FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

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

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

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

Op 12/27/2019 om 20:17 schreef Roy B.:
The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.
4.4.2.a. says...
"For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Op 12/28/2019 om 17:41 schreef Roy B.:
Jan:
Neither I nor any other reader can determine (without formal research) between your version of SC3 as applicable (in which case I agree the certification would not comply) or Tango's version of SC3 (in which case the certification would comply). More important, none of us have seen the documents that the pilot and OO actually signed. I do know however (from my own experience in claiming records in South Africa), that the process is exacting, requires more analysis than just the pilot and OO signatures, and that the subject record application would have been reviewed (and in some instances recalculated) by all of the South African NAC, the Dutch NAC and the FAI. For this flight, all three allowed what became a Dutch, South African, and African Continental record.

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

Hi Roy,
Tango's version of the SC3 is from 2017 and equal to the one from 2015.
What you call "tango's version" was actually a copy of a copy from a C
form (a speed claim form) from the FAI that I posted here. And, even if
it was the same claim form that the pilot concerned had to use for his
claim in 2016, the SC3 is leading. You read it differently, but also
that statement is saying that you have to comply with the rules which
are valid in the SA airspace.

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

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

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

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

On Saturday, 28 December 2019 18:56:03 UTC+2, Jip wrote:

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

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

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

Op 12/28/2019 om 19:43 schreef krasw:
On Saturday, 28 December 2019 18:56:03 UTC+2, Jip wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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



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

I am not Guessing at anything. I had contact with Dutch NAC and FAI
about thisissue and got only the obvious silly answers I described in my
first posting.
Further more, everyone is able to find out that the flight was illegal.
The SA rules are on the web, the IGC-file is on the web and the SC3 of
2016 is on the web. You do not need anymore. Maybe you could think the
plane was night equipped, but it is not. I know the plane and it has no
landing lights or nav lights and it is certified for vmc operation only.
In Holland they have no GPL with IF-rating anymore and you need that for
night operations in Holland.

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

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

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

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

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 3:43:30 AM UTC-6, Jan R wrote:
In the Dutch gliding records list, I found a flight, conducted in South
Africa that landed after the local official daylight time. For
ratification a flight must be conducted legaly, so I asked the Dutch NAC
for explanation. The responsible officer told me that a flight that
lands before 19:44:00 is still landing within the 43 th minute.
Interesting to know that the officer who told me that, was a Dutch
engineer working in a Dutch nuclear power station. So, if, all of a
sudden you do not hear anything from Holland anymore, you have a option
to think of.

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

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

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

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

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

I wish everyone a beautiful Christmas.

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