Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo

On Jun 11, 5:48*am, Ian Strachan wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:51*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
of this IGC/FAI stupidity.

I fail to understand the above comment, and the many attacks on FAI
and IGC that pepper this thread. *Aside from commonsense, which
suggests that the critical point is: "was the glider in question
positively identified in the pre-flight declaration", *the current
Sporting Code says, about glider ID in a pre-flight declaration:

4.2.1c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique
NAC-assigned contest number.

This is a pretty wide definition, the intention (as I understand it,
the Code is not my area within IGC), that's GPS recorders, as you
know) is simply to positively identify the glider to which the
declaration refers.

It is then up to the National gliding authority to interpret the above
in a reasonable way, with knowledge of the circumstances that pertain
(in the case on Glider IDs) in the country concerned. *Then there is
the OO concerned, was he or she positive about which glider was
referred to in the declaration, if so, this evidence can be put
forward to the NAC.

Or perhaps I'm missing something?

My glider BGA Competition ID is "60", and I am sure that, if I were to
make a claim, the BGA would accept that, as they have in the past when
I was young enough to make claims for records in the UK.

It's rainy and dull here at the moment, but that's typical weather
this side of the pond! *They say that it will be a 500k day tomorrow,
but I am not sure that I believe it.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Ian

So tp bring your comments back to relevance to the problem we are
having in the USA, your interpretation as somebody working within the
IGC on flight recorders for a long time is that SC3 4.2.1c. "unique
NAC assigned contest ID" would indeed be met by the SSA issued contest
ID that is issued to a pilot? I understand that is probably just your
personal opinion, but could you please confirm this is in fact the
IGC's position. I presume that is a quick question for you to have
answered definitively. Also if that is so could you suggest to the
IGC they remove what would then appear to be incorrect and confusing
information in SC3c 6.3c where it says "Not all NACs issue competition
numbers or require them to be unique to a glider – the glider
registration or its serial number must then be used."

The issue has previously been described on r.a.s. by the SSA's rule
committee chairman when this issue first came up in the USA. See the
comments by Papa3 in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...0ce781c3ef5314

And to avoid trouble linking to that for non Google users I'll include
the guts of the post here...

The catch is that 4.2.1.c refers to a "unique NAC-Assigned contest
number." The SSA (and several other large NACs) do not assign a
unique contest number to an aircraft; rather, the contest number is
assigned to the pilot. In the context of the rule, the
interpretation handed down by the IGC is that "unique" refers to the
combination of the contest number and aircraft. The IGC folks were
very clear that the situation in the US is such that the competition
number would not meet the requirements. We tried very hard to explain
the impact of this situation, but we ultimately were asked to concede
the point.

Regards,

Erik Mann
Chair, SSA FAI Badge & Record Committee

Either the SSA is seriously confused or the IGC easily deserves the
criticism in this thread.

Thanks


Darryl

I doubt there is a case for an appeal.

Frank Whiteley

If my appeal is turned down i then have no respect for this whole
process

The question at large should be, "Did he successfuly round the
declared turnpoints in a motorless aircraft?"

In my case, the answer is YES! Simple as that.

If my appeal is turned down i then have no respect for this whole
process


So many years ago, I had problems with several flights and
contests. Many rules were learned along the way and after several
attempts, I got the badges.
But, my "problems" were with me. My own making. I wasn't
following the "rules" of the game.
Did the "offender" break any rules. It seems to be a paper problem.
The appeal process should be able to resolve this issue.
GA

I really feel for you, Scott. I know from personal experience just how
hard a flight a Diamond Goal is. In my opinion, it's a shame that such
a flight wouldn't be recognized for such a minor transgression.

But, rules are rules. The FAA demands that a "pilot in command shall,
before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available
information concerning that flight". It's not unreasonable to demand
that if you're flying a badge flight you need to know the rules. And
in this case the lame rule that's getting you has been widely
discussed, in a number of forums.

I disagree with those that say adherence to the FAI rules will hurt
soaring. I started soaring because I wanted to fly - I didn't hear of
badges until long after I was hooked on soaring. In my opinion again,
badges won't entice people into soaring. But talking about things I've
seen that they'll never see on the ground, and using IgcReplay to give
them a good idea of what they'd see if they soared, has definitely
gotten folks into soaring.

-John


On Jun 11, 11:34 am, Scott Alexander
wrote:
If my appeal is turned down i then have no respect for this whole
process

The question at large should be, "Did he successfuly round the
declared turnpoints in a motorless aircraft?"

In my case, the answer is YES! Simple as that.

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?

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.

Grider Pirate wrote:
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.

I see - thanks.

On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank wrote:





On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander
wrote:

SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
entire claim Invalid.

I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.

I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
for some more good luck.

I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
"our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
have a single-place glider.

TA

Frank,

I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
don't think it is the SSA.

Darryl

Darryl,

You have my sympathy but you're in good company - hundreds if not
thousands of pilots have had badge claims denied over the years
because of a paperwork glitch. It pays to read the rules - and have
a good OO looking over your shoulder as you fill out the forms.

It happened to me. I flew an 300 km out and return but got credit for
Gold Distance and not Diamond Goal because the start and finish were 1
km apart - not the same point - my bad. I didn't complain, I just
cleared the memory of the Volkslogger and flew another 300 km O&R for
Diamond Goal. Both flights were a lot of fun so I didn't have much to
complain about.

Bill D

The inherent problem is a self-serving “system” that has evolved into
the absurd over the years. The focus is on procedures rather than
results. Everyone reading this knows of someone who has completed a
badge flight and their paperwork has been rejected. You’ve often heard
something to the effect that the flight was the easy part but getting
the paperwork right takes a rocket scientist. SSA currently has a
group working on some of these issues, but as you’ve often heard the
Chairman say, the Staff relies on members to get things done. I would
suggest a small uprising of SSA members focused on reforming badge
flight documentation would an appropriate action. A grass-roots
effort to put the fun back in badge flying… now there’s an idea! A
couple of thousand e-mail messages to SSA HQ, or your Regional
Director, would be a good start for a grass-roots movement to reform
an out-dated bureaucratic badge system.

So, what would rational, functional, and user-friendly badge flight
documentation look like?

Bob

On Jun 11, 12:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank wrote:

On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander
wrote:

SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
entire claim Invalid.

I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims. *I
really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.

I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
for some more good luck.

I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
"our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
have a single-place glider.

TA

Frank,

I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
don't think it is the SSA.

Darryl

Darryl,

You have my sympathy but you're in good company - hundreds if not
thousands of pilots have had badge claims denied over the years
because of a paperwork glitch. * It pays to read the rules - and have
a good OO looking over your shoulder as you fill out the forms.

It happened to me. *I flew an 300 km out and return but got credit for
Gold Distance and not Diamond Goal because the start and finish were 1
km apart - not the same point - my bad. *I didn't complain, I just
cleared the memory of the Volkslogger and flew another 300 km O&R for
Diamond Goal. *Both flights were a lot of fun so I didn't have much to
complain about.

Bill D

I don't need your sympathy. I've never had a badge claim rejected, but
I've come close more than once. And As I've suggested here Scott's
most effective resolution of this problem is to go do the flight again
properly.

As somebody's who has worked to locally promote badge flights, given
local seminars/talks on badges, helped explain the common traps and
helped mentor a few people through badges, worked with local clubs/
FBOs etc to make sure they are clear on the exact GLIDERID/Contest ID
issue discussed here, etc... I'll restate my points on this...

1. The sporting code _is_ clear. You do have to read it a few times.

2. The SSA has communicated this issue fairly well.

3. While Scott has my sympathy, I really don't care about the impact
on an individual badge claim.

4. I do care on the net overall affect of this particularly pedantic
rule and the impact on lots of Scott's and others trying for their
badges. Especially combined with -
a) A long running tradition in the USA of entering the SSA Contest
number as the GLIDERID
b) Confusing software UI and documentation from IGC flight recorder
vendors that state "contest ID" when it means "GLIDER ID".
c) The complete pedantic nature of this actual rule interpretation,
and its non-impact of this on anything important.

Here is the minimal solution I would like for the USA: have the OO
just be able to document (post-badge application on inquiry from the
SSA if needed) that in cases where a valid SSA contest ID was entered
for that pilot instead of the N-number what the actual glider N-number
was. Of course this is perfectly easily handled today by doing a paper
declaration after the electronic one. As has been suggested on r.a.s
many times. So while I'm complaining about the IGC interpretation of
this rule I'm equally complaining about pilots who cannot get basic
stuff like this right _and_ also choose to not do a paper declaration.
The suggestion for doing a paper declaration has been around for ages,
it covers a lot of possible sins, so it's not a new thing. The OO in
this case really let the pilot down.


Darryl