End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

5Z wrote:

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.

No, I meant 1 minute after sunset, a violation of 91.207 a) 1


Andy

Papa3 wrote:

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

No that's not what I proposed. If scored soaring flight ends at sunset
the rule is no different for a flight with a sunrise launch than one
that starts 10 minutes before sunset.

Andy

5Z wrote:

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.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

Martin Eiler schrieb:

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.

This function for airspace warnings was implemented by me some years
ago, but the owner of the OLC has decided to deactivate this feature. To
my knowledge this feature is only activated for the German Decentralized
Competition run by the Segelflugszene Ltd. for the German Aeroclub.

The majority of cross-country pilots violate flight rules to a greater
or lesser extent. The majority of these violations a

1) Flying too close to terrain or people - common in many ridge flights
out east

2) Flying too close to clouds - common everywhere.

I wonder how long it will be before ridge fliers' igc files are
scrutinized for their proximity to terrain and they are asked for an
explanation?

....and thank goodness clouds don't appear on our igc files - we'd all
be screwed!

Mike

Ramy wrote:

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

What about it? Do you suggest we dedicate our resources to policing
that? It surely would not be nearly so simple to avoid, nor to
monitor, as a time or altitude bust.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.


Jack

588 wrote:

Sounds like sour grapes to me.


Jack

Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my point.

Ramy

Well, the ridge-runners will just have to say they were on a 1000 km
long landing pattern.

Ramy wrote:

[re 91.119 (c) application to ridge flying altitudes]

Precisely, as sour as enforcing sunset time. This is exactly my point.


You truly see no difference, or are you just being troublesome in
order to entertain yourself on a non-flying afternoon?

I applaud the efforts of SSA-OLC to apply time and altitude FAR's to
the posted flight results in order to keep the playing field level,
and to support a continuing respect for the legalities. There are
limits to what is practical, however. Potentially dooming one whole
aspect of the sport out of spite generated by annoyance that the
simplest rules are being equally applied is incomprehensible.


Jack

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

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations

Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA seems
to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

, if they become aware of it.

Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it upon
itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very selective
and retroactive way.

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.

Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
sanctioning, I call it policing.

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.

Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right thing
to do.

flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"

Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been checking
since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints" came
straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction" (your
word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints", so
that we don't have to speculate?

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.

Excuse my improper ways, please. In fact, obviously, I was not trying to but
any new business before the Board -- indeed, I would like to think that the
Board has enough business before it at the moment. Quite the opposite, I was
pointing out the fact that the Board has put too much business before itself
trying to pick and choose which FARs to enforce, which *not* to enforce, and
when.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC.

I don't blame them -- it takes money to run the OLC. However, I happen to
think that inviting the SSA, if they indeed did so, might have been a
mistake on their part.
--
Yuliy