![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly
replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this. Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints, but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the problem. Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other pilot. 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. 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Doug, with all due respect, this is not accurate.
I never received any initiated contacts from you, only prompt replies to my inquiries. In your first reply from 8/31 you stated "the flights listed below are under review by the SSA-OLC committee, and you should be receiving correspondence regarding them soon. The flights will not be removed until you have had a chance to reply." Well, while waiting for the additional correspondence or decisions, another flight was zeroed. I know of someone else's flight which was also zeroed before he received correspondence. Ramy Doug Haluza wrote: Ramy, you know we have been pen pals since 8/31 on this. I promptly replied and told you I made an error with the admin function of the OLC--it didn't come with an instruction manual, so I'm learning as I go along. I copied you on the email to Hannes asking him to correct my error, because I did not have sufficient rights to do this. Our policy is to contact the pilot to request that they explain or remove the flight. We have not removed any flights, except at the pilot's request. We have been setting the score to null temporarily and putting an admin note that the flight is under review, because we were getting multiple complaints. We've still received follow-up complaints, but at least this lets people know we are actively working on the problem. Please bear with us as we try to find our way on this. We're still working on the mechanics of communicating on behalf of the committee as a whole. But I have communicated personally with both you and the other pilot. 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. 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, Tom, the answer, as always, is yes and no. Please see some comments
below. "5Z" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Technically, I have to give it to Doug -- no flights that I know of have been removed, per se. Instead, the score has been set to zero -- to my knowledge, without as much as a notice to the pilot -- which has the effect of moving the flight to the bottom of the very last page in daily results. So if I am looking at the daily flights on the default OLC page, then the flight simply won't be there. Do you call this "removed"? Well, yes and no. (It is interesting to note that this action seems entirely counter-productive in regards to the SSA-OLC's declared goal of presenting good image to the FAA. If FAA were to trawl OLC for violations they'd pay no attention to scores whatsoever.) 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" ![]() I'll bet you a buck that this is precisely what Doug does -- download logs and run them through "OLC Scrutinizer 2006". (Maybe not *all* logs... which is a problem in and by itself that I already ranted about: how does he pick the ones to scrutinize? Based on "formal complaints", we were told, but let's face it -- this is not a transparent process.) The reason I am so sure is this. Some violations that Doug alleges simply can not be seen on the OLC flight information pages. Crude barogram in meters is one example, but the latest wave of allegations (see the subject) is a better one. Did you notice that takeoff and landing times do not show anywhere on the OLC flight info page, nor do the local sunrise and sunset times? Only the start and finish times do. So if a pilot finishes a task before sunset, then that's what the OLC shows. If said pilot then makes a straight line dash to the nearest suitable airport for a safe landing, and meanwhile the Sun happens to cross the imaginary (as anybody who flies in the mountains would know) line called horizon, then yes, we have a violation. However, it won't show on the OLC -- instead, the trace will have to be downloaded, run through the "OLC Scrutinizer 2006" and the actual landing time extracted and compared to a reliable source of astronomic data. So one thing I can tell: if anybody does actually benefit from this, this fella Doug does a heluva lot of work for them. -Tom -- Yuliy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And just let people trade escallating accusations and insults on r.a.s
without end? Yuliy Gerchikov wrote: "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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |
S-TEC 60-2 audio warning | Julian Scarfe | Owning | 7 | March 1st 04 08:11 PM |