End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
ink.net...
Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an
even more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Gee, Mike, thanks! That's exactly what SSA should be doing. Many were
wondering what SSA was actually doing for the members for their money.
Somebody mentioned the magazine, others said group insurance rates. Well, no
more guessing -- now we know .

BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Now, if SSA wanted to take upon itself the burden of inspecting all (or, as
it's been the case, some) of the flights for all (or some) violations and
pass them to FAA, that, actually, would be totally fine with me. I've seen
stranger hobbies. Except, not on my nickel. I just don't need to be a part
of it.
--
Yuliy

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

Ramy

5Z wrote:
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

Ramy wrote:
WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

If you are indeed correct, then there IS a problem. But I would first
like to hear the other side of this accusation...

I have been going on the premise presented in Doug's originalmessage in
this thread. There have been some generalizations made about
"policing" and removing flights, but I thought they were just
overreactions to a polite request to act within applicable FARs and
withdraw one's own flight. If flights are disappearing without the
pilot's knowledge, that is bad, as due process is being violated.

-Tom

Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the
OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go
along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my
error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this.

Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or
remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the
pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and
putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were
getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints,
but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the
problem.

Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still
working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as
a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other
pilot.

Ramy wrote:
WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

Ramy

5Z wrote:
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

And just let people trade escallating accusations and insults on r.a.s
without end?

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
ink.net...
Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an
even more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Gee, Mike, thanks! That's exactly what SSA should be doing. Many were
wondering what SSA was actually doing for the members for their money.
Somebody mentioned the magazine, others said group insurance rates. Well, no
more guessing -- now we know .

BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Now, if SSA wanted to take upon itself the burden of inspecting all (or, as
it's been the case, some) of the flights for all (or some) violations and
pass them to FAA, that, actually, would be totally fine with me. I've seen
stranger hobbies. Except, not on my nickel. I just don't need to be a part
of it.
--
Yuliy

Doug, with all due respect, this is not accurate.
I never received any initiated contacts from you, only prompt replies
to my inquiries. In your first reply from 8/31 you stated "the flights
listed below are under review by the SSA-OLC committee, and you should
be receiving correspondence regarding them soon. The flights will not
be removed until you have had a chance to reply."
Well, while waiting for the additional correspondence or decisions,
another flight was zeroed. I know of someone else's flight which was
also zeroed before he received correspondence.

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the
OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go
along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my
error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this.

Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or
remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the
pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and
putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were
getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints,
but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the
problem.

Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still
working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as
a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other
pilot.

Ramy wrote:
WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

Ramy

5Z wrote:
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

Ramy,
Give it a rest. Along with his day job, Doug puts in many long hours
promoting OLC in the USA. Like the rest of us he is human. He just
doesn't deserve the public trashing you have been directing at him.
QT
Ramy wrote:
Doug, with all due respect, this is not accurate.
I never received any initiated contacts from you, only prompt replies
to my inquiries. In your first reply from 8/31 you stated "the flights
listed below are under review by the SSA-OLC committee, and you should
be receiving correspondence regarding them soon. The flights will not
be removed until you have had a chance to reply."
Well, while waiting for the additional correspondence or decisions,
another flight was zeroed. I know of someone else's flight which was
also zeroed before he received correspondence.

Ramy

Doug Haluza wrote:
Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the
OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go
along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my
error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this.

Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or
remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the
pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and
putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were
getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints,
but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the
problem.

Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still
working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as
a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other
pilot.

Ramy wrote:
WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

Ramy

5Z wrote:
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

Ian Cant a écrit :

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

Not only motorgliders. Any glider with proper equipment can be certified
night-VFR and flew OLC flights or records for 50+ hours (BTW there has
been world records up to 55 hours half a century before OLC was created
;-) )

BTW, when will SSA check passports and baptism certificate of pilots and
crew, in order to prove that those flight logs close to possible
terrorism targets were not driven by some islamist fundamuntalists ?

Seems that Big Brother is now a soaring pilot :-(((

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

Doug Haluza a écrit :

Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.

Is there a sporting aspect to the presence of night lights ? Does it
provide any competitive advantage ? Or does it show up in the flight log ???

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?