End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

Andy wrote:
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.

Checking for that would make a lot of sense. The pilots I know
attempting records and long flights in wave make very sure they take off
after sunrise, so I'm sure they would approve.


--
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

I am troubled by two lines of reasoning that appear persistently both
in this thread and in private emails I have been copied on related to
OLC flights. They are troubling to me because they reflect a cultural
value that simply invites increased regulation, enforcement actions and
restrictions from our federal authorities.

The first goes like: "Since the OLC doesn't explicitly say flights must
comply with the FARs then the flights don't need to"

The second goes like: "Since specific violations of a rule were not
enforced correctly in the past then the rule no longer is enforceable."

Sadly, this errant reasoning has also appeared in my work at scoring
national competitions.

So since the absurdness (and counterproductiive impact) of these
positions is apparantly NOT evident on its face to all - here is my
rant.

1. There are some things in life which "just don't need to be said"
because they are so obvious. There is simply no advantage to our sport
(and indeed there are clear disadvantages) for our sporting authorities
to sanction or even appear to be agnostic to violations of the FARs.
Period.

2. It negatively impacts our sport when individuals publicly document
that they operate in violation of the FARs (or give the appearance of
being outside the FARs without explanation). If participants could be
relied on to self enforce and to not submit flights with clear
violations (and preemptively provide explanations for anything that
could be called into question) it would not be necessary for the
sporting authorities to intervene. Of course an occasional inadvertent
error will occur; and in that situation, when it is pointed out
privately to the individual - good sportsmansihp dictates that the
flight be voluntarily withdrawn immediately until adjudicated.

3. It negatively impacts our sport when these same individuals argue
publically that FAR violations should not be disqualifying for sporting
achievements.(Free speech is not without costs).

4. This OLC is great fun, a great competition and an incredibly
valuable learning tool. The last thing we should do (as individuals or
organizationally) is behave in ways that call attention to us as a
"target rich enforcement opportunity" to the federalies. Further, we
should actively work to be publically seen as self-enforcing, which
will work to avoid outside enforcement attention.

I share the disappointment of the pilots whose otherwise very
spectacular flights don't clear the bar - been there and had to forefit
the t-shirt. On the other hand it's not like what is at stake is a
costarring position under Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct 3."

So while it may be quite safe on the golf course to shake your 1 iron
in the air to protest a passing thunderstorm (since "even God can't hit
a 1 iron") it only invites further restrictions and oversight if we do
things that present lightning rods for enforcement attention. This just
seems so obvious.

As a sanctioned participant in the sport we all have an obligation to
behave in ways that protect the sport from further outside interference.

Just because it is technically too difficult to enforce some rules
diligently, doesn't mean that you shouldn't enforce the rules that you can.

Mike Schumann

"Mike the Strike" wrote in message
oups.com...
Precisely. if you're going to act as a policeman, you can't
selectively choose which rules you're going to enforce and which you're
going to ignore.

Either enforce all equally or none.


Mike



Ramy wrote:
588 wrote:
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?


No, I am just pointing out hypocrisy.

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.

Mike Schumann

"Yuliy Gerchikov"
and_.hope.it.travel wrote
in message ...
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are
not FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the
pilots worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in
the most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed
against them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why
have some scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing
lately? *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go
back and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull
them.

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?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with
commercial ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the
Board" could decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the
image of our sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s.
Admin" telling us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because
they make us look bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the
Internet, you know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my
OLC the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you
insist, please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed
too much of it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

Why should everything be swept under the rug? If there are problems with
OLC postings, why shouldn't they be discussed publicly? There are always
going to be bad apples in any sport. Trying to hide them is how you taint
the sport. Publicly exposing the cheaters and relying on the FAA to enforce
the FARs is how the sport can keep its credibility and avoid complicity in
these activities.

Mike Schumann

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...
This nonsense is getting quite tedious and is complely
counterproductive. It does us no good to be airing our dirty laundry in
public. I have tried to make the case for keeping these things private,
but some people just don't get it.

But since the genie is out of the bottle, let me try once more to
correct the record:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"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"?

There are no whimsical turns here. The SSA Board was concerned about
obvious violations in flight logs posted to OLC when they were in the
negotiation process with the OLC organizers. The Board adopted a policy
which has been in effect since last year.

If you joined this thread late, here is the link again:

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Po...Violations.pdf

, 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.

Actually we were made aware of the current cases after someone posted a
complaint to r.a.s. After I replied to the post asking people to make
these complaints in private, it must have released some pent-up demand,
since we suddenly received a number of complaints in a short time.

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 OLC Team is relying on the National OLC organizations to handle the
burden of coordinating the activities of the OLC in each host country.
They would probably call it delegation.

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.

We should not have to tell people what is right, and we certainly
should not have to tell them more than once.

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?

The Board asked for a report, and we did check and report earlier in
the year. Then we got busy doing other more productive things like
actually helping people. Perhaps we naively believed that the word had
gotten out, because we stopped checking until the complaint appeared on
r.a.s. Then we were not the only ones checking. No, we will not publish
the formal complaints for reasons that should be obvious. The
complaints were not solicited, other than through the r.a.s posting
asking that they be made in private.

snip

And let me ask once more for people to use proper discretion and
decorum in public--r.a.s is not a private forum for glider pilots, it's
a publicly searchable database. You need to think about the
consequences of what you post.

You don't have to be 500' above people or structures. You could be 500'
away horizontally.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message
oups.com...
500' from people or structures if you are over water or "sparsely
populated" areas. I would think most places we fly would qualify as
sparsely populated.

Of course, and enterprising FAR nazi could go to Google Earth and find
coordinates of structures along high traffic ridge soaring areas...


Greg Arnold wrote:
hans wrote:
Mike the Strike schrieb:

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?

You can see from the barograms displayed for every flight, that the
software for this is already implemented.

But aren't you allowed to fly closer to the ground than 500 ft if it is
required for operational reasons.

I thought you could fly closer than 500' as long as you aren't within
500 feet of people or structures.

Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
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.

Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...d=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
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.

Sorry folks that you have to read it, but Al seems to ignore the proof
I sent him that there was no class A or restricted area intrusion.
Logger calibration shows 169 feet error and anyone who view the flight
with SeeYou can verify no restricted area intrusion. Apparently Al
didn't like my posts regarding transponders and decided to revenge like
a little child.
The flight is currently under review for landing after sunset only, and
this was justified under FAR 91.3 to prevent an unsafe landout.
My appologize for all pilots which are drawned into Al's childish game.
Those who know Al are probably not surprised.

Ramy


wrote:
Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...d=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
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.

Al, can you be more specific to which flight you are referring to so we
can vote? I am not aware of any Hilton Cup flight which violated 3
FAR's.


wrote:
Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...d=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
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.