Class A airspace

Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
SSA policy. For more info see:

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestre...OLCSummary.htm

However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

Additionally, accusing somebody in public without giving his own real name
is disgusting.

Bert Willing

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
SSA policy. For more info see:

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestre...OLCSummary.htm

However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

Can I hear an 'Amen' for brother Doug?

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ups.com...
However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

I'm in agreement with what you've quoted here. But I'm also in
agreement with jb92563 who said:
"I agree, anything 500' over a limit should not count and in fact
cause
letter from the locally responsible governing organization to
reprimand
any pilot that violates important airspace.

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE governing ourselves. "

Ed

SAM 303a wrote:
Can I hear an 'Amen' for brother Doug?

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ups.com...
However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

flying_monkey wrote:

letter from the locally responsible governing
organization to reprimand any pilot that violates
important airspace.

Name some of the airspace you think is UNimportant?

At least that shows to the FAA that we ARE
governing ourselves. "

But you AREN'T governing yourself. That's what they do in UK and OZ and
(a little) NZ. YOU'RE governed by the FAA. Just like instructors in
172s and bizjets and 747 ATPs.

If you bust a rule, the FAA will come after the individual pilot. It's
a matter between him and the FAA. Airline pilots bust altitudes every
day but nobody blames it on the entire profession. It's an individual
and his own licence.

Group punishment is a very 1940s concept. I don't believe the FAA is
seriously into it - but you know your own country best.

All this self-policing angst sounds suspiciously like the expression of
some fairly common personality traits. How many of you are first
children?

GC

As a follow-up, one of the pilots has responded to our email, and
requested more time to review the situation because they were using a
borrowed glider. They agreed to remove the flight if they cannot find a
satisfactory explanation.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Doug Haluza wrote:
Yes, after some further checking, we had also found these flights, and
have already contacted the pilots via email. If a satisfactory
explanation is not received, the flights will likely be removed per the
SSA policy. For more info see:

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestre...OLCSummary.htm

However, as I said before, this public forum is not the place to
address these issues. You should not make public accusations against
named individuals without knowing all the facts.

Please use the partner check function in the OLC, or in the US you can
contact the SSA-OLC committee directly by email at olcatssadotorg.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
Try Thiele Uwe DE (BW) flight file 665c3k51-190 he
is currently listed in 7th place on the U.S. OLC.
It is after all a 3DM so maybe they were both flying.
But Link Mario is shown as the co-pilot but Peter
Klose is the PIlots name that shows up when the flight
is opened up in SeeYou. Then again maybe Peter made
the flight and Thiele is claiming it.

I'm just sick and tired of people claiming that it
is just altimeter error. Scoring pilots who exceed
18k by more than a small margin without some documentation
to show dramitic altimeter error, is just rewarding
pilots for blatant disregard of regulations.

1 901.96 Thiele Uwe co pilot Dach Rüdiger US (BW) 1139.6
141.1 Parowan Ut Gld (US) SFV Mannheim Nimbus 3DM 1818-0222
flight file 665c3k51-190 this file when opened in SeeYou
list Peter Klos as pilot.

At 16:36 23 August 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
I can't find the 6/5/06 flight, much less a registration
for a Peter
Klose from the SFV Mannheim Club, or any OLC fligt
claims from a Peter
Klose. So I don't know if this is a bogus complaint,
or if the pilot
removed all his flights and registration in protest.

Either way, posting this kind of complaint on r.a.s
is not the proper
way to addres this. There is a partner check function
in the OLC which
should be used. US complaints can also be emailed to
olcssaorg. We have access to the pilot's email and
can contact
them if necessary, and/or remove offending flights.

As pointed out, logger pressure altitude errors can
be quite large,
especially at high altitudes. If your calibration trace
shows a large
unfavorable error around 18,000' MSL, it would be best
to add a note
addresing this in the comments field of the claim form.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

Soarin Again wrote:
On 6/5/06 Peter Klose from the SFV Mannheim club
flying a Nimbus 3DM D-KTTT out of Parowan, Utah had
such a large error in his logger that he went to 19,180.

The OLC should pull his flight until he provides
a calibration chart to verify that much error. It
would be bad enough if someday some lawless U.S. pilot
causes us to loose the airspace privledges we currently
enjoy.
I'm sure if a U.S. pilot flying in Germany disregarded
their airspace limitations, he would quickly be excused
from further flight.
For those who would say that maybe he had a clearence.
That should have been included in the remarks section
of the flight claim. I'm sure we have some glider
pilot in that area who would have been able to verify
it with ATC.

2. Are you aware of the size of potential altimeter
errors at high
altitudes? The altimeter used for inflight reference
could easily
have indicated 400' lower than the baro reference
you
see on OLC.

3. Fly your own ship.


Jack

An interesting US thread primarily about access to Upper airspace (in US
above 18000FT), but also about IFR flight in gliders.
In the UK we have also had much discussion last year about access to
upper airspace (variously above FL195, FL245).

The differences between the two threads seems to be that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites (OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots should be free to
fly.

Not to say that the competitive spirit has not resulted in some
"unsportsmanly" behaviour in recent UK competitions.

It is a pity some of us are deprived of access to traces of some of the
boundary-pushing flights of top pilots because these pilots have to fear
the nit-picking of their colleagues. When something appears not quite
right, often an in-depth conversation may be needed to establish the
facts rather than an immediate counter-blast.

Gliding is a small sport and doesn't need to restrict itself into
oblivion. If commercial air traffic can constantly demand control of
ever increasing amounts of airspace, what is their legal right? We have
just as much right and should constantly be pushing the boundaries,
pressing our case and establishing our need.

If you can string together a half-decent set of legal and commonsensical
reasonning why you can do something that appears safe, fun and
enjoyable, then go and do it. Don't spend the time trying to cross the
last t of the legalese. If you are not competant or motivated enough to
do that particular activity, then it is not always helpful to focus on
potential technicalities as to why others should not be allowed their
pleasure. I wonder why lawyers are so rich? If you want zero risk, don't
aviate in any form.

Rory

Thank you, Rory.


Jack

----

Rory O'Conor wrote:

An interesting US thread primarily about access to Upper airspace (in US
above 18000FT), but also about IFR flight in gliders.
In the UK we have also had much discussion last year about access to
upper airspace (variously above FL195, FL245).

The differences between the two threads seems to be that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites (OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots should be free to
fly.

Not to say that the competitive spirit has not resulted in some
"unsportsmanly" behaviour in recent UK competitions.

It is a pity some of us are deprived of access to traces of some of the
boundary-pushing flights of top pilots because these pilots have to fear
the nit-picking of their colleagues. When something appears not quite
right, often an in-depth conversation may be needed to establish the
facts rather than an immediate counter-blast.

Gliding is a small sport and doesn't need to restrict itself into
oblivion. If commercial air traffic can constantly demand control of
ever increasing amounts of airspace, what is their legal right? We have
just as much right and should constantly be pushing the boundaries,
pressing our case and establishing our need.

If you can string together a half-decent set of legal and commonsensical
reasonning why you can do something that appears safe, fun and
enjoyable, then go and do it. Don't spend the time trying to cross the
last t of the legalese. If you are not competant or motivated enough to
do that particular activity, then it is not always helpful to focus on
potential technicalities as to why others should not be allowed their
pleasure. I wonder why lawyers are so rich? If you want zero risk, don't
aviate in any form.

Rory

The differences between the two threads seems to be
that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which
one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights
onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership
with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly
about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites
(OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather
different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats
who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to
prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots
should be free to
fly.

In the U.S. we have access to airspace, provided we
follow the rules. Your opinion that those who blatantly
disregard the rules are simply pushing the boundaries,
is hogwash.

There are two separate issues regarding violations
of
regulations in the U.S. One is the competative issue,
which means that giving credit for flights that intentionally
violate regulations is blatantly unfair to the vast
majority of the other pilots who comply with the regulations.
This also encourages those who are currently bending
to go a step further and just ignore them altogether.
The other issue is that we enjoy far better access
to airspace than most of the rest of the world. Showing
that we as a group will not tolerate pilots blatantly
violating rules is one of the few ways we have to show
the Fed's that the vast majority of us
are trying to self police ourselves. We do not need
renegades putting our current airspace availability
in jeopardy.
Not to mention the fact that posting flights on the
internet with your name, glider type and registration
number along with a flight log showing your violation,
is a pretty dumb thing to do.
If the Fed's ever start looking at these files as a
revenue stream of violations, it will give a whole
new meaning to the words 'nit picking'.