End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

There are several factual inacuracies in this post, as noted below:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations, if they become aware of it.
I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.
Only two pilots have refused, and taken their position public on r.a.s.


Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

No, the SSA has been checking since the beginning of the year, and
reporting to the SSA ExCom at their request. We did find one flight
early in the season that appeared to land too late in SeeYou, but not
when checked against the USNO, so no action was taken. We did not
become aware of any other cases until recently. No flights have been
"pulled" but flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null" and a note
added in the offiicial comments to avoid duplicate complaints.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
Board.

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC. The two parties executed a formal Memorandum of
Understanding on July 7, 2005. SSA has not restricted who can post (but
only members will be elligible for awards). SSA has taken the position
that flights above 18,000' without a proper ATC clearance, or flights
after sunset without approved lighting should not be posted because it
could damage the SSA's working relationship with the FAA (and is also
unsporting conduct).

Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ps.com...

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations

Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA seems
to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

, if they become aware of it.

Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it upon
itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very selective
and retroactive way.

I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
sanctioning, I call it policing.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.

Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right thing
to do.

flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"

Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been checking
since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints" came
straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction" (your
word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints", so
that we don't have to speculate?

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
Board.

Excuse my improper ways, please. In fact, obviously, I was not trying to but
any new business before the Board -- indeed, I would like to think that the
Board has enough business before it at the moment. Quite the opposite, I was
pointing out the fact that the Board has put too much business before itself
trying to pick and choose which FARs to enforce, which *not* to enforce, and
when.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC.

I don't blame them -- it takes money to run the OLC. However, I happen to
think that inviting the SSA, if they indeed did so, might have been a
mistake on their part.
--
Yuliy

This nonsense is getting quite tedious and is complely
counterproductive. It does us no good to be airing our dirty laundry in
public. I have tried to make the case for keeping these things private,
but some people just don't get it.

But since the genie is out of the bottle, let me try once more to
correct the record:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ps.com...

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations

Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA seems
to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

There are no whimsical turns here. The SSA Board was concerned about
obvious violations in flight logs posted to OLC when they were in the
negotiation process with the OLC organizers. The Board adopted a policy
which has been in effect since last year.

If you joined this thread late, here is the link again:

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Po...Violations.pdf

, if they become aware of it.

Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it upon
itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very selective
and retroactive way.

Actually we were made aware of the current cases after someone posted a
complaint to r.a.s. After I replied to the post asking people to make
these complaints in private, it must have released some pent-up demand,
since we suddenly received a number of complaints in a short time.

I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
sanctioning, I call it policing.

The OLC Team is relying on the National OLC organizations to handle the
burden of coordinating the activities of the OLC in each host country.
They would probably call it delegation.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.

Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right thing
to do.

We should not have to tell people what is right, and we certainly
should not have to tell them more than once.

flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"

Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been checking
since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints" came
straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction" (your
word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints", so
that we don't have to speculate?

The Board asked for a report, and we did check and report earlier in
the year. Then we got busy doing other more productive things like
actually helping people. Perhaps we naively believed that the word had
gotten out, because we stopped checking until the complaint appeared on
r.a.s. Then we were not the only ones checking. No, we will not publish
the formal complaints for reasons that should be obvious. The
complaints were not solicited, other than through the r.a.s posting
asking that they be made in private.

snip

And let me ask once more for people to use proper discretion and
decorum in public--r.a.s is not a private forum for glider pilots, it's
a publicly searchable database. You need to think about the
consequences of what you post.

Why should everything be swept under the rug? If there are problems with
OLC postings, why shouldn't they be discussed publicly? There are always
going to be bad apples in any sport. Trying to hide them is how you taint
the sport. Publicly exposing the cheaters and relying on the FAA to enforce
the FARs is how the sport can keep its credibility and avoid complicity in
these activities.

Mike Schumann

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...
This nonsense is getting quite tedious and is complely
counterproductive. It does us no good to be airing our dirty laundry in
public. I have tried to make the case for keeping these things private,
but some people just don't get it.

But since the genie is out of the bottle, let me try once more to
correct the record:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ps.com...

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations

Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA
seems
to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

There are no whimsical turns here. The SSA Board was concerned about
obvious violations in flight logs posted to OLC when they were in the
negotiation process with the OLC organizers. The Board adopted a policy
which has been in effect since last year.

If you joined this thread late, here is the link again:

http://www.ssa.org/download/SSA%20Po...Violations.pdf

, if they become aware of it.

Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it
upon
itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very
selective
and retroactive way.

Actually we were made aware of the current cases after someone posted a
complaint to r.a.s. After I replied to the post asking people to make
these complaints in private, it must have released some pent-up demand,
since we suddenly received a number of complaints in a short time.

I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
sanctioning, I call it policing.

The OLC Team is relying on the National OLC organizations to handle the
burden of coordinating the activities of the OLC in each host country.
They would probably call it delegation.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.

Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right
thing
to do.

We should not have to tell people what is right, and we certainly
should not have to tell them more than once.

flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"

Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been
checking
since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints"
came
straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction"
(your
word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints",
so
that we don't have to speculate?

The Board asked for a report, and we did check and report earlier in
the year. Then we got busy doing other more productive things like
actually helping people. Perhaps we naively believed that the word had
gotten out, because we stopped checking until the complaint appeared on
r.a.s. Then we were not the only ones checking. No, we will not publish
the formal complaints for reasons that should be obvious. The
complaints were not solicited, other than through the r.a.s posting
asking that they be made in private.

snip

And let me ask once more for people to use proper discretion and
decorum in public--r.a.s is not a private forum for glider pilots, it's
a publicly searchable database. You need to think about the
consequences of what you post.

Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an even
more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Mike Schumann

"Yuliy Gerchikov"
and_.hope.it.travel wrote
in message ...
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are
not FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the
pilots worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in
the most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed
against them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why
have some scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing
lately? *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go
back and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull
them.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with
commercial ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the
Board" could decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the
image of our sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s.
Admin" telling us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because
they make us look bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the
Internet, you know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my
OLC the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you
insist, please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed
too much of it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
ink.net...
Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an
even more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Gee, Mike, thanks! That's exactly what SSA should be doing. Many were
wondering what SSA was actually doing for the members for their money.
Somebody mentioned the magazine, others said group insurance rates. Well, no
more guessing -- now we know .

BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Now, if SSA wanted to take upon itself the burden of inspecting all (or, as
it's been the case, some) of the flights for all (or some) violations and
pass them to FAA, that, actually, would be totally fine with me. I've seen
stranger hobbies. Except, not on my nickel. I just don't need to be a part
of it.
--
Yuliy

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

Ramy

5Z wrote:
Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Nobody's doing any enforcement!

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

If someone lands a few minutes after sunset, no big deal, but if they
need the runway lights turned on then it's a problem. Each such
scenario should be judged individually, but it is best done within the
conscience of all those affected by it, and not as yet another nail in
the coffin of our freedom to fly.

There have probably been a few OLC postings that didn't pass muster as
badge or record submissions, because these DO need to be scrutinized
and pass all the tests. It is up to each of us to decide how much we
want to bend the rules ourselves, and how much we will tolerate from
our peers. Think of the OLC as yet another place the FAA could do a
ramp check - how lucky do you feel?

-Tom

Ramy wrote:
WRONG, they did not contact the pilots. At least not the two pilots I
know. The flights were either removed or zeroed (effectively removing
them to the bottom).
If they would have done what they say they did (contacting pilots
first) you would have not seen such a reaction.

If you are indeed correct, then there IS a problem. But I would first
like to hear the other side of this accusation...

I have been going on the premise presented in Doug's originalmessage in
this thread. There have been some generalizations made about
"policing" and removing flights, but I thought they were just
overreactions to a polite request to act within applicable FARs and
withdraw one's own flight. If flights are disappearing without the
pilot's knowledge, that is bad, as due process is being violated.

-Tom