SSA OLC Region for Flight Claim

Doug Haluza wrote:

The OLC flight statistics can be broken down by SSA Region. For
example, if you click on "Champion" in the OLC-Classic line of the web
page header, you see results for all regions, but if you select a
region from the drop-down box, you will see the rankings for that
region only. This allows people to set up local rivalries, that
equalize the weather conditions somewhat. So it makes no sense for
someone flying in the Desert Southwest to claim flights in Region 1
(New England) just because they receive mail or vote there.
Unfortunately, if you do select Region 1, you will see the results are
polluted by a number of pilots who did not bother to select the correct
region on their claim.


"pilots who did not bother to select the correct region on their claim."
Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair to pilots who
are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly written and
confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer effort, but
I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but itself for its
deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
an IGC file).

Greg Arnold wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
"pilots who did not bother to select the correct region on their claim."
Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair to pilots who
are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly written and
confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer effort, but
I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but itself for its
deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
an IGC file).

No, my point was that Region 1 in particular has a number of flights
made by pilots who neither live, nor flew there. So it is not a matter
of confusion, where they didn't know what was the right thing to do,
they apparently did nothing, and let their claim go with the first
choice in the list.

Doug Haluza wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
"pilots who did not bother to select the correct region on their claim."
Doug, don't you think that statement is rather unfair to pilots who
are trying to do their best to make sense of the poorly written and
confusing OLC rules? I realize that the OLC is a volunteer effort, but
I don't see why the OLC seems to blame everyone but itself for its
deficiencies. The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
an IGC file).

No, my point was that Region 1 in particular has a number of flights
made by pilots who neither live, nor flew there. So it is not a matter
of confusion, where they didn't know what was the right thing to do,
they apparently did nothing, and let their claim go with the first
choice in the list.

Perhaps they didn't realize the Region value was being used for
anything? For example, I didn't think it was being used for anything,
and until Greg pointed it out, I didn't even know there was Region
selection on the SSA OLC page! I just entered Region 8, because that's
the region I'm in. I didn't have a clue that it was supposed to be the
region of the _takeoff_ airport, and how could I? It wasn't in the
rules, and people that don't follow RAS still won't know about it if
they use SeeYou, as I do, or don't notice the OLC wording change.

This is a like a rules change in mid-season, so maybe emails should be
sent to every competitor informing them of it, and the rules on the
websites should be amended to make it clear what the Region entry is
supposed to be.

Speaking as a pilot with 10 flights "mis-regioned" ...

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

Greg Arnold wrote:
snip
The Cambridge logger problem, for example, was blamed on
Cambridge and SeeYou, rather than on the OLC ( which could have simply
set up its software to validate the CAI file, then itself converted to
an IGC file).

Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

Doug,

I'm not a web expert, but this assertion seems incorrect. Certainly you
can e-mail a binary cai file and it will still be valid upon receipt.
It can also be sent via FTP, and I guarantee that this process would
result in a valid binary file. And a FTP transfer could be easily built
into the OLC submission process if OLC chose to do so.

Sounds to me like OLC programmers simply don't want to go to the effort
of figuring out how to handle cai files, and so are putting what should
be their problem on all of us Cambridge users.

-John

Doug Haluza wrote:
Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

When you email a binary file, it is also converted to text prior to
transfer, and converted back to binary on the other end.

You are probably correct that the OLC programmers don't want to spend
additional effort on the non-standard and now obsolete CAI binary
format, especially since they have already spent considerable effort on
the current compromise solution. Since the relative number of GPS-NAV
loggers will keep declining, this is probably a wise allocation of
limited resources. They should focus their efforts on future growth
opportunities.

I don't think you are correct about the ease of implementing a binary
FTP transfer. But, if you want to volunteer to implement this, and
prove me wrong, I can put you in touch with the right people.

jcarlyle wrote:
Doug,

I'm not a web expert, but this assertion seems incorrect. Certainly you
can e-mail a binary cai file and it will still be valid upon receipt.
It can also be sent via FTP, and I guarantee that this process would
result in a valid binary file. And a FTP transfer could be easily built
into the OLC submission process if OLC chose to do so.

Sounds to me like OLC programmers simply don't want to go to the effort
of figuring out how to handle cai files, and so are putting what should
be their problem on all of us Cambridge users.

-John

Doug Haluza wrote:
Actually, it is not possible for OLC to process the CAI binary because
it cannot be uploaded via the web form. The HTTP transfer used to
upload the IGC files will not accept the non ANSI characters in the
Cambridge CAI binary file. This is why the binary data needs to be
converted and appended to the IGC file as text.

I corrected the biggest problems with wrong takeoff region claimed in
the US. The OLC-Classic leaders in each SSA Region are currently:

R1: Koepper, Mark, GBSC Boston
R2: Haluza, Doug, Ridge Soaring Irregulars
R3: Murphy, Sean, Harris Hill Soaring
R4: Higgins, Michael, M-ASA Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assn
R5: Schmelzer, Wolfgang, Kitty Hawk Airpark
R6: Lubon, John, Caesar Creek Soaring
R7: Hard, James, 126 Association
R8: Funston, Nelson, SGC Seattle Glider Council
R9: Feager, Tim, Albuquerque Soaring
R10: Johnson, Richard, Dallas Gliding Assoc
R11: Yanetz, Ramy, Hollister Gliding Club
R12: Gonzales, Dan, Hole in the Wall

Send requests for corrections by email to ssa at olc dot org

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Doug Haluza wrote:
I corrected the biggest problems with wrong takeoff region claimed in
the US. The OLC-Classic leaders in each SSA Region are currently:

R1: Koepper, Mark, GBSC Boston
R2: Haluza, Doug, Ridge Soaring Irregulars
R3: Murphy, Sean, Harris Hill Soaring
R4: Higgins, Michael, M-ASA Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assn
R5: Schmelzer, Wolfgang, Kitty Hawk Airpark
R6: Lubon, John, Caesar Creek Soaring
R7: Hard, James, 126 Association
R8: Funston, Nelson, SGC Seattle Glider Council
R9: Feager, Tim, Albuquerque Soaring
R10: Johnson, Richard, Dallas Gliding Assoc
R11: Yanetz, Ramy, Hollister Gliding Club
R12: Gonzales, Dan, Hole in the Wall

Send requests for corrections by email to ssa at olc dot org

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin


The SSA is becoming a responsive, effective organization, particularly
in the person of its SSA-OLC Admin.

Thank you, Doug.


Jack

Jack wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:

Send requests for corrections by email to ssa at olc dot org

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin


The SSA is becoming a responsive, effective organization, particularly
in the person of its SSA-OLC Admin.

Thank you, Doug.

Yes, I think progress and communication are occuring.

Here might be something else to work on: when I look at today's US
results with "all regions", four R8 pilots show in the list; when I
select "R8", only three pilots remain, and Len Edvinson, the leader for
the day, is left off. Is that correct (and why?), or are is there a
problem with region selection?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jack wrote:
Here might be something else to work on: when I look at today's US
results with "all regions", four R8 pilots show in the list; when I
select "R8", only three pilots remain, and Len Edvinson, the leader for
the day, is left off. Is that correct (and why?), or are is there a
problem with region selection?


The problem was that one of the four claimed the flight in Region-1. I
fixed this, so now all four are shown in Region-8.

The region you see in the daily score is the region associated with the
pilot's club. This is just a database schema thing, and I'm sure OLC is
not going to change it this year. All of the OLC's limited resources
are focused on developing the 2007 OLC right now.

P.S. I also made requested corrections in Region-12, and this changed
the standings in many of the top places (but not the leader).