Nationals.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

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

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

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I don't think I was getting personal.

I don't recall ever calling your post useless. If I did I shouldn't have
and I'm sorry.

I'm just very frustrated with this entire series of threads. Can't I state
my opinions without it being taken personally?

I find the note below even more frustrating. I'm trying to support OLC
pilots and promote cross-country soaring with my comments here. I work very
hard to make my web site a valuable resource for glider pilots. I'm trying
to earn a living serving glider pilots.

Should I not make a comment about a sensitive topic because some people will
disagree with me and not buy from me? I hope not.

Paul Remde

"KM" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Paul Remde wrote:
>> Hi Yuliy,
>>
>> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on
>> making
>> some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
>> discouraging cross country flight.
>
> Paul, let me tell you what is taking the "fun" out of OLC.It was the
> post from Doug on another part of this thread that explained how we can
> take the sun angle down to 90 point some odd thousand of a degree so he
> can measure sunset to the second.Somehow you and Doug have taken the
> SSA mandate to remove flights that make us look bad down to the second?
> Is this "fun" for you?How about we post a history of the 500 millbar
> charts so we can correct everyones pressure altitude readout down to
> the inch?When I started this thread I was hoping to get some insight
> from real world OLC participants after all the flaming I read on the
> "sunset " thread.Now I am begining to see where all the contention is
> originating.I kind of doubt the SSA OLC board had this in mind when
> they ask you to remove posts from
> pilots who have busted a reg.
>>
>> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings
>> from
>> you
>
> Do you have to get personal?Yuliy's post was kinda funny (Made me
> laugh).You called my post useless and now you suggest who shouldnt post
> here.As a business owner, you might want to consider how you are coming
> off.I spoke with you a few weeks ago about a 302 upgrade that I am
> planning this winter.Has it occured that you are not the only Cambridge
> dealer around?
>>
>> Paul Remde
>>
>

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:KlWSg.10690$Wi1.5228@trnddc06...
> Since you plan to fly well within the FARs, you should know by now that
> YOU will have no problems. So, why do you continue to worry about this?

Eric, only because you have posted this thought for, like, the third time, I
have to mention this:

Don't you recognize the "It can't happen to me" attitude?

All you are telling this inquiring pilot is "come on, post your flights --
nothing will go wrong". All I am telling him is "be careful about what you
post" -- which, after all, is exactly what SSA has been telling us lately. I
am telling him that he should expect (and will encounter) much higher level
of vigilance on today's SSA-OLC compared to his nice and cozy local Yahoo
group. Can you argue with that? I think we actually agree more that we
disagree. -- Yuliy

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Paul,

I refuse to take offense at your post :) .

I am glad that you feel as strongly about the OLC as I do. I too am very
sorry (or even "sick" as you've put it) to see fun being taken out of OLC.
So, you see, we are fundamentally in agreement: we both care about the OLC
and miss the good old days when life was good for all.

The only substantial difference of opinions between us is, of course, who's
fault it is. For the sake of simplification (and at the risk of
oversimplification), let's say that you are blaming me, and I am blaming you
for taking fun out of OLC. So let us be logical for a minute at look at it
calmly:

1. How could I alone (or "a tiny fraction of the pilots" as it's been put
before) substantially affect the quality of the experience for the rest of
the OLC citizens? In comparison, you as a member of the SSA-OLC controlling
body, have much more influence than I do.

2. My presence on the OLC-US before the SSA-OLC era somehow did not "take
fun out of it". I used to enjoy OLC as much as you or the next guy did. It
suddenly changed when the SSA came into the picture.

So with those two facts in mind ((1) you have much more influence than I do,
and (2) it was still fun even with me on it before you came as part of SSA),
please come again: why do you blame me for the recent changes? A little bit
of shooting the messenger, perhaps?

There is, of course, the third possibility -- that it is neither my nor your
fault, but instead just a problem of growth and popularity. As OLC gets
exposed to more and more pilots (or is it the other way around?), there is a
growing number of vigilant citizens there who, for competitive, personal,
ideological or who-knows-what-other reasons, find it appropriate to
scrutinize other peoples' traces and report them.

Having said this, I am going to turn around and (in line with the more usual
mode of interaction in these threads) throw all dogs back at you. It was
your job that you willingly took upon yourself to handle all the growth and
popularity problems of the OLC-US -- and so far it's been my opinion that
you were mishandling them badly by encouraging the above mentioned behavior.

Please replace all occurrences of "you" with "SSA-OLC committee" in the
above as my assurance that none of this is meant to be personal.

Now, the fact that you recognize the meaning of the open forum -- and
actually like it -- puts you way ahead of some of your colleagues from
SSA-OLC committee.

Thank you.
--
Yuliy


"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:ZNPSg.75569$aJ.40945@attbi_s21...
> Hi Yuliy,
>
> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on
> making some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
> discouraging cross country flight.
>
> I for one am a big fan of the OLC and I love to promote cross-country
> flight.
>
> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings
> from you, but it is an open forum and I like that about it.
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Yuliy Gerchikov" > wrote
> in message ...
>> KM,
>>
>> Good points and observations,
>>
>> "KM" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>>I am new to the R.A.S
>>
>> I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some of
>> the loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed to state my
>> opinions here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA takes over
>> R.A.S and turns it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.
>>
>>> we have a active Yahoo group
>>> where pilots post flights during the season.
>>
>> Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
>> scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
>> community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without bothering
>> themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside the
>> rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No one
>> will tell you which flights you can or can't look at and learn from?
>> Wow... what a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so disturbingly
>> lax here on OLC since the sanitation of traces started under SSA rule.
>> Certainly your Yahoo group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's part.
>> Good thing you have mentioned it here, so it can be looked at and fixed
>> soon. What is the URL?
>>
>>> This is not a contest, just
>>> a way to report on the local happenings.
>>
>> Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so
>> different is the "C" in its name.
>>
>>> judging by the gist of
>>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
>>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.
>>
>> Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most people
>> use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on running it as a
>> hard core contest.
>>
>>> How did the SSA get a
>>> monopoly on the OLC in the US,
>>
>> Beats me!
>>
>>> and why did they change its intent?
>>
>> Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say, what
>> we see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing, you
>> see.
>>
>>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>>> enforce FARs"
>>
>> Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA
>> officials pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation of
>> FARs".
>>
>>> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>>> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
>>
>> If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely, absolutely,
>> positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance or
>> breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest possibility of
>> violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make absolutely
>> sure that even with the ever-increasing level of scrutiny no one will
>> ever find (or suggest) and "report" any violations in them.
>>
>> For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights, because
>> most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) -- even though this
>> violation is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is inexplicably
>> "OK" for SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any flights that look like
>> running the cloud streets (easily recognizable by high-speed flat "tops"
>> and little or no thermalling for extended periods of time), because
>> somebody may report you, alleging cloud clearance violations. For the
>> same reason do not post any wave flights on days when medium to high RH
>> was observed at your flight altitudes.
>>
>> This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
>> knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are. Everything
>> else you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you feel lucky.
>>
>>> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>>
>> That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to 3
>> hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the score
>> sheet to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to your flights.
>> So keep in mind what you might not want to post.
>>
>>> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>>
>> One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you correctly
>> pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight flown
>> entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC -- or not at all.
>>
>>> K. Urban
>> --
>> Yuliy

[Doug Haluza]

KM wrote:
> Paul Remde wrote:
> > Hi Yuliy,
> >
> > Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on making
> > some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
> > discouraging cross country flight.
>
> Paul, let me tell you what is taking the "fun" out of OLC.It was the
> post from Doug on another part of this thread that explained how we can
> take the sun angle down to 90 point some odd thousand of a degree so he
> can measure sunset to the second.Somehow you and Doug have taken the
> SSA mandate to remove flights that make us look bad down to the second?

You have taken this out of context. Some posters on this board were
trying to say that Sunset was a fuzzy concept. The 90.83333 degree
zenith angle is the standard definition of sunset that is universally
accepted. The decimal is just shorthand for 90 degrees 50 minutes.

Sunset time is only calculated to the nearest minute, because the
seconds are considered meaningless precision. The exact time is
available to the pilot pre-flight, for a day, or a table for a whole
year, so there is no need for a fudge factor.

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Sunset time is only calculated to the nearest minute, because the
> seconds are considered meaningless precision. The exact time is
> available to the pilot pre-flight, for a day, or a table for a whole
> year, so there is no need for a fudge factor.

Here is the link to the USNO page for determining sunset:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html#forma

Sunset is also available in-flight from sources already used by the most
cross-country pilots, such as flight software like SeeYou Mobile, and
Garmin hand-held GPS units. I believe a radio call to a flight service
station can also get you the sunset time, but I haven't tried it.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"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

[Al Eddie]

At 14:42 28 September 2006, Andy wrote:

Doug Haluza wrote:
>Andy, the USNO is the definitive authority on sunset
>time-->there is no arbitrary SSA definition of sunset.
>USNO makes >online calculators available that compute
>sunrise and sunset >for any place, for a single day,
>or a table for an entire year. >So the data is easily
>accessible.

Go here and make your own tables...

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear_draft.html

[Paul Remde]

Hi Yuliy,

Please see my notes below.

Paul Remde

"Yuliy Gerchikov"
nd_.hope.it.travel> wrote
in message ...
> Paul,
>
> I refuse to take offense at your post :) .
>
> I am glad that you feel as strongly about the OLC as I do. I too am very
> sorry (or even "sick" as you've put it) to see fun being taken out of OLC.

- I feel that we are probably very much alike. A wise person (Bob Wander)
once told me that glider pilots are passionate about their sport. That is
good! However, people who are passionate about something often have very
strong opinions about all things relating to it. I have found that to be
very true in many things related to soaring - especially soaring club
policies, and now the OLC.

> So, you see, we are fundamentally in agreement: we both care about the OLC
> and miss the good old days when life was good for all.
>
> The only substantial difference of opinions between us is, of course,
> who's fault it is. For the sake of simplification (and at the risk of
> oversimplification), let's say that you are blaming me, and I am blaming
> you for taking fun out of OLC. So let us be logical for a minute at look
> at it calmly:
>
> 1. How could I alone (or "a tiny fraction of the pilots" as it's been put
> before) substantially affect the quality of the experience for the rest of
> the OLC citizens? In comparison, you as a member of the SSA-OLC
> controlling body, have much more influence than I do.

- I must respectfully disagree with your logic. The OLC has long been
setup so that pilots can submit any flight they want to, but they have
always been encoraged to only submit flights that do not include violations
of airspace or any other rules of the local flying environment. The premise
has always been that any other pilot could make a report to the OLC if a
flight was unfair or unsafe or illegal. This has not changed. As the OLC
grew, they realized that they would benefit from having local experts help
support it in each country - hence the creation of the SSA supported version
of the OLC. There have been tremendouse benefits to doing this. Doug and
others have worked hard to explain the OLC to US participants and support
pilots when there are issues uploading flight logs. The benefit to US
glider pilots has been immense.

Then we (the SSA-OLC members) received a few reports of pilots that were
flying outside what was considered good sportsmanship. I can't speak for
the other SSA-OLC members, but I personally was concerned about this. If a
group of pilots starts breaking rules to win, then many other pilots will
feel that the competition is unfair and will stop competing. It is a
priveledge to compete and there are rules (both OLC and FAA). If you break
the rules we (the soaring community) don't want your flight listed with
ours. You have then lost the priveledge to compete. You are not banned
forever, but those flights that are in question are not welcome in our (the
soaring community's) competition.

I personally am extremely concerned that flights that break FARs make me
personally look bad. Let me give an example. If a particular glider
pilot here in MN was repeatedly flying into Class B airspace (this is
completely hypothetical) and the FAA noticed it, they would think that
glider pilots in general, at least those here in MN, don't seem to have any
regard for the FAA or the FARs. The many glider pilots that do adhere to
the FARs would be very frustrated. If we confronted the pilot about this
and he/she would not change his ways we (MN soaring pilots, or soaring club
members, or commercial operations) would stop offering him/her aerotows.
Now let me extend that logic to the OLC. Not only are a few pilots making
flights that could make us soaring pilots look bad, but they are posting
evidence of this on a public forum (the OLC) so that the entire world can
see it. I can sincerely say that makes me extremely angry. I think we are
very lucky to have nearly free access to most of the airspace over the USA.
I do NOT want to lose that priveledge.

The OLC organizers in Germany probably don't know the details of US rules
and regulations and probably have no interest in learning about them. They
assume that any pilot that receives feedback about a questionable flight
will remove their flight to avoid the embarassment of having it known that
they flew outside the government established rules and regulations. The
SSA-OLC was not formed to be a policing body. It was formed to be a helping
and supportive body. But then we received word from other pilots of flights
that were "questionable" in one way or another. To be honest, at that point
I lost interest in the details. I just wanted the pilots to quietly remove
the flights so we could move one. Unfortunately, that is not how it worked
out. The glider pilots that reported the issues expected the SSA-OLC to do
something about it. In my opinion, the US soaring community (at least those
that fly in the OLC) expected the SSA-OLC to do something about it. I will
not get into debate about how long past sunset or how far into restricted
airspace a pilot went. I just want the flights removed from the fun and
informal contest that (in my opinion) belongs to all glider pilots and
represents all glider pilots.

>
> 2. My presence on the OLC-US before the SSA-OLC era somehow did not "take
> fun out of it". I used to enjoy OLC as much as you or the next guy did. It
> suddenly changed when the SSA came into the picture.

- I disagree. See my note above.

>
> So with those two facts in mind ((1) you have much more influence than I
> do, and (2) it was still fun even with me on it before you came as part of
> SSA), please come again: why do you blame me for the recent changes? A
> little bit of shooting the messenger, perhaps?

See my note above.

>
> There is, of course, the third possibility -- that it is neither my nor
> your fault, but instead just a problem of growth and popularity. As OLC
> gets exposed to more and more pilots (or is it the other way around?),
> there is a growing number of vigilant citizens there who, for competitive,
> personal, ideological or who-knows-what-other reasons, find it appropriate
> to scrutinize other peoples' traces and report them.

- The contest of other pilot reporting questionable flights has been a part
of the OLC from the start.

>
> Having said this, I am going to turn around and (in line with the more
> usual mode of interaction in these threads) throw all dogs back at you. It
> was your job that you willingly took upon yourself to handle all the
> growth and popularity problems of the OLC-US -- and so far it's been my
> opinion that you were mishandling them badly by encouraging the above
> mentioned behavior.

- I can see that you are passionate about this and I must respectfully
disagree. I am not trying to be condescending. I am being sincere.

>
> Please replace all occurrences of "you" with "SSA-OLC committee" in the
> above as my assurance that none of this is meant to be personal.

- I understand that.

>
> Now, the fact that you recognize the meaning of the open forum -- and
> actually like it -- puts you way ahead of some of your colleagues from
> SSA-OLC committee.

- You don't know them very well.

>
> Thank you.
> --
> Yuliy
>
>
> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> news:ZNPSg.75569$aJ.40945@attbi_s21...
>> Hi Yuliy,
>>
>> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on
>> making some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
>> discouraging cross country flight.
>>
>> I for one am a big fan of the OLC and I love to promote cross-country
>> flight.
>>
>> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings
>> from you, but it is an open forum and I like that about it.
>>
>> Paul Remde
>>
>> "Yuliy Gerchikov" > wrote
>> in message ...
>>> KM,
>>>
>>> Good points and observations,
>>>
>>> "KM" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>
>>>>I am new to the R.A.S
>>>
>>> I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some of
>>> the loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed to state my
>>> opinions here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA takes over
>>> R.A.S and turns it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.
>>>
>>>> we have a active Yahoo group
>>>> where pilots post flights during the season.
>>>
>>> Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
>>> scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
>>> community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without bothering
>>> themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside the
>>> rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No one
>>> will tell you which flights you can or can't look at and learn from?
>>> Wow... what a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so disturbingly
>>> lax here on OLC since the sanitation of traces started under SSA rule.
>>> Certainly your Yahoo group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's
>>> part. Good thing you have mentioned it here, so it can be looked at and
>>> fixed soon. What is the URL?
>>>
>>>> This is not a contest, just
>>>> a way to report on the local happenings.
>>>
>>> Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so
>>> different is the "C" in its name.
>>>
>>>> judging by the gist of
>>>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
>>>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.
>>>
>>> Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most
>>> people use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on running
>>> it as a hard core contest.
>>>
>>>> How did the SSA get a
>>>> monopoly on the OLC in the US,
>>>
>>> Beats me!
>>>
>>>> and why did they change its intent?
>>>
>>> Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say, what
>>> we see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing, you
>>> see.
>>>
>>>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
>>>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
>>>> enforce FARs"
>>>
>>> Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA
>>> officials pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation of
>>> FARs".
>>>
>>>> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
>>>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
>>>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
>>>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
>>>> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
>>>
>>> If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely, absolutely,
>>> positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance or
>>> breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest possibility
>>> of violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make
>>> absolutely sure that even with the ever-increasing level of scrutiny no
>>> one will ever find (or suggest) and "report" any violations in them.
>>>
>>> For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights,
>>> because most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) -- even though
>>> this violation is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is
>>> inexplicably "OK" for SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any flights
>>> that look like running the cloud streets (easily recognizable by
>>> high-speed flat "tops" and little or no thermalling for extended periods
>>> of time), because somebody may report you, alleging cloud clearance
>>> violations. For the same reason do not post any wave flights on days
>>> when medium to high RH was observed at your flight altitudes.
>>>
>>> This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
>>> knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are. Everything
>>> else you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you feel lucky.
>>>
>>>> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
>>>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
>>>
>>> That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to 3
>>> hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the score
>>> sheet to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to your flights.
>>> So keep in mind what you might not want to post.
>>>
>>>> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
>>>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
>>>
>>> One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you correctly
>>> pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight flown
>>> entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC -- or not at
>>> all.
>>>
>>>> K. Urban
>>> --
>>> Yuliy
>
>

[KM]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> You aren't getting that from Doug's posts: he has consistently said
> there isn't a hard number for various reason, as have other posters. The
> claim that the SSA is going to ask a pilot to remove a flight because it
> is a few seconds, or even minutes, over is wrong.

Eric, and everyone else on this thread, let me apologize for the harsh
tone of my last post.It has been cheerfully stricken from the record.
The situation as I see it is this; Someone posted the minutes from a
SSA board meeting elswhere on R.A.S. where they decided to remove any
posts to OLC that could make the SSA look bad.Now, all Monica jokes
aside, the SSA had
to define "bad".Judging from some of the posts here, and the private
emails I have recieved over this thread, the issue is one of
interpritation and to a lesser degree, jurisdiction.I dont bring this
up to argue FAR issues, I brought it up because I dont want my OLC
postings to be scrutinized down to the Nth detail.IMHO this is what
would take the fun out of it.
I went on the OLC site for the first time a few days ago, and I was
fasinated by it.I looked up flights out of some of the places I have
flown at over the years and came across some old buddies flights and it
was pretty cool.My point is that I never thought to question the
legality of any of these flights.If I am at a full on contest, I would
say bring on the scrutiny, I do my best to comply with the FARs and I
have nothing to hide.But, if I am posting for a casual contest like the
OLC, where it is just for fun and education, I would say who needs this
level of scrutiny?Apparently someone does, because it keeps coming up.(
Please dont anybody post an answer to this, it is strictly retorical.)
>
> You are making this far more difficult than it is. You really need to
> skip this thread, do some flying, post your flights on the OLC, and sit
> back and enjoy looking at the flights the other pilots are doing and are
> happily posing every day.

You got that straight Eric! I am sorry I ever started this thread.I
want to thank you Wayne, Tom and everyone else (Pro and con) for your
insights.

>
> You've gotten plenty of insight from real world participants who have
> posted for years will no calls to remove their flights, but you appear
> to ignore it in favor of a few pilots unhappy with posting limitations
> on flights that show "substantial" variations from the FARS. Since you
> plan to fly well within the FARs, you should know by now that YOU will
> have no problems. So, why do you continue to worry about this?

Her again Eric, thanks for your opinions.I didnt mean to keep this
thread alive like this, it just sorta happened.I will probably try a
post or two on the OLC next season.

> Paul never called your post "useless". At least, I couldn't find it,
> even with a Google Groups search, but if you'll point out the post, I'll
> be happy to read it. And, he did not suggest Yuily shouldn't post here,
> only that he didn't want to read his posts.

What Paul did was call this thread useless.Since I started this thread,
I figured he was refering to me.I dont know the guy personally and I
didnt take issue with any of his ideas or opinoins, I took issue when
he sugested what was "useful" to post.

> I hope he hasn't considered it when it comes to posting here, as I think
> we'd lose some very useful comments. I'm appalled that you consider
> Paul's stand one issue is a suitable reason to buy somewhere else, and
> attempt to silence him with an economic threat.

Here again, Eric my comments were harsh, and made in a moment of haste
and they have been withdrawn.


> If Paul's only interest in the sport was to suck as much money off the
> participants, he'd just be posting happy talk about all the great stuff
> he has to sell you. Paul is committed to this sport because he thinks
> it's a great one, and he works hard at making it better. He does this in
> a variety of ways, from very helpful comparison tables on his website,
> to running glider software classes at the conventions, and now the
> Contest Manager for the 2007 18M/Open Nationals.

For the record, I also thinks Paul's website is a valuble
asset.Although I am not a customer of his (yet), I have refered several
people to his bisiness over the years.
KM

[5Z]

wrote:
> This "making us look bad" argument seems highly theoretical. How many
> people outside the gliding community actually download and look in
> detail at OLC flight logs? My guess is approximately zero. I think
> we're flattering ourselves to think otherwise. We are inventing
> imaginary demons to scare ourselves with.

Actually, I use the OLC a LOT when describing soaring to non sailplane
pilots. I tell them to visit there and see what can be done in a
sailplane. This is much more concrete than telling them that I
typically fly 2-300 hundred miles in a flight. The OLC provides
"proof" that many people do this, etc....

Some of these people may indeed get interested in looking at various
flights, and I really don't want them stumbling on questionable ones.
I want them so see what can and is generally done legally. I really do
think the OLC is a great way to "sell" the sport of soaring.


-Tom

[[email protected]]

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi Yuliy,
>
> Please see my notes below.
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Yuliy Gerchikov"
> nd_.hope.it.travel> wrote
> in message ...
> > Paul,
> >
> > I refuse to take offense at your post :) .
> >
> > I am glad that you feel as strongly about the OLC as I do. I too am very
> > sorry (or even "sick" as you've put it) to see fun being taken out of OLC.
>
> - I feel that we are probably very much alike. A wise person (Bob Wander)
> once told me that glider pilots are passionate about their sport. That is
> good! However, people who are passionate about something often have very
> strong opinions about all things relating to it. I have found that to be
> very true in many things related to soaring - especially soaring club
> policies, and now the OLC.
>
> > So, you see, we are fundamentally in agreement: we both care about the OLC
> > and miss the good old days when life was good for all.
> >
> > The only substantial difference of opinions between us is, of course,
> > who's fault it is. For the sake of simplification (and at the risk of
> > oversimplification), let's say that you are blaming me, and I am blaming
> > you for taking fun out of OLC. So let us be logical for a minute at look
> > at it calmly:
> >
> > 1. How could I alone (or "a tiny fraction of the pilots" as it's been put
> > before) substantially affect the quality of the experience for the rest of
> > the OLC citizens? In comparison, you as a member of the SSA-OLC
> > controlling body, have much more influence than I do.
>
> - I must respectfully disagree with your logic. The OLC has long been
> setup so that pilots can submit any flight they want to, but they have
> always been encoraged to only submit flights that do not include violations
> of airspace or any other rules of the local flying environment. The premise
> has always been that any other pilot could make a report to the OLC if a
> flight was unfair or unsafe or illegal. This has not changed. As the OLC
> grew, they realized that they would benefit from having local experts help
> support it in each country - hence the creation of the SSA supported version
> of the OLC. There have been tremendouse benefits to doing this. Doug and
> others have worked hard to explain the OLC to US participants and support
> pilots when there are issues uploading flight logs. The benefit to US
> glider pilots has been immense.
>
> Then we (the SSA-OLC members) received a few reports of pilots that were
> flying outside what was considered good sportsmanship. I can't speak for
> the other SSA-OLC members, but I personally was concerned about this. If a
> group of pilots starts breaking rules to win, then many other pilots will
> feel that the competition is unfair and will stop competing. It is a
> priveledge to compete and there are rules (both OLC and FAA). If you break
> the rules we (the soaring community) don't want your flight listed with
> ours. You have then lost the priveledge to compete. You are not banned
> forever, but those flights that are in question are not welcome in our (the
> soaring community's) competition.
>
> I personally am extremely concerned that flights that break FARs make me
> personally look bad. Let me give an example. If a particular glider
> pilot here in MN was repeatedly flying into Class B airspace (this is
> completely hypothetical) and the FAA noticed it, they would think that
> glider pilots in general, at least those here in MN, don't seem to have any
> regard for the FAA or the FARs. The many glider pilots that do adhere to
> the FARs would be very frustrated. If we confronted the pilot about this
> and he/she would not change his ways we (MN soaring pilots, or soaring club
> members, or commercial operations) would stop offering him/her aerotows.
> Now let me extend that logic to the OLC. Not only are a few pilots making
> flights that could make us soaring pilots look bad, but they are posting
> evidence of this on a public forum (the OLC) so that the entire world can
> see it. I can sincerely say that makes me extremely angry. I think we are
> very lucky to have nearly free access to most of the airspace over the USA.
> I do NOT want to lose that priveledge.
>
> The OLC organizers in Germany probably don't know the details of US rules
> and regulations and probably have no interest in learning about them. They
> assume that any pilot that receives feedback about a questionable flight
> will remove their flight to avoid the embarassment of having it known that
> they flew outside the government established rules and regulations. The
> SSA-OLC was not formed to be a policing body. It was formed to be a helping
> and supportive body. But then we received word from other pilots of flights
> that were "questionable" in one way or another. To be honest, at that point
> I lost interest in the details. I just wanted the pilots to quietly remove
> the flights so we could move one. Unfortunately, that is not how it worked
> out. The glider pilots that reported the issues expected the SSA-OLC to do
> something about it. In my opinion, the US soaring community (at least those
> that fly in the OLC) expected the SSA-OLC to do something about it. I will
> not get into debate about how long past sunset or how far into restricted
> airspace a pilot went. I just want the flights removed from the fun and
> informal contest that (in my opinion) belongs to all glider pilots and
> represents all glider pilots.
>
> >
> > 2. My presence on the OLC-US before the SSA-OLC era somehow did not "take
> > fun out of it". I used to enjoy OLC as much as you or the next guy did. It
> > suddenly changed when the SSA came into the picture.
>
> - I disagree. See my note above.
>
> >
> > So with those two facts in mind ((1) you have much more influence than I
> > do, and (2) it was still fun even with me on it before you came as part of
> > SSA), please come again: why do you blame me for the recent changes? A
> > little bit of shooting the messenger, perhaps?
>
> See my note above.
>
> >
> > There is, of course, the third possibility -- that it is neither my nor
> > your fault, but instead just a problem of growth and popularity. As OLC
> > gets exposed to more and more pilots (or is it the other way around?),
> > there is a growing number of vigilant citizens there who, for competitive,
> > personal, ideological or who-knows-what-other reasons, find it appropriate
> > to scrutinize other peoples' traces and report them.
>
> - The contest of other pilot reporting questionable flights has been a part
> of the OLC from the start.
>
> >
> > Having said this, I am going to turn around and (in line with the more
> > usual mode of interaction in these threads) throw all dogs back at you. It
> > was your job that you willingly took upon yourself to handle all the
> > growth and popularity problems of the OLC-US -- and so far it's been my
> > opinion that you were mishandling them badly by encouraging the above
> > mentioned behavior.
>
> - I can see that you are passionate about this and I must respectfully
> disagree. I am not trying to be condescending. I am being sincere.
>
> >
> > Please replace all occurrences of "you" with "SSA-OLC committee" in the
> > above as my assurance that none of this is meant to be personal.
>
> - I understand that.
>
> >
> > Now, the fact that you recognize the meaning of the open forum -- and
> > actually like it -- puts you way ahead of some of your colleagues from
> > SSA-OLC committee.
>
> - You don't know them very well.
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> > --
> > Yuliy
> >
> >
> > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > news:ZNPSg.75569$aJ.40945@attbi_s21...
> >> Hi Yuliy,
> >>
> >> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on
> >> making some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
> >> discouraging cross country flight.
> >>
> >> I for one am a big fan of the OLC and I love to promote cross-country
> >> flight.
> >>
> >> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings
> >> from you, but it is an open forum and I like that about it.
> >>
> >> Paul Remde
> >>
> >> "Yuliy Gerchikov" > wrote
> >> in message ...
> >>> KM,
> >>>
> >>> Good points and observations,
> >>>
> >>> "KM" > wrote in message
> >>> ups.com...
> >>>
> >>>>I am new to the R.A.S
> >>>
> >>> I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some of
> >>> the loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed to state my
> >>> opinions here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA takes over
> >>> R.A.S and turns it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.
> >>>
> >>>> we have a active Yahoo group
> >>>> where pilots post flights during the season.
> >>>
> >>> Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
> >>> scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
> >>> community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without bothering
> >>> themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside the
> >>> rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No one
> >>> will tell you which flights you can or can't look at and learn from?
> >>> Wow... what a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so disturbingly
> >>> lax here on OLC since the sanitation of traces started under SSA rule.
> >>> Certainly your Yahoo group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's
> >>> part. Good thing you have mentioned it here, so it can be looked at and
> >>> fixed soon. What is the URL?
> >>>
> >>>> This is not a contest, just
> >>>> a way to report on the local happenings.
> >>>
> >>> Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so
> >>> different is the "C" in its name.
> >>>
> >>>> judging by the gist of
> >>>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> >>>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most
> >>> people use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on running
> >>> it as a hard core contest.
> >>>
> >>>> How did the SSA get a
> >>>> monopoly on the OLC in the US,
> >>>
> >>> Beats me!
> >>>
> >>>> and why did they change its intent?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say, what
> >>> we see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing, you
> >>> see.
> >>>
> >>>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> >>>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> >>>> enforce FARs"
> >>>
> >>> Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA
> >>> officials pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation of
> >>> FARs".
> >>>
> >>>> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> >>>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> >>>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> >>>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> >>>> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
> >>>
> >>> If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely, absolutely,
> >>> positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance or
> >>> breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest possibility
> >>> of violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make
> >>> absolutely sure that even with the ever-increasing level of scrutiny no
> >>> one will ever find (or suggest) and "report" any violations in them.
> >>>
> >>> For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights,
> >>> because most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) -- even though
> >>> this violation is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is
> >>> inexplicably "OK" for SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any flights
> >>> that look like running the cloud streets (easily recognizable by
> >>> high-speed flat "tops" and little or no thermalling for extended periods
> >>> of time), because somebody may report you, alleging cloud clearance
> >>> violations. For the same reason do not post any wave flights on days
> >>> when medium to high RH was observed at your flight altitudes.
> >>>
> >>> This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
> >>> knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are. Everything
> >>> else you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you feel lucky.
> >>>
> >>>> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> >>>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
> >>>
> >>> That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to 3
> >>> hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the score
> >>> sheet to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to your flights.
> >>> So keep in mind what you might not want to post.
> >>>
> >>>> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> >>>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
> >>>
> >>> One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you correctly
> >>> pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight flown
> >>> entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC -- or not at
> >>> all.
> >>>
> >>>> K. Urban
> >>> --
> >>> Yuliy
> >
> >

[[email protected]]

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi Yuliy,
>
> Please see my notes below.
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Yuliy Gerchikov"
> nd_.hope.it.travel> wrote
> in message ...
> > Paul,
> >
> > I refuse to take offense at your post :) .
> >
> > I am glad that you feel as strongly about the OLC as I do. I too am very
> > sorry (or even "sick" as you've put it) to see fun being taken out of OLC.
>
> - I feel that we are probably very much alike. A wise person (Bob Wander)
> once told me that glider pilots are passionate about their sport. That is
> good! However, people who are passionate about something often have very
> strong opinions about all things relating to it. I have found that to be
> very true in many things related to soaring - especially soaring club
> policies, and now the OLC.
>
> > So, you see, we are fundamentally in agreement: we both care about the OLC
> > and miss the good old days when life was good for all.
> >
> > The only substantial difference of opinions between us is, of course,
> > who's fault it is. For the sake of simplification (and at the risk of
> > oversimplification), let's say that you are blaming me, and I am blaming
> > you for taking fun out of OLC. So let us be logical for a minute at look
> > at it calmly:
> >
> > 1. How could I alone (or "a tiny fraction of the pilots" as it's been put
> > before) substantially affect the quality of the experience for the rest of
> > the OLC citizens? In comparison, you as a member of the SSA-OLC
> > controlling body, have much more influence than I do.
>
> - I must respectfully disagree with your logic. The OLC has long been
> setup so that pilots can submit any flight they want to, but they have
> always been encoraged to only submit flights that do not include violations
> of airspace or any other rules of the local flying environment. The premise
> has always been that any other pilot could make a report to the OLC if a
> flight was unfair or unsafe or illegal. This has not changed. As the OLC
> grew, they realized that they would benefit from having local experts help
> support it in each country - hence the creation of the SSA supported version
> of the OLC. There have been tremendouse benefits to doing this. Doug and
> others have worked hard to explain the OLC to US participants and support
> pilots when there are issues uploading flight logs. The benefit to US
> glider pilots has been immense.
>
> Then we (the SSA-OLC members) received a few reports of pilots that were
> flying outside what was considered good sportsmanship. I can't speak for
> the other SSA-OLC members, but I personally was concerned about this. If a
> group of pilots starts breaking rules to win, then many other pilots will
> feel that the competition is unfair and will stop competing. It is a
> priveledge to compete and there are rules (both OLC and FAA). If you break
> the rules we (the soaring community) don't want your flight listed with
> ours. You have then lost the priveledge to compete. You are not banned
> forever, but those flights that are in question are not welcome in our (the
> soaring community's) competition.
>
> I personally am extremely concerned that flights that break FARs make me
> personally look bad. Let me give an example. If a particular glider
> pilot here in MN was repeatedly flying into Class B airspace (this is
> completely hypothetical) and the FAA noticed it, they would think that
> glider pilots in general, at least those here in MN, don't seem to have any
> regard for the FAA or the FARs. The many glider pilots that do adhere to
> the FARs would be very frustrated. If we confronted the pilot about this
> and he/she would not change his ways we (MN soaring pilots, or soaring club
> members, or commercial operations) would stop offering him/her aerotows.
> Now let me extend that logic to the OLC. Not only are a few pilots making
> flights that could make us soaring pilots look bad, but they are posting
> evidence of this on a public forum (the OLC) so that the entire world can
> see it. I can sincerely say that makes me extremely angry. I think we are
> very lucky to have nearly free access to most of the airspace over the USA.
> I do NOT want to lose that priveledge.
>
> The OLC organizers in Germany probably don't know the details of US rules
> and regulations and probably have no interest in learning about them. They
> assume that any pilot that receives feedback about a questionable flight
> will remove their flight to avoid the embarassment of having it known that
> they flew outside the government established rules and regulations. The
> SSA-OLC was not formed to be a policing body. It was formed to be a helping
> and supportive body. But then we received word from other pilots of flights
> that were "questionable" in one way or another. To be honest, at that point
> I lost interest in the details. I just wanted the pilots to quietly remove
> the flights so we could move one. Unfortunately, that is not how it worked
> out. The glider pilots that reported the issues expected the SSA-OLC to do
> something about it. In my opinion, the US soaring community (at least those
> that fly in the OLC) expected the SSA-OLC to do something about it. I will
> not get into debate about how long past sunset or how far into restricted
> airspace a pilot went. I just want the flights removed from the fun and
> informal contest that (in my opinion) belongs to all glider pilots and
> represents all glider pilots.
>
> >
> > 2. My presence on the OLC-US before the SSA-OLC era somehow did not "take
> > fun out of it". I used to enjoy OLC as much as you or the next guy did. It
> > suddenly changed when the SSA came into the picture.
>
> - I disagree. See my note above.
>
> >
> > So with those two facts in mind ((1) you have much more influence than I
> > do, and (2) it was still fun even with me on it before you came as part of
> > SSA), please come again: why do you blame me for the recent changes? A
> > little bit of shooting the messenger, perhaps?
>
> See my note above.
>
> >
> > There is, of course, the third possibility -- that it is neither my nor
> > your fault, but instead just a problem of growth and popularity. As OLC
> > gets exposed to more and more pilots (or is it the other way around?),
> > there is a growing number of vigilant citizens there who, for competitive,
> > personal, ideological or who-knows-what-other reasons, find it appropriate
> > to scrutinize other peoples' traces and report them.
>
> - The contest of other pilot reporting questionable flights has been a part
> of the OLC from the start.
>
> >
> > Having said this, I am going to turn around and (in line with the more
> > usual mode of interaction in these threads) throw all dogs back at you. It
> > was your job that you willingly took upon yourself to handle all the
> > growth and popularity problems of the OLC-US -- and so far it's been my
> > opinion that you were mishandling them badly by encouraging the above
> > mentioned behavior.
>
> - I can see that you are passionate about this and I must respectfully
> disagree. I am not trying to be condescending. I am being sincere.
>
> >
> > Please replace all occurrences of "you" with "SSA-OLC committee" in the
> > above as my assurance that none of this is meant to be personal.
>
> - I understand that.
>
> >
> > Now, the fact that you recognize the meaning of the open forum -- and
> > actually like it -- puts you way ahead of some of your colleagues from
> > SSA-OLC committee.
>
> - You don't know them very well.
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> > --
> > Yuliy
> >
> >
> > "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> > news:ZNPSg.75569$aJ.40945@attbi_s21...
> >> Hi Yuliy,
> >>
> >> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC. Congratulations on
> >> making some very helpful volunteers very frustrated. Congratulations on
> >> discouraging cross country flight.
> >>
> >> I for one am a big fan of the OLC and I love to promote cross-country
> >> flight.
> >>
> >> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more postings
> >> from you, but it is an open forum and I like that about it.
> >>
> >> Paul Remde
> >>
> >> "Yuliy Gerchikov" > wrote
> >> in message ...
> >>> KM,
> >>>
> >>> Good points and observations,
> >>>
> >>> "KM" > wrote in message
> >>> ups.com...
> >>>
> >>>>I am new to the R.A.S
> >>>
> >>> I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some of
> >>> the loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed to state my
> >>> opinions here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA takes over
> >>> R.A.S and turns it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.
> >>>
> >>>> we have a active Yahoo group
> >>>> where pilots post flights during the season.
> >>>
> >>> Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
> >>> scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
> >>> community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without bothering
> >>> themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside the
> >>> rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No one
> >>> will tell you which flights you can or can't look at and learn from?
> >>> Wow... what a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so disturbingly
> >>> lax here on OLC since the sanitation of traces started under SSA rule.
> >>> Certainly your Yahoo group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's
> >>> part. Good thing you have mentioned it here, so it can be looked at and
> >>> fixed soon. What is the URL?
> >>>
> >>>> This is not a contest, just
> >>>> a way to report on the local happenings.
> >>>
> >>> Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so
> >>> different is the "C" in its name.
> >>>
> >>>> judging by the gist of
> >>>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC is not for
> >>>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most
> >>> people use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on running
> >>> it as a hard core contest.
> >>>
> >>>> How did the SSA get a
> >>>> monopoly on the OLC in the US,
> >>>
> >>> Beats me!
> >>>
> >>>> and why did they change its intent?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say, what
> >>> we see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing, you
> >>> see.
> >>>
> >>>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a memo
> >>>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to interpret or
> >>>> enforce FARs"
> >>>
> >>> Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA
> >>> officials pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation of
> >>> FARs".
> >>>
> >>>> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I
> >>>> have every motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
> >>>> standpoint to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
> >>>> something stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to
> >>>> HELPING the FAA come after me?Bizarre
> >>>
> >>> If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely, absolutely,
> >>> positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance or
> >>> breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest possibility
> >>> of violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make
> >>> absolutely sure that even with the ever-increasing level of scrutiny no
> >>> one will ever find (or suggest) and "report" any violations in them.
> >>>
> >>> For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights,
> >>> because most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) -- even though
> >>> this violation is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is
> >>> inexplicably "OK" for SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any flights
> >>> that look like running the cloud streets (easily recognizable by
> >>> high-speed flat "tops" and little or no thermalling for extended periods
> >>> of time), because somebody may report you, alleging cloud clearance
> >>> violations. For the same reason do not post any wave flights on days
> >>> when medium to high RH was observed at your flight altitudes.
> >>>
> >>> This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
> >>> knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are. Everything
> >>> else you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you feel lucky.
> >>>
> >>>> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight,
> >>>> say 2 to 3 hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed at?
> >>>
> >>> That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to 3
> >>> hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the score
> >>> sheet to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to your flights.
> >>> So keep in mind what you might not want to post.
> >>>
> >>>> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the
> >>>> politics and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
> >>>
> >>> One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you correctly
> >>> pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight flown
> >>> entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC -- or not at
> >>> all.
> >>>
> >>>> K. Urban
> >>> --
> >>> Yuliy
> >
> >

[Bela Szalai]

Paul, I think your reply to Yuliy (generalized) would make a very good
article for Soaring. There are likely many other pilots who could use this
guidance.

- Béla


------Original Message-----
-From: Glider Pilot Network ]
-Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:06 AM
-To: Bela Szalai
-Subject: [r.a.s] Re: The SSA-OLC
-
-------------------------------------------------------------
-Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
-Subject: Re: The SSA-OLC
-Author: Paul Remde >
-Date/Time: 15:00 29 September 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
-Hi Yuliy,
-
-Please see my notes below.
-
-Paul Remde
-
-"Yuliy Gerchikov"
- wrote
-in message ...
-> Paul,
->
-> I refuse to take offense at your post :) .
->
-> I am glad that you feel as strongly about the OLC as I do. I too am
-> very
-
-> sorry (or even "sick" as you've put it) to see fun being taken out of
-OLC.
-
- - I feel that we are probably very much alike. A wise person
-(Bob Wander)
-
-once told me that glider pilots are passionate about their
-sport. That is good! However, people who are passionate
-about something often have very
-
-strong opinions about all things relating to it. I have found
-that to be very true in many things related to soaring -
-especially soaring club policies, and now the OLC.
-
-> So, you see, we are fundamentally in agreement: we both care
-about the
-OLC
-> and miss the good old days when life was good for all.
->
-> The only substantial difference of opinions between us is, of course,
-
-> who's fault it is. For the sake of simplification (and at the risk of
-
-> oversimplification), let's say that you are blaming me, and I am
-> blaming
-
-> you for taking fun out of OLC. So let us be logical for a minute at
-> look
-
-> at it calmly:
->
-> 1. How could I alone (or "a tiny fraction of the pilots" as it's been
-put
-> before) substantially affect the quality of the experience for the
-> rest
-of
-> the OLC citizens? In comparison, you as a member of the SSA-OLC
-> controlling body, have much more influence than I do.
-
- - I must respectfully disagree with your logic. The OLC has long been
-
-setup so that pilots can submit any flight they want to, but they have
-
-always been encoraged to only submit flights that do not
-include violations
-
-of airspace or any other rules of the local flying
-environment. The premise
-
-has always been that any other pilot could make a report to
-the OLC if a flight was unfair or unsafe or illegal. This has
-not changed. As the OLC grew, they realized that they would
-benefit from having local experts help
-
-support it in each country - hence the creation of the SSA
-supported version
-
-of the OLC. There have been tremendouse benefits to doing
-this. Doug and others have worked hard to explain the OLC to
-US participants and support
-
-pilots when there are issues uploading flight logs. The benefit to US
-
-glider pilots has been immense.
-
-Then we (the SSA-OLC members) received a few reports of pilots
-that were
-
-flying outside what was considered good sportsmanship. I
-can't speak for
-
-the other SSA-OLC members, but I personally was concerned about this.
-If a
-group of pilots starts breaking rules to win, then many other
-pilots will
-
-feel that the competition is unfair and will stop competing.
-It is a priveledge to compete and there are rules (both OLC
-and FAA). If you break
-
-the rules we (the soaring community) don't want your flight listed with
-
-ours. You have then lost the priveledge to compete. You are
-not banned
-
-forever, but those flights that are in question are not
-welcome in our (the soaring community's) competition.
-
-I personally am extremely concerned that flights that break
-FARs make me
-
-personally look bad. Let me give an example. If a particular glider
-
-pilot here in MN was repeatedly flying into Class B airspace
-(this is completely hypothetical) and the FAA noticed it, they
-would think that
-
-glider pilots in general, at least those here in MN, don't
-seem to have any regard for the FAA or the FARs. The many
-glider pilots that do adhere to the FARs would be very
-frustrated. If we confronted the pilot about this
-
-and he/she would not change his ways we (MN soaring pilots, or
-soaring club members, or commercial operations) would stop
-offering him/her aerotows.
-
-Now let me extend that logic to the OLC. Not only are a few
-pilots making
-
-flights that could make us soaring pilots look bad, but they
-are posting
-
-evidence of this on a public forum (the OLC) so that the
-entire world can
-
-see it. I can sincerely say that makes me extremely angry. I
-think we are very lucky to have nearly free access to most of
-the airspace over the USA.
-I do NOT want to lose that priveledge.
-
-The OLC organizers in Germany probably don't know the details
-of US rules
-
-and regulations and probably have no interest in learning about them.
-They
-assume that any pilot that receives feedback about a
-questionable flight
-
-will remove their flight to avoid the embarassment of having
-it known that
-
-they flew outside the government established rules and
-regulations. The
-
-SSA-OLC was not formed to be a policing body. It was formed to
-be a helping
-
-and supportive body. But then we received word from other
-pilots of flights
-
-that were "questionable" in one way or another. To be honest,
-at that point I lost interest in the details. I just wanted
-the pilots to quietly remove
-
-the flights so we could move one. Unfortunately, that is not
-how it worked
-
-out. The glider pilots that reported the issues expected the
-SSA-OLC to do something about it. In my opinion, the US
-soaring community (at least those that fly in the OLC)
-expected the SSA-OLC to do something about it. I will not get
-into debate about how long past sunset or how far into restricted
-
-airspace a pilot went. I just want the flights removed from
-the fun and
-
-informal contest that (in my opinion) belongs to all glider pilots and
-
-represents all glider pilots.
-
->
-> 2. My presence on the OLC-US before the SSA-OLC era somehow did not
-> "take
-
-> fun out of it". I used to enjoy OLC as much as you or the
-next guy did.
-It
-> suddenly changed when the SSA came into the picture.
-
- - I disagree. See my note above.
-
->
-> So with those two facts in mind ((1) you have much more
-influence than
-I
-> do, and (2) it was still fun even with me on it before you came as
-> part
-of
-> SSA), please come again: why do you blame me for the recent changes?
-A
-> little bit of shooting the messenger, perhaps?
-
-See my note above.
-
->
-> There is, of course, the third possibility -- that it is neither my
-> nor
-
-> your fault, but instead just a problem of growth and popularity. As
-> OLC
-
-> gets exposed to more and more pilots (or is it the other way
-around?),
-
-> there is a growing number of vigilant citizens there who, for
-> competitive,
-
-> personal, ideological or who-knows-what-other reasons, find it
-> appropriate
-
-> to scrutinize other peoples' traces and report them.
-
- - The contest of other pilot reporting questionable flights
-has been a part of the OLC from the start.
-
->
-> Having said this, I am going to turn around and (in line
-with the more
-
-> usual mode of interaction in these threads) throw all dogs
-back at you.
-It
-> was your job that you willingly took upon yourself to handle all the
-
-> growth and popularity problems of the OLC-US -- and so far it's been
-my
-> opinion that you were mishandling them badly by encouraging the above
-
-> mentioned behavior.
-
- - I can see that you are passionate about this and I must respectfully
-
-disagree. I am not trying to be condescending. I am being sincere.
-
->
-> Please replace all occurrences of "you" with "SSA-OLC committee" in
-> the
-
-> above as my assurance that none of this is meant to be personal.
-
- - I understand that.
-
->
-> Now, the fact that you recognize the meaning of the open forum -- and
-
-> actually like it -- puts you way ahead of some of your
-colleagues from
-
-> SSA-OLC committee.
-
- - You don't know them very well.
-
->
-> Thank you.
-> --
-> Yuliy
->
->
-> "Paul Remde" wrote in message
-> news:ZNPSg.75569$aJ.40945@attbi_s21...
->> Hi Yuliy,
->>
->> Congratulations on taking the fun out of the OLC.
-Congratulations on
-
->> making some very helpful volunteers very frustrated.
-Congratulations
-on
->> discouraging cross country flight.
->>
->> I for one am a big fan of the OLC and I love to promote
-cross-country
-
->> flight.
->>
->> I would not be in the least bit sorry if I never read any more
->> postings
-
->> from you, but it is an open forum and I like that about it.
->>
->> Paul Remde
->>
->> "Yuliy Gerchikov" wrote
->> in message ...
->>> KM,
->>>
->>> Good points and observations,
->>>
->>> "KM" wrote in message
->>> ups.com...
->>>
->>>>I am new to the R.A.S
->>>
->>> I too am new to the RAS (first post in 2001) and, according to some
-of
->>> the loudest proponents of SSA-OLC, should not be allowed
-to state my
-
->>> opinions here. But I'll venture some anyway ...before SSA
-takes over
-
->>> R.A.S and turns it into SSA-RAS with its own policies and politics.
->>>
->>>> we have a active Yahoo group
->>>> where pilots post flights during the season.
->>>
->>> Oh Horrors! You mean, you can post your flights, and no one will be
-
->>> scrutinizing them for FAR violations? No one will be "guarding" the
-
->>> community from the "bad apples"? No one will imply, without
->>> bothering
-
->>> themselves with facts, that some pilots "consistently fly outside
->>> the
-
->>> rules"? No one will tell you what you can or can't post there? No
->>> one
-
->>> will tell you which flights you can or can't look at and
-learn from?
-
->>> Wow... what a reckless concept. We haven't seen anything so
->>> disturbingly
-
->>> lax here on OLC since the sanitation of traces started
-under SSA rule.
-
->>> Certainly your Yahoo group is an unfortunate oversight on the SSA's
-
->>> part. Good thing you have mentioned it here, so it can be looked at
-and
->>> fixed soon. What is the URL?
->>>
->>>> This is not a contest, just
->>>> a way to report on the local happenings.
->>>
->>> Aha! That must be it. Obviously, the reason SSA-OLC has to be so
->>> different is the "C" in its name.
->>>
->>>> judging by the gist of
->>>> most of the comments on the "Sunset" thread the SSA OLC
-is not for
->>>> educational purposes, but much more of a hard core contest.
->>>
->>> Here is the paradox. For educational purposes is, indeed, how most
-
->>> people use OLC -- but those who own it now in the US insist on
->>> running
-
->>> it as a hard core contest.
->>>
->>>> How did the SSA get a
->>>> monopoly on the OLC in the US,
->>>
->>> Beats me!
->>>
->>>> and why did they change its intent?
->>>
->>> Oh, this one is simple. Because they care about us -- what we say,
-what
->>> we see, how we look to the feds. It's the Serve and Protect thing,
-you
->>> see.
->>>
->>>> Another thing I found during my research on the SSA website was a
-memo
->>>> regarding FARs.It started out with "The SSA is not out to
-interpret
-or
->>>> enforce FARs"
->>>
->>> Interesting finding -- especially considering how easily some SSA
->>> officials pronounce certain pilots and flights to be "in violation
-of
->>> FARs".
->>>
->>>> Now let me state that I fly for a living, and I have every
->>>> motivation BOTH from a monitary standpoint and a safety
-standpoint
->>>> to follow the regs, but lets say my flight recorder does
-something
->>>> stupid and now I have the same outfit that I pay dues to HELPING
->>>> the FAA come after me?Bizarre
->>>
->>> If you fly for a living, then you certainly, definitely,
-absolutely,
-
->>> positively NEVER EVER want to post any flights that have ANY chance
-or
->>> breaking ANY rules. Did you get it? Not even the slightest
->>> possibility
-
->>> of violation. The rest of the flights you can post -- just make
->>> absolutely sure that even with the ever-increasing level
-of scrutiny
-no
->>> one will ever find (or suggest) and "report" any
-violations in them.
->>>
->>> For example, you definitely don't want to post any ridge flights,
->>> because most of them *provably* violate FAR 91.119(c) --
-even though
-
->>> this violation is not (yet?) in the SSA's "no-no list" and is
->>> inexplicably "OK" for SSA-OLC. You also don't want to post any
->>> flights
-
->>> that look like running the cloud streets (easily recognizable by
->>> high-speed flat "tops" and little or no thermalling for extended
->>> periods
-
->>> of time), because somebody may report you, alleging cloud clearance
-
->>> violations. For the same reason do not post any wave
-flights on days
-
->>> when medium to high RH was observed at your flight altitudes.
->>>
->>> This list, of course, can go on and on, depending on how picky,
->>> knowledgeable and motivated our volunteer "inspectors" are.
->>> Everything
-
->>> else you can post ...well, *somewhat* confidently. If you
-feel lucky.
->>>
->>>> if a pilot were to post an ocasional short flight, say 2 to 3
->>>> hundred miles about once a week, is he gonna get laughed
-at?
->>>
->>> That's a new definition of "short" to me! :) In fact, posting "2 to
-3
->>> hundred miles about once a week" will put you high enough on the
->>> score
-
->>> sheet to attract a lot of attention -- and scrutiny -- to
-your flights.
-
->>> So keep in mind what you might not want to post.
->>>
->>>> is there a way to bypass the SSA-OLC (and forgo all the politics
->>>> and flaming), and just post to the OLC in Germany?
->>>
->>> One would wish... Alas, there is no such way. The SSA, as you
->>> correctly
-
->>> pointed above, has a monopoly on OLC in this country. Every flight
-flown
->>> entirely within US borders must be submitted to SSA-OLC --
-or not at
-
->>> all.
->>>
->>>> K. Urban
->>> --
->>> Yuliy
->
->
-
-
-
-------------------------------------------------------------
-

[KM]

Paul Remde wrote:
> I'm just very frustrated with this entire series of threads. Can't I state
> my opinions without it being taken personally?

But of course you can.I may have interpeted your comments as
condisending and if they werent, my apologies.I also didnt understand
your answer to Graeme C.I think most of us, whether or not anyone
agrees, understood what he was trying to say.
Now at the risk of belligering the issue of the SSA-OLC, I think it is
unfortunate that the SSA has to address the FAR issues on the OLC.Its a
dirty job but someones got to do it, and I guess you and Doug and
whoever else is on the OLC board are catching all the static on this
and it has got to be a bit discouraging at times.The SSA-OLC could
probably help you a bit by updating their policy on this.

> Should I not make a comment about a sensitive topic because some people will
> disagree with me and not buy from me? I hope not.

Go ahead and provide all the commentary you want to.I may have taken
some of your comments as passing judgment and this is what led to my
comments.I may have jumped to conclusions.My apologies.I would like to
ad that I find your website (and Tim Mara's) a valuble asset to the
soaring community.
KM
>
> Paul Remde

[Bill Daniels]

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> This "making us look bad" argument seems highly theoretical. How many
>> people outside the gliding community actually download and look in
>> detail at OLC flight logs? My guess is approximately zero. I think
>> we're flattering ourselves to think otherwise. We are inventing
>> imaginary demons to scare ourselves with.
>
> Actually, I use the OLC a LOT when describing soaring to non sailplane
> pilots. I tell them to visit there and see what can be done in a
> sailplane. This is much more concrete than telling them that I
> typically fly 2-300 hundred miles in a flight. The OLC provides
> "proof" that many people do this, etc....
>
> Some of these people may indeed get interested in looking at various
> flights, and I really don't want them stumbling on questionable ones.
> I want them so see what can and is generally done legally. I really do
> think the OLC is a great way to "sell" the sport of soaring.
>
>
> -Tom
>

The last time I was in the local FSDO office renewing my CFI-G one of the
FSDO folks made an offhand statement that, "Gliders don't go cross country",
or words to that effect. Unable to resist, I showed them the OLC web page
and got a "WOW!" response.

Now, given some of the astonishing posts on this newsgroup, I'm wondering if
that was such a good idea. I have to assume the FAA knows how to download
and view IGC files and the full significance of encryption.

Bill Daniels

[Jack[_1_]]

I heartily thank Doug Haluza and Paul Remde and the others involved with
SSA-OLC governance for upholding the integrity of the contest in the
USA, for protecting the accomplishments of those pilots who fly within
the rules of the FAA and the OLC, and for helping us to weed out those
who are non-compliant and disrespectful of both the contest and of their
fellow pilots.

I regret the fact that there will always be a few who resist doing the
right thing, apparently simply because they can. The OLC is like any of
us -- growing, changing, and with the help of others, improving. I know
from my own experience that our OLC reps have helped the OLC to become
more responsive and less opaque to its participants.

I support the efforts of our SSA-OLC Committee to maintain and improve
the contest experience. I detest the often unreasonable and occasionally
vituperative exchanges on this list generated by those with no real ax
to grind except that which apparently arises from some personal
emotional difficulty more properly dealt with in private counseling.


Jack

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

Tom,

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Some of these people may indeed get interested in looking at various
> flights, and I really don't want them stumbling on questionable ones.

In every case that has been mentioned here as an alleged violation it would
be quite simply impossible to "stumble" on it on OLC.

(1), OLC does not show the barogram with enough resolution to judge whether
18K has been exceeded -- at least I have never heard of a Class A violation
so gross that it would be noticeable on the OLC barogram.

(2), OLC shows neither landing time nor local sunset time, so a flight that
finishes a task before sunset and then lands shortly after sunset would not
"look bad" even to someone who knows local sunset times by heart and to the
minute.

It takes scrutiny -- a detailed analysis of a downloaded trace with a tool
like SeeYou and USNO charts -- to detect those violations. It's hard to
imagine that a casual observer or even non-soaring pilot would go into all
the troubles. Why would they? It really only matters to those hell-bent on
contest rules among us.

Please don't get me wrong -- I do not approve violations that are "too
small". It's just that many arguments for sanitizing the OLC are so wrong.

> -Tom
--
Yuliy

[Jack[_1_]]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:

> In every case that has been mentioned here as an alleged violation it would
> be quite simply impossible to "stumble" on it on OLC.

> (2), OLC shows neither landing time nor local sunset time, so a flight that
> finishes a task before sunset and then lands shortly after sunset would not
> "look bad" even to someone who knows local sunset times by heart and to the
> minute.
>
> It takes scrutiny -- a detailed analysis of a downloaded trace with a tool
> like SeeYou and USNO charts -- to detect those violations.

It only takes:

http://www.mindspring.com/~cavu/sunset.html

and the departure and finish times published on the OLC flight page.

It does not require any expenditure for software.

The contest has simple rules. It is enough that the contestants know how
to determine a violation, for either airspace or time. In some cases a
violation can also be determined easily even by a non-contestant.

Do you object to the fact that flights exhibiting probable violations
are reportable by other participants and that these flights, if
determined to be in violation, can be disallowed?


Jack

[Stewart Kissel]

Yuliy-

May I make a suggestion? About a million posts ago
you started bitching and moaning about the OLC not
being fun for you. Okay, don't participate. I will
still have fun whether you post flights or not.
For that matter, put all your energy in starting the
Yuliy-OLC-group...members can bust FAR's to their hearts'
content.

Doug and the other volunteers who made the effort to
run the thing, along with myself and many others...are
not going to condone cheaters who post. You can split
hairs about the degree of cheating that will be allowed,
but if it means you are not having fun...move on buddy.
I am not interested in the fact that some FAR's such
as ridge clearance cannot be enforced the way airspace
and sunset times are...violations are violations.

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> I am not interested in the fact that some FAR's such
> as ridge clearance cannot be enforced the way airspace
> and sunset times are...
>
> violations are violations.

Precisely. Just some are OK on OLC, and some are not. And your point is?...

[Doug Haluza]

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
> message ...
> > I am not interested in the fact that some FAR's such
> > as ridge clearance cannot be enforced the way airspace
> > and sunset times are...
> >
> > violations are violations.
>
> Precisely. Just some are OK on OLC, and some are not. And your point is?...

And what is your point Yuliy? That if we can't see every possible
violation, we should ignore the ones that are obvious?

Is your position that you don't care about flying past sunset, and
nobody else should either?

It's obvious that you have come here to r.a.s full of sour grapes after
being called out for flying well past sunset in an unlighted glider.
Instead of just taking pot shots at others, why don't you state your
own stand-alone position? How do you suggest that we handle complaints
about flight claims that are padded with extra points from flights past
sunset?

Ignoring the problem is not an option. Not only have the flights from
years past raised awareness, this public discussion has spread the
issue far and wide. So yearn all you like for the good-old-days, but
you can't go back.

So how about it. No more personal attacks, No baseless accusations. No
changing the subject. No straw men, or rediculous situations. What
would you do if you got the complaint, checked, and confirmed it?