![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private.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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
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 |