End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

Wow. I agree with Yuliy. Luckily I fly in UK.
I think the SSA is acting beyond its jurisdiction.
I hope you dont touch flights submitted by foreign
visitors.

Surprised you still have members to pay the bills.

Rory

At 11:00 02 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:
quite plain to see in these logs. The SSA Board was
concerned about
flight logs with obvious violations damaging the sport
if they were
posted in the public record of the OLC. So the board
adopted a policy
disqualifying such flights from the OLC, as well as
FAI awards such as
badges and records. See:

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Po...20Violations.p
df

There are several factual inacuracies in this post, as noted below:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations, if they become aware of it.
I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.
Only two pilots have refused, and taken their position public on r.a.s.


Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

No, the SSA has been checking since the beginning of the year, and
reporting to the SSA ExCom at their request. We did find one flight
early in the season that appeared to land too late in SeeYou, but not
when checked against the USNO, so no action was taken. We did not
become aware of any other cases until recently. No flights have been
"pulled" but flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null" and a note
added in the offiicial comments to avoid duplicate complaints.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
Board.

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC. The two parties executed a formal Memorandum of
Understanding on July 7, 2005. SSA has not restricted who can post (but
only members will be elligible for awards). SSA has taken the position
that flights above 18,000' without a proper ATC clearance, or flights
after sunset without approved lighting should not be posted because it
could damage the SSA's working relationship with the FAA (and is also
unsporting conduct).

Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

The vast majority of U.S. OLC competitors make
a conscientious effort to comply with FAR's. They
have every right to expect all competitors to be
sportsmanlike, which means playing by and being
scored by the same rules.

The rest of us have little empathy for the minority
who think they are above the law by going above
18k without a clearance, crossing unauthorized
airspace or landing after sunset without required
lighting. It would probably be a step in the right
direction if the OLC software could be modified to
immediately pick out these irregularities when a
flight is submitted. Then flag the flight until an
acceptable explanation is supplied by the pilot.

Would it surprise anyone to know that in spite of all
this discussion on RAS, just this past weekend one
of these vocal few submitted a flight with a landing
after sunset.

We should be commending the OLC committee for
weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
should be scored for flights that violated regulations.

M Eiler

The vast majority of U.S. OLC competitors make
a conscientious effort to comply with FAR's. They
have every right to expect all competitors to be
sportsmanlike, which means playing by and being
scored by the same rules.

The rest of us have little empathy for the minority
who think they are above the law by going above
18k without a clearance, crossing unauthorized
airspace or landing after sunset without required
lighting. It would probably be a step in the right
direction if the OLC software could be modified to
immediately pick out these irregularities when a
flight is submitted. Then flag the flight until an
acceptable explanation is supplied by the pilot.

Would it surprise anyone to know that in spite of all
this discussion on RAS, just this past weekend one
of these vocal few submitted a flight with a landing
after sunset.

We should be commending the OLC committee for
weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
should be scored for flights that violated regulations.

M Eiler

Martin Eiler wrote:

We should be commending the OLC committee for
weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
should be scored for flights that violated regulations.


It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate a 10 hour flight
that landed 1 minute after sunset. To avoid this penalty a pilot may
have to give up soaring an hour early to be sure of getting home in
time, or should he landout a minute from home to save the points.

As has been pointed out landing shortly before sunset on a westerly
runway can be hazardous.

May I suggest that the end of soaring flight be determined by landing,
engine start, airspace violation, or sunset time. Points earned before
end of soaring flight should be scored as usual.

Perhaps the same scrutiny should be applied to sunrise. I hear some
ridge flights start quite early.


Andy

Ramy wrote:
Doug, the sunset rule may have been on the books, but not on olc rules
until recently.

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

You decided to enforce it retroactively, which is unfair to say the
least. I guess this is one way to win a contest, when someone is
catching up - remove their flights...

The OLC software developers *could* create various validation schemes,
but have instead chosen to provide a method for peers to submit a
complaint. The SSA put out a statement regarding the FARs sometime
last fall, in Dennis' column in "Soaring" if I recollect correctly.

There have been several statements made through various channels in the
last year about the need for peer review of flying habits. Now,
finally, Doug has found the time to go over claims made this year to
identify some of the more obvious ones.

simple fact is that OLC was great until SSA took over. It is simply a
shame the way it has been administered. You managed to upset your most
loyal promoters and contestants.

What is a shame, is that some participants make what they feel are
"harmless" violations of regulations, then make a record of this
behavior available online.

It is a shame that one pilot will choose to open the spoilers and land
before sunset while another continues to climb in that last evening
thermal, watch the sun set, then glide another 50 miles - and then
claim the distance in a sporting competition.

-Tom

Andy,
I just flew a 7+ hour flight and missed diamond
distance by about 0.3 km or 11 ft height penalty.
My own stupid fault, I don't consider it an 'unreasonable
penalty'.

Agree with the rest of your comments.

But what about motorgliders with lights and big
batteries ? Are they allowed to have longer days than
the rest of us ?

Ian






At 13:54 08 September 2006, Andy wrote:
It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate
a 10 hour flight
that landed 1 minute after sunset. To avoid this penalty
a pilot may
have to give up soaring an hour early to be sure of
getting home in
time, or should he landout a minute from home to save
the points.

As has been pointed out landing shortly before sunset
on a westerly
runway can be hazardous.

May I suggest that the end of soaring flight be determined
by landing,
engine start, airspace violation, or sunset time.
Points earned before
end of soaring flight should be scored as usual.

Perhaps the same scrutiny should be applied to sunrise.
I hear some
ridge flights start quite early.


Andy

Andy wrote:
It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate a 10 hour flight
that landed 1 minute after sunset.

Could you be talking about a flight that ended thirty one minutes after
sunset? This would put it into the FAA definition of NIGHT flying.
That is different than the FAR about aircraft lighting after sunset.

I think we all can agree that there is some slack being provided for
"marginal" violations to the OLC. There's always altimeter error and
occasionally a race with the sun to get on the ground. In a sanctioned
contest, errors such as this are typically punished quite brutally on
the scoresheet.

As I said in another response, it is up to ALL of us to conduct
ourselves in a sportsmanlike fashion. If there is any doubt about the
propriety of posting a flight, then DON'T DO IT.

In the western US it's very easy to get involved in a 10+ knot climb
and suddenl realize that the altimeter has already passed 17,500'
indicated. Sometimes, by the time one rolls out and presses on, it
comes darned close to 18K. Then at the end of the day, detailed
analysis with data from a nearby ground station slows you have busted
18K by 100'. I rationalize this on the OLC as a reasonable "glitch".
But if I see a trace - mine or someone else's - that indicates still
circling at 18K, I'll call it into question.

Landing one minute after official sunset, especially if there's some
evidence in the log of trying to get it on the ground is anothercase
that I would probably not challenge.

The whole point of what Doug is doing is not to remove the flights
himself. He is asking the offender to do this, or to add a comment
explaining the discrepancy. We should ALL follow his example,
especially to our immediate fellow pilots. It may mean a worse club
score, but is just the proper way to conduct a sporting event. We
don't want to get into the mess of the Olympics or Tour de France with
their various doping and possible cheating scandals.

-Tom

Andy wrote:
Martin Eiler wrote:

We should be commending the OLC committee for
weeding out the renegade few who insist that they
should be scored for flights that violated regulations.


It is an unreasonable penalty to completely eliminate a 10 hour flight
that landed 1 minute after sunset. To avoid this penalty a pilot may
have to give up soaring an hour early to be sure of getting home in
time, or should he landout a minute from home to save the points.



Andy

So, by that logic Andy, a really spectacular flight that violates an
FAR gets some additional leeway over a not-so-impressive flight?

There was a great article in Soaring maybe a year ago by Brian Collins
about a 1000K flight. One of the key elements of his flight planning
involved getting back on the ground before sunset. Clearly, he could
have gone on to rack up at least another 100K or 200K by ignoring the
FARs, but he chose to make the FARs a key part of his decision making.
So, to answer your question, "Yes, a pilot should give up soaring
early to be sure of getting home in time." Does that have to be
"an hour early"? No. If you fly it the same way you would typically
fly a MAT (i.e. leave a few close in turnpoints for the end of the
day), there's no reason to give up that much of the flyable day.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3