The differences between the two threads seems to be
that the UK
discussion was how can we maintain our access, to which
one of the
solutions was to ensure maximum posting of high flights
onto online
soaring sites (BGA Ladder) to provide gliding leadership
with
information to support the case for ongoing access.

In the US discussion, the tread seems to be mainly
about how to prevent
others posting good flights to online soaring sites
(OLC) when they
exceed 18000FT, because of competitive issues. A rather
different
approach. Both threads are full of those bureaucrats
who wish to
demonstrate nit-picking legalistic technicalities to
prevent safe and
enjoyable access to airspace in which glider pilots
should be free to
fly.

In the U.S. we have access to airspace, provided we
follow the rules. Your opinion that those who blatantly
disregard the rules are simply pushing the boundaries,
is hogwash.

There are two separate issues regarding violations
of
regulations in the U.S. One is the competative issue,
which means that giving credit for flights that intentionally
violate regulations is blatantly unfair to the vast
majority of the other pilots who comply with the regulations.
This also encourages those who are currently bending
to go a step further and just ignore them altogether.
The other issue is that we enjoy far better access
to airspace than most of the rest of the world. Showing
that we as a group will not tolerate pilots blatantly
violating rules is one of the few ways we have to show
the Fed's that the vast majority of us
are trying to self police ourselves. We do not need
renegades putting our current airspace availability
in jeopardy.
Not to mention the fact that posting flights on the
internet with your name, glider type and registration
number along with a flight log showing your violation,
is a pretty dumb thing to do.
If the Fed's ever start looking at these files as a
revenue stream of violations, it will give a whole
new meaning to the words 'nit picking'.