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flight be voluntarily withdrawn immediately until adjudicated.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.