Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo

Użytkownik Grider Pirate napisał:

On top of what Darryl said, why does it matter AT ALL what glider the
flight was made in? The requirements are the same for a 1-26 as for
28 meter, 60/1 glider. I've OO'd a fair number of badge flights in the
last couple years, and don't recall any 'handicap' rating anywhere.
There should be proves that it was a solo flight and no engine has been
used. Identifying the glider also enables to check flight against club logs.

--
WojtuÅ›.net

On Jun 11, 3:00Â*am, Wojciech Scigala wrote:
Użytkownik Grider Pirate napisał:

On top of what Darryl said, why does it matter AT ALL what glider the
flight was made in? Â*The requirements are the same for a 1-26 as for
28 meter, 60/1 glider. I've OO'd a fair number of badge flights in the
last couple years, and don't recall any 'handicap' rating anywhere.

There should be proves that it was a solo flight and no engine has been
used. Identifying the glider also enables to check flight against club logs.

--
WojtuÅ›.net

The only "proof" in many cases it is a solo flight is the OO saying
so. Nothing stops a badge being awarded in a two seater by a solo
pilot. And I doubt clubs or FBO in the USA that has any records that
will catch cases of a (non-student) flying dual.

Again everything comes down to the OO. The OO should be allowed to
state a correction after the flight for the aircraft registration. Its
not like a contest ID incorrectly entered in the IGC file is
practically going to get confused with a USA n-number. The current
anal-retentive current treatment of GLIDERID is pointless and the
impact/annoyance of this is harming promoting the sport of soaring in
the USA. And it is not exactly endearing the IGC or SSA to many USA
pilots.

Darryl