If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
"Grider Pirate" wrote in message
: On Jun 11, 10:57*am, Jim Logajan wrote: Scott Alexander wrote: I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. Is there a rule that prevents you from re-submitting with the typo corrected? The "TYPO" is in the electronic declaration. A paper declaration would be valid, but only if it were made and signed before the flight. Soooo! There is the solution to this whole problem! Scott, get with your OO and find that paper declaration (that clearly shows the glider N number) that you both prepared before the flight (wink, wink). I am sure if you look down behind the seat of your car or glider, you will find it. Send it in and the problem is solved, right? Larry |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
On Jun 14, 5:54*am, "Larry Goddard" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message : On Jun 10, 6:25 pm, Darryl Ramm wrote: SSA issued Contest IDs are issued to a pilot and not the glider, and they are therefore definitely *not* unique to a glider (I owned two gliders at once both "6DX", but different N-numbers) and AFAIK this has been the root issue with the IGC and using SSA issues contest IDs in the IGC file GLIDERID header field. But it's also true that the glider registration number is not unique to that airframe serial number, at least in USA. *A glider can change hands and the new owner can apply for a new N number. *The original owner could then apply the original N number to a completely different glider. *Some German manufacturers like to stamp the registration number on the data plate. *Recently the issuance of an airworthiness certificate was denied until the owner obtained a new data plate that did not include the N number. Nothing unique about the N number in USA, they are transferred and reused on different aircraft. The only things unique are the pilot and the glider serial number. Why isn't the name of the pilot sufficient. All that matters is the the verified pilot flew some damn glider over the required course. Andy Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do with it. *At a point in time (the time of the goal flight) it is, verifiably, unique. *In your above example the "original owner" cannot "apply the original N number to a completely different glider". *He can petition the FAA to use the number for a new glider once it is no longer being used on the old glider, and, if approved, it becomes a unique number for the new glider in question. No other glider will have that N number (ie, unique) at that time. Larry This thread has become illustrious of the bureaucratic process that created this problem. We now have a heated discussion over the uniqueness of the glider identifying number in the declaration. I am sure this is exactly what happed at the IGC. Lost in the moment, it was overlooked that this piece of information is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. It has been stated before, so I will make this brief, in badge flying, there is NO change in declaration procedure or requirement according to glider type, let alone the specific glider. This information might be required for the application, but is clearly not needed for declaration. It seems particularly absurd to worry about uniquely identifying the glider, when it is not required to uniquely identify the pilot! Sorry to all the John Smiths, your issuing authority (your parents) did not uniquely identify you so you are not eligible for diamonds… Just to point this thread in a more constructive direction, what can we do to simply the badge process? We can start the list with the essence of this problematic application: Reduce the declaration to its essence. For electronic declarations, Waypoints and time and date. Another possible change, Reduce the calibration requirements for loggers IF the flight if does not show a significant discrepancy with the GPS altitude. ie coarse calibration via gps. More suggestions? let’s look at some failures from insignifiga , and test them here in this forum. For example, someone noted their “closed course” was not exactly closed. Sorry thems the rules, but if there are other blatant, unnecessary requirements like this one, lets expose them here, and I would be happy to submit the list to the IGC (although I expect they are listening) and see if we can attack the root of the problem… RR |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
On Jun 14, 2:54*am, "Larry Goddard" wrote:
Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do with it. * Actually I maintain it has everything to do with it. Sure, the registration and the glider have a unique relationship at the time the flight is made. There is however no assurance that the registration number and the glider will have that same association at the time the badge or record is processed, or at any time in the future when the badge or record documentation is reviewed. The association between the glider and the N number is therefore not unique. Andy |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
I guess the main point is that if you are going to be making badge or
record attempts it is important to read the sporting code before you go fly. Also, make sure that you have an OO who has read the sporting code. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
On Jun 14, 11:48*am, Andy wrote:
*There is however no assurance that the registration number and the glider will have that same association at the time the badge or record is processed, or at any time in the future when the badge or record documentation is reviewed. The association between the glider and the N number is therefore not unique. The barometric pressure is likely different at the time the claim is processed. You seem to agree that at the time the flight is made, there is a unique association between registration and glider. If the glider is destroyed before the claim can be processed, is it invalidated? What's your point? This is silly... -Tom |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
To all, FWIW:
1. The claim in question was not rejected because of a "typo". The claim in question was rejected because a current FAI procedural requirement WRT flight declaration was not met. 2. The *last* declaration accomplished immediately before the start of flight, be it paper or electronic, is the valid declaration. Said another way, a paper declaration supersedes an electronic declaration only when it is accomplished after the electronic declaration has been input into the FR. 3. Attempting to retroactively create a paper trail to overcome a claim error is unethical at best and outright lying at worst. Any advice to the contrary is improper. (A subsequently submitted paper declaration wouldn't be accepted anyway because SSA procedure is it must be sent in along with the claim.) 4. The proper procedure to contest a rejected badge or record claim is the appeal process. Filing an appeal makes the SSA badge and record committee aware of questionable rules language thus requiring interpretation, clarification, and/or procedural changes. An appeal may also become the impetus that causes the committee to take formal action with the FAI to clarify/amend/omit a rule. Anyone familiar with my personal learning curve in these regards can testify as to my sympathizing with anyone whose badge or record claim(s) is rejected due to a technicality; however, the bottom line is "If you want to play the game, you gotta play by the rules--And them's the rules!" If one is to commit themselves to being actively involved in badge or record flying, one is far better advised to become intimately familiar with the rules and to accept the inevitable procedural setbacks as learning experiences--though frustrating as it can be. Regardless, my congratulations to Scott on a great soaring performance! In all sincerity, Ray Cornay |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
On 6/11/2010 4:42 AM, brian whatcott wrote:
Scott Alexander wrote: I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/ So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this claim. Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get this claim to pass? /snip/ I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form, I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from a lawyer. Brian W It might be more fun and less expensive to re-fly the flight than deal with a lawyer. (Naturally, I exclude my few lawyer friends when citing this opinion). Paul ZZ |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo
ZZ wrote:
On 6/11/2010 4:42 AM, brian whatcott wrote: Scott Alexander wrote: I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/ So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this claim. Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get this claim to pass? /snip/ I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form, I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from a lawyer. Brian W It might be more fun and less expensive to re-fly the flight than deal with a lawyer. (Naturally, I exclude my few lawyer friends when citing this opinion). Paul ZZ I have to say that almost anything is more fun and less expensive than dealing with a lawyer! :-) Brian W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trying for a Diamond Goal tommorow - water ballast question | Scott Alexander[_2_] | Soaring | 27 | April 29th 10 09:28 PM |
Distance to Goal Flight in Texas | ryanglover1969[_2_] | Soaring | 0 | March 10th 10 09:45 PM |
Diamond D-Jet First Flight | Montblack | Piloting | 5 | April 21st 06 04:00 PM |
Diamond Distance flight plan | 303SAM | Soaring | 6 | April 4th 06 12:21 AM |
PW-5 Diamond Goal Flights | Dick Johnson | Soaring | 2 | November 17th 03 01:44 AM |