![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
North American X-15 pics [1/8] - Boeing_NB-52A_carrying_X-15 horizontal X-15 silhouettes denote glide flights, diagonal silhouettes denote powered flights.jpg (1/1) | Miloch | Aviation Photos | 0 | June 10th 18 02:01 PM |
North American X-15 pics 1 [03/11] - NB-52A , permanent test variant, carrying an X-15, with mission markings...horizontal X-15 silhouettes denote glide flights, diagonal silhouettes denote powered flights..jpg (1/1) | Miloch | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 5th 17 10:58 AM |
All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records | Tango Eight | Soaring | 99 | March 23rd 17 12:07 PM |
Night lights, night flights, OLC and records | Denis | Soaring | 19 | October 9th 06 11:51 PM |
40,000 U$ Soldiers are Illegal Aliens, Drafted for Illegal War | Gordon | Military Aviation | 6 | September 7th 03 03:28 AM |