End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
5Z wrote:

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
5Z wrote:

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...d=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
5Z wrote:

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

Sorry folks that you have to read it, but Al seems to ignore the proof
I sent him that there was no class A or restricted area intrusion.
Logger calibration shows 169 feet error and anyone who view the flight
with SeeYou can verify no restricted area intrusion. Apparently Al
didn't like my posts regarding transponders and decided to revenge like
a little child.
The flight is currently under review for landing after sunset only, and
this was justified under FAR 91.3 to prevent an unsafe landout.
My appologize for all pilots which are drawned into Al's childish game.
Those who know Al are probably not surprised.

Ramy


wrote:
Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...d=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
5Z wrote:

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

Al, can you be more specific to which flight you are referring to so we
can vote? I am not aware of any Hilton Cup flight which violated 3
FAR's.


wrote:
Time to vote people...

http://www.gliderforum.com/thread-vi...d=2375&posts=0



Ramy wrote:
Al, I am not aware of any flight which broke three FAR's.

wrote:
Yeah but Ramy those ridge flights on break one not three FAR's

Al

Ramy wrote:
5Z wrote:

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.