FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:40:17 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.

Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat.. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.

I thought Marcel Godinat was French, but he flew as a Swiss in the 1936 Olympics gliding contest. Perhaps he lived in French speaking Switzerland.

https://www.sports-reference.com/oly...s-gliding.html

As another member of the Swiss gliding team won a medal, he said they were a bit fearful about leaving Germany unscathed as the Germans were expected to win.

Of course, the Swiss of that generation were also precision seekers.

Frank Whiteley

There ya go!Â* Congratulations on the flight.

I completed Silver in a Mosquito, Gold plus one Diamond in an ASW-19,
and the remaining two Diamonds in an LS-6.Â* All with declaration sheet,
camera, and barograph, and not all on the first attempt.

I salute those guys who do it in a 1-26, especially east of the Mississippi.

BTW, anyone want to buy a camera and barograph (not certified in over 25
years)?

On 12/27/2019 10:35 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition
by not completing a task under the established rules.

I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture
was taken outside of the zone.Â* Remember cameras and barographs?Â* The
pilot had shot three pictures (prematurely due to his excitement) and,
by connecting the pictures to show his flight path, it was clear to me
that he had, indeed, turned the point.Â* But the rules were specific.

I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn
point was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby
(within a mile) road intersection.Â* Sure, I flew the distance, but I did
not meet the letter of the rule.Â* I simply flew a different flight at a
later date.

So, I think that, should I attempt a 1,000 km flight in my Stemme, and I
need to run the engine for just a minute or so to avoid landing short of
home, I'll submit the claim and expect it to be approved.Â* I know I'll
get a lot of support here, since it's only just a little bit outside the
rules.

On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.

Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.
--
Dan, 5J
I was denied a diamond goal when I had a logged position on either side of the 90 degree zone and a line could be drawn that would have crossed the zone, but because I made a sharp turn there was not a logged point in the sector. Flew it again, but for some reason my logger had a 2 minute gap in the logged flight. Third time was the charm.

--
Dan, 5J

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.

Hi Frank
Marcel and Berta always claimed to be swiss, he was actually born in that border country. And he did fly gliders in the olympics, but a lesser known item is he also flew aerobatics for the germans in one of the intrernational contests right before the war. I asked them one time about whether he flew in the war. He got real quiet and just smiled. I think he did. All I know was he was a madterful glider driver and taught this kid alot.

It’s astonishing how such a minor issue raises so much comment. Personally, I don’t ever bother with badge claims. As long as I know I’ve done it, nothing else matters.
Impressing other glider pilots means nothing to me. Still I have no problems with this, with the bonus that it annoys nit picking nobodies.

"Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

(Alfonso Bedoya, ("Gold Hat"), 1948, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" John Huston, Director)

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

I just remembered a classic nit-picker yarn. Sergio Colacevich figured out a way to get all three Diamonds in one flight by declared Death Valley and return from Truckee. That covered Diamond distance and he declared Death alley and return for Diamond Goal, but how was he going to get Diamond altitude gain? He pulled the spoilers in Death Valley and deliberately descended down to about 1000 feet above seal level, then climbed out, eventually reached about 17,700 feet on his way back to Truckee..........WOW, Wonderfull flight, right?

Our designated nit-picker had his hands full with this one. Sergio had obviously flown way over the required distance and his declaration looked pristine, how’s he going to throw this one out? Then he checked the max temperature difference between Truckee and Death Valley.............that worked, temperature rise adversely affected the barograph trace, just enough to decline Sergio’s 16,404 foot required altitude gain! CLAIM DENIED!

Old Sergio got the final laugh, though, he pled his case to the full SSA board and they recognized his claim!

JJ

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.