IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

Mike Schumann wrote:
Why the emphasis on keeping everything private all of the time? That just
makes people think that things are being covered up.

What kind of things are you talking about? The OLC files are posted
publicly for your inspection, so you and everyone else can look for
these issues. If a pilot decides to withdraw a file from the contest,
does he have to give a reason? The files that remain in the contest are
still there for inspection.

If there are issues,

If the issues involve violations, or the appearance of violations, why
do we need to know about them? The flight is no longer in the contest.

there's no reason for them not be discussed civilly in public.

There are some reasons they won't be discussed civilly in public: some
people can't discuss things like this civilly. Take a look at the recent
threads on this subject.

That way
everything is on the up and up, and everyone else can learn something in the
process.

I think we can learn from a discussion, but it doesn't have to be about
identifiable incidents unless the pilot wishes to contribute his/her
experience. Doug (or other OLC person) could also describe the kinds of
problems they are seeing, discuss how they handle them, and suggest ways
to avoid them. All this can be done without "trying the case in the RAS
courtroom".

I think we will have a lot of pilots leaving the OLC if we try to
discuss every potential violation here.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

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

Hey its Ramy again.

Its your IP block from earlier posts on Gliderforum together with a
made up yahoo email address.

Ramy grow some balls don't post anonymous.

First flights data logger is with the aircraft I sold along with
calibration etc etc.
I recall the flight and remember bowling along around Lee vining on a
strong crab angle with spoilers out. Was a classic wave day altimeter
showed within 17K-18K. Kinda cool flight 5 hours duration, 500K O/R
and Diamond Alt all in one trip. Go figure.

Second flight is (according to Strepla) well clear of any airspace.

Looks like Strepla is proving to be more accurate than Seeyou at this
point.

Least I didn't win any international competitions with those flights

Al

wrote:
It is interesting to see Al Macdonald's integrity. Check out the
following flights:
1 - Al at 18635 feet over Mono Lake (care to provide your calibration?)
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp...olc-usa&spr=en
2 - Al at 12,500ft inside R4811 on Monday (Mon-Fri GND-15000ft). Need
to open with Seeyou with sectional map to see the violation.
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/olcphp...olc-usa&spr=en

Sorry for making such a disgraceful post, no one but Al deserves
something like this.
And sorry for making it anonymously, I normally don't do it, but
knowing how insane Al is, I can't take the risk. I have a family to
protect.


wrote:
No..

You need to answer Marc's and my question before you embarrass yourself
as "official observer".

Over....


Doug Haluza wrote:
You need to stop tbis before you embarass yourself even more.

wrote:
Doug you are wrong here.

I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
errors.
I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.

The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.

Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
check the kerning on a Word document?

No you dont!!

Now what flight analysis software to you use?



Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
"official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
or output...

Marc

Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

Hey its Ramy posting as himself again... with the same IP as
too funny.

Anyway issue here is the software has an bug we need to figure out if
its in Seeyou or Strepla.

The calibration of the electronic charts cannot be trusted as the error
in one package or the other would throw off the accuracy of the plot.
Then you get into calibration errors when projecting scanned paper maps
onto an electronic file.
Ever had a fax slip on you when sending? This is the same issue when
calibrating sectionals for programs. Lets not forget the airspace
files which are also suspect.

So Ramy your solution will not work.

The most basic method of checking would be to hand plot a flight on a
paper sectional but the tolerances we are now flying and trusting in
world wide turnpoint exchanges files are so close that a pen width of
ink would not show the true plot.

Al



Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
"official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
or output...

Marc

EXACTLY...

Hurrah Marc for posting some sense in here.


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

But let's not forget that Ramy's flight was really really good. 1000+
FAI w LS-4 is excellent. Well done Ramy!!!!!!

And by all means, I think every body in Minden area knows 17999 and has
been the quite often. Right Al??? ))))))))))

I have no comment about the software issue.






Ramy wrote:
Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

Never denied it was a great flight.

Indeed 17999 is a frequent stop in high summer and often broken in wave
season (wave window permitting).

Maybe Nevada should declare UDI and have its own set of airspace
rules!!

Software and source files issue is the issue here.

Until the SSA and or OLC defines a benchmark we can all fly off this
will continue to plague the OLC and other contest scoring.

Al

Pat wrote:
But let's not forget that Ramy's flight was really really good. 1000+
FAI w LS-4 is excellent. Well done Ramy!!!!!!

And by all means, I think every body in Minden area knows 17999 and has
been the quite often. Right Al??? ))))))))))

I have no comment about the software issue.






Ramy wrote:
Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

This thread is completely out of control, and I want to see this
nonsense stop. If someone has a legitamate issue, contact the SSA
committee by email at olcatssadotorg with the specifics, and we
will look into it. Throwing wild accusations around on a public forum
reflects badly on you and on the group. And I do not want to
participate in this circus.

Ramy wrote:
Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy