FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

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.

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

On Saturday, 28 December 2019 18:56:03 UTC+2, Jip wrote:

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 Then, the record was withdrawn.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.

Surely there cannot be anything more stupid than setting a minimum threshold for a record category? Worst possible scenario would be that someone flies a record "not worthy enough", followed by some other one who tries to better it. I mean worst scenario: several pilots try to fly record flight. What a nightmare.

When I got the chance, I removed all these minumum thresholds from our national records and after that we had a surge of record attempts. One by one these records exceeded the old minimas. We have had more record flights in last 5 years than previous 30 years.

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 3:43:30 AM UTC-6, Jan R wrote:
In the Dutch gliding records list, I found a flight, conducted in South
Africa that landed after the local official daylight time. For
ratification a flight must be conducted legaly, so I asked the Dutch NAC
for explanation. The responsible officer told me that a flight that
lands before 19:44:00 is still landing within the 43 th minute.
Interesting to know that the officer who told me that, was a Dutch
engineer working in a Dutch nuclear power station. So, if, all of a
sudden you do not hear anything from Holland anymore, you have a option
to think of.

I waited a few months, and was surprised to see that the FAI ratified
the record also as a African regional record. So I asked the responsible
officer of the FAI for a explanation and I was told that the observation
of the Official Observer regarding sunset time was leading. Of course
this is not true. The country where the flight is conducted issues the
official sunset time and the official daylight times.

After a few emails and not getting any answers, I dropped the case.
Then by coincidence, I met the responsible officer of the FAI at a
glider site and brought up the problem. He told me that for just a few
minutes to late, the FAI considered the flight as being still legal.

So, not South Africa is telling what illegal is in there country but the
FAI is.

Why am I telling this story? The main reason is that if somebody
claims a record and the Official Observer and the pilot himself sign the
claim form, they state that the flight was conducted in a legal way.. In
the mean time I spoke to a few OO's and none of them was prepared to
sign for such a flight. That means that different pilots are are being
treated unequally and that is, at least in my opinion, not fair. So I
asked the FAI officer to confirm the FAI point of view in writing and he
promised me to write me after he was in his office again. Unfortunately
he did not keep this promise and did not react to any mails referring to
our conversation.

If anybody has trouble to have his badge/record ratified because he
landed after official daylight time, he may refer to this posting and of
course the ratified record of the illegal flight.
The details a
Registration 1-4-2016 PH-1340 Maxim Leenders CN: UFO.
FAI record: 17793

I wish everyone a beautiful Christmas.

here's a complication for the nit-pickers,
In 23 hrs 59 minutes the earth completes a single rotation. At the 'advertised' circumference of the earth as 24,901 miles, 'Time' advances across the face of the earth at about 17.2 miles per minute. depending on the longitude and the moment of flight cessation, the 'local' sunset time is worth looking at, nitpicker wise.
Food for thought and entertaining as well.
Cheers,
Scott

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.

Jan wrote: 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.

Jan:
I am sorry but you are incorrect. I have substantial experience with record flying in SA. The very first step in the record ratification process for a foreign pilot is the submission of the claim to the SA NAC - which is how they certify the OO's appointment by them on the Form E, and they review all matters for establishment of a new SA record. There is a short list of individuals who can serve as OOs for records in SA and that person's status must be certified by the NAC as part of the record claim. As a further part of that process they review all of the work of the OO. They create a full dossier of the flight and that dossier (with the official stamp of the SA NAC on Form E) is what is given to the resident country's NAC - and they forward it to the FAI. We have not seen any of that dossier. I would make no decision based on "what somebody said, somebody else said, many years ago." I would want to see the dossier which would include a second FR file if there was one. It is the submitted paperwork that matters here (which is why we are required to submit record claims in writing) - and we have not seen it.

But, I think that you have quite made up your mind on this and further dialog is pointless. Good luck.
ROY

None of this really matters, whether it was a bonified record or not. Someone is gonna come along in the next year or so and beat it, then the old record won’t matter.

Here in the states many a past record was made by flying late into the evening or by breaking past 18k into controlled airspace or by sneaking thru lower level controlled airspace. This was all in the days before gps. The records were all approved but in time they were surpassed. Guys need to spend less time worrying about some guy getting a break by the powers that be, and spend more time going out and breaking the record themselves.

Those that do, do.........those that don’t, talk about it and criticize the doers.

Op 12/29/2019 om 00:36 schreef Roy B.:

Jan wrote: 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.

Jan:
I am sorry but you are incorrect. I have substantial experience with record flying in SA. The very first step in the record ratification process for a foreign pilot is the submission of the claim to the SA NAC - which is how they certify the OO's appointment by them on the Form E, and they review all matters for establishment of a new SA record. There is a short list of individuals who can serve as OOs for records in SA and that person's status must be certified by the NAC as part of the record claim. As a further part of that process they review all of the work of the OO. They create a full dossier of the flight and that dossier (with the official stamp of the SA NAC on Form E) is what is given to the resident country's NAC - and they forward it to the FAI. We have not seen any of that dossier. I would make no decision based on "what somebody said, somebody else said, many years ago." I would want to see the dossier which would include a second FR file if there was one. It is the submitted paperwork that matters here (which is why we are required to submit record claims in writing) - and we have not seen it.

But, I think that you have quite made up your mind on this and further dialog is pointless. Good luck.
ROY



Roy,

You are mistaken.
The SSSA has an agreement with the Dutch NAC and delegates the record
approval. I flew over 60 Dutch records in SA and that was the procedure.
And, indeed, further dialog with you is pointless.
So, ask the FAI yourself why the record was ratified.
Good luck.

There is also another aspect of the question: I suppose the flight was scheduled to end well before the end of day.

Where was the glider when it became clear that the flight would end just after the official end of the day? If at that moment the goal airfield was the nearest available, the PIC could exercise his right to diverge from the rules in order to follow what he deemed the safest option (exceeding the end of day by a few minutes to land on a known airfield vs. landing out in the dusk on an unknown surface).

In all the countries I regularly fly, this possibility to diverge from the rules is explicitly mentioned under the privileges and obligations of the PIC. You have of course to be able to justify your decision before a board of inquiry if the air administration deems it necessary. In the US, this rule would be under FAR 91.3. I suppose the same kind of rule applies in SA.

It seems to me this rule supersedes all the others...

Op 12/28/2019 om 19:43 schreef krasw:
On Saturday, 28 December 2019 18:56:03 UTC+2, Jip wrote:

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.

Surely there cannot be anything more stupid than setting a minimum threshold for a record category? Worst possible scenario would be that someone flies a record "not worthy enough", followed by some other one who tries to better it. I mean worst scenario: several pilots try to fly record flight. What a nightmare.

When I got the chance, I removed all these minumum thresholds from our national records and after that we had a surge of record attempts. One by one these records exceeded the old minimas. We have had more record flights in last 5 years than previous 30 years.


You may have a point.
The minimum performance list I'm talking about was written on another
basis than the lists that you mean.
Before the regional records were introduced around 2011, there were of
course already several records flown before that time.
National records, and even world records.
The FAI did not want to have regional records with a lower speed than
the the speed of (previous) world records or National records that were
flown in that region, before the regional records existed.
That's why the minimum performance list was created.