FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

Op 12/27/2019 om 20:17 schreef Roy B.:
The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.
4.4.2.a. says...
"For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."

Tango:
This just confirms the point I am trying to make. The FAI had the right to make the certification more strict than it was and it later did that. That means that there was an issue (maybe) with the old form of certification - but it does not mean the pilot or OO were wrong to sign the old certification.

There seems no question but had any of the 3 bodies (NAC of South Africa, the NAC of Holland, or the FAI itself) all of whom reviewed and approved this record denied the record - the pilot would have won his appeal. He did the flight, the record performance ended at the finish line, and the issue of landing time was outside the certification. Case over. He gets the record.
ROY


Roy,
I have here the SC3 effective from the first October 2015.
The flight took place at the fourth of January 2016.
The text in the SC3 is always leading.
In this SC3 I find:

4.4.2 Certificates required
a. PILOT CERTIFICATE OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE For all claims the pilot
must certify that
the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in
compliance with all the glider
manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance
with national flight regulations
(airspace use, night flight, etc.).
For records, this certification is on the IGC Record Forms A, B, and C.

There is no doubt what so ever, that the flight ended after the SA
official daylight time.
None of the officials I contacted in this matter disputed that the
FLIGHT had to be legal an not only the performance. Rule 4.4.2 cannot be
explained in any way other than this flight WAS illegal.
So, what are you talking about?
Only a bad OO would co sign a claim which does not comply with rule 4.4.2