Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo

On Jun 11, 3:55*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The OO in
this case really let the pilot down.


It's easy to do. My OO -- who was completely blind sided by the same
'defect' was our IGC delegate....

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On 6/11/2010 1:47 PM, RL wrote:
The inherent problem is a self-serving “system” that has evolved into
the absurd over the years. The focus is on procedures rather than
results.

I suspect (as in, am just about 99.98276% certain!) this 'focus on
procedures' is an easy trap for folks 'in the IGC position' to fall
into. That noted, put me in the category of agreeing a 'real O.O.'
shouldn't let stuff like [Scott A.'s oversight] happen on his watch;
plenty of blame to go around.

For the record, while wearing my O.O. hat, I never had a badge
application fail/be-returned for any reason...when the requirements
changed with new technology and it was too much personal hassle to
remain 'up' on them, I simply stowed my O.O. hat.)
- - - - - -

Snip...
SSA currently has a
group working on some of these issues, but as you’ve often heard the
Chairman say, the Staff relies on members to get things done. I would
suggest a small uprising of SSA members focused on reforming badge
flight documentation would an appropriate action. A grass-roots
effort to put the fun back in badge flying… now there’s an idea! A
couple of thousand e-mail messages to SSA HQ, or your Regional
Director, would be a good start for a grass-roots movement to reform
an out-dated bureaucratic badge system.
Management 101 - assign responsibility for the project to whomever
thought it up - at least that person cared enough to think and whine
about things!

Whiners take note...if you *really* care, be prepared to follow-up and
take action.
- - - - - -

So, what would rational, functional, and user-friendly badge flight
documentation look like?

GREAT QUESTION!!! - don't be shy with responses! And don't imagine that
because this is a 'U.S. problem' that all the good ideas can come only
from the U.S.

Quite possibly here's a chance for RAS to genuinely benefit a bit of the
sport we all love...by becoming a central repository for ideas.

My 'forest' list includes:
- define the forest before diving into the trees (i.e. What're our
goal[s]? For whom? Who gets hurt if anyone cheats? KISS.)
- I don't care too much about the trees until we're in general agreement
about the nature of the forest...

Bob W.

On Jun 11, 7:13*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=67...w=blog&id=2001

I doubt there is a case for an appeal.

I can't agree with you. There appears to be nothing in the kit itself
that says a constest number is not allowed to be used. A discussion
or posting on RAS does not make a rule. A note on the SSA website
does not make a rule. A notice in the Soaring magazine does not make
a rule. The rules are included in the kit and specifically in the SC
summary:

Declaration content
a. Date of flight.
b. Name of the pilot-in-command, and the flight crew if any (see Annex
C, para 6.3c).
c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique NAC-
assigned contest number.
d. The make, model and serial number of the FR used (as recorded in
the .igc file for the flight). For any barograph or GPS position
recorder used, the make, model and serial
number as verified by the OO before flight.

If something else is to be enforced then the kit itself must be
changed. Perhaps the kit should include the statement "All observers
and badge applicants shall read all past issues of Soaring Magazine
and shall browse all postings on RAS or the SAA website since anything
published there shall take precedence over the rules published in this
kit".

Andy

On Jun 11, 6:13*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 11, 7:13*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=67...w=blog&id=2001

I doubt there is a case for an appeal.

I can't agree with you. *There appears to be nothing in the kit itself
that says a constest number is not allowed to be used. *A discussion
or posting on RAS does not make a rule. *A note on the SSA website
does not make a rule. *A notice in the Soaring magazine does not make
a rule. *The rules are included in the kit and specifically in the SC
summary:

Declaration content
a. Date of flight.
b. Name of the pilot-in-command, and the flight crew if any (see Annex
C, para 6.3c).
c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique NAC-
assigned contest number.
d. The make, model and serial number of the FR used (as recorded in
the .igc file for the flight). For any barograph or GPS position
recorder used, the make, model and serial
number as verified by the OO before flight.

If something else is to be enforced then the kit itself must be
changed. Perhaps the kit should include the statement "All observers
and badge applicants shall read all past issues of Soaring Magazine
and shall browse all postings on RAS or the SAA website since anything
published there shall take precedence over the rules published in this
kit".

Andy

Well, it seems to me that what's actually important in an e-
declaration is: turn point coords and time stamp. Period. Everything
else can be handled just as well if not better by the application
form, which is attested to and signed by the OO. Everything else in
the declaration is simply fluff. Needless, valueless booby traps.

I am hopeful that we may yet see this sorted out.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jun 11, 3:13*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 11, 7:13*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=67...w=blog&id=2001

I doubt there is a case for an appeal.

I can't agree with you. *There appears to be nothing in the kit itself
that says a constest number is not allowed to be used. *A discussion
or posting on RAS does not make a rule. *A note on the SSA website
does not make a rule. *A notice in the Soaring magazine does not make
a rule. *The rules are included in the kit and specifically in the SC
summary:

Declaration content
a. Date of flight.
b. Name of the pilot-in-command, and the flight crew if any (see Annex
C, para 6.3c).
c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique NAC-
assigned contest number.
d. The make, model and serial number of the FR used (as recorded in
the .igc file for the flight). For any barograph or GPS position
recorder used, the make, model and serial
number as verified by the OO before flight.

If something else is to be enforced then the kit itself must be
changed. Perhaps the kit should include the statement "All observers
and badge applicants shall read all past issues of Soaring Magazine
and shall browse all postings on RAS or the SAA website since anything
published there shall take precedence over the rules published in this
kit".

Andy

Ah this has already been well covered in this thread, but here goes
again.

A careful reading of SC3 and SC3c shows this is spelt out.

SC3 4.2.1 "Declaration content
a. blah blah...
....
c. Glider type, and its registration or serial number or unique
NAC-assigned contest number.
d. blah blah..."

Here I read this as clearly intended to mean "unique"to the glider not
pilot since it is in the context of Glider type and its' registration.

But what I think does not matter, as any doubt is removed in SC3 Annex
C 6.3c that clarifies this rule... "[blah blah blah....] Not all NACs
issue competition numbers or require them to be unique to a glider –
the glider registration or its serial number must then be used."

So the sporting code is pretty clear that the intent is you need to
use the a unique glider ID, the SSA Contest ID does not appear to
qualify. And I as posted previously by Eric Mann this has been
apparently been hashed over between the IGC and SSA. So lets make
progress and agree that this is the current rule. Next question is
does this has an unreasonable impact on badges and records, and the
promotion of soaring, in the USA and a solution needs to be found?
(count me as a "yes" on that).


Darryl

On Jun 11, 3:49*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

But what I think does not matter, as any doubt is removed in SC3 Annex
C 6.3c that clarifies this rule... "[blah blah blah....] Not all NACs
issue competition numbers or require them to be unique to a glider –
the glider registration or its serial number must then be used."

Is that rule included in the SSA kit?

Is that interpretation of the validity of SSA issued contest numbers
included in the SSA kit?

If not, and I can't find either, then I stand by what I posted.


Andy

On Jun 11, 4:09*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:49*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

But what I think does not matter, as any doubt is removed in SC3 Annex
C 6.3c that clarifies this rule... "[blah blah blah....] Not all NACs
issue competition numbers or require them to be unique to a glider –
the glider registration or its serial number must then be used."

Is that rule included in the SSA kit?

Is that interpretation of the validity of SSA issued contest numbers
included in the SSA kit?

If not, and I can't find either, then I stand by what I posted.

Andy

SSA Kit? I have no idea what the "SSA Kit" is. Ah tell me you are not
reading the SSA provided sporting code summary and thinking this is
the only thing you need to read? right? And you are not thinking this
is the definite document on the badge rules for the SSA? If people
have this impression then the SSA summary ought to be removed from the
SSA web site or fixed - for a start it seems to not mention the USA/
SSA hot issue that is the topic of this thread. There are many guide
documents and simple versions of badge/records forms that seem to do
more harm than good in this area. It is better to send people to the
actual documents.).

The SSA Badge Web site does link to the set of SC3 documents including
SC3 and Annex C. Its the first link at the top of the badge documents
page. But regardless of anything else you read the formal FAI badge
rules are defined by the FAI sporting code SC3 and additional
clarification in SC3c, whether that is in any "SSA Kit" is irrelevant--
the SSA does not get to change the actual sporting code. Besides being
written in SC3 in what I believe is clear English, I've pointed out
the very straightforward clarification in SC3 Annex C and last year
both the chair of the badge and records committee and Judy worked to
point out this issue, including on r.a.s. I understand that this may
be missed on the first readings, and (as I do) you may not agree with
it, but it is there plain as day.

The more useful issue to worry about is the rule is a poor one and
should be fixed/mitigated/worked around/ignored by the NAC/etc.

Darryl

On Jun 11, 3:55*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:11*pm, bildan wrote:





On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Jun 10, 6:28*pm, Frank wrote:

On Jun 10, 6:43*pm, Scott Alexander
wrote:

SSA contest numbers are unique but they are assigned to a person not a
sailplane. Maybe that is the rub.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes I own the rights to SA my contest ID. *But suppose my friend let
me use his Discus to do the flight, it wouldn't have made a flip of
difference of the validity of the flight. *Again, the only problem
here is that I typed in SA vs. N-2429. *So therefor it makes the whole
entire claim Invalid.

I appreciate the fact that we have dedicated people in this sport who
are going provide checks and balances to badges and record claims.. *I
really do appreciate them. *It would take the fun out of soaring if
somebody set a record using an engine. *But this is overkill.

I got a few emails today on an appeal process. *Hopefully this will
get overturned. *Diamonds don't grow on trees down here in
Memphis....doing the flight again in a club class glider would call
for some more good luck.

I too lost a 500K flight recently due to the same sort of nonsense. *I
have been at many SSA sessions where everyone at the table wrings
their hands and says "we aren't getting new people into the sport" and
"our membership is decreasing - what can we do to bring in new
members?". *Meanwhile, back at SSA headquarters, badge and record
flights are being rejected right and left for no good reason, thereby
alienating the members we do have. *I personally no longer give a
rat's ass about badge and record flights because you have to take two
lawyers and an accountant along with you on the flight, and I only
have a single-place glider.

TA

Frank,

I don't think it is the SSA. It is the IGC. The SSA is following the
IGC rules as clarified in painful detail to them by the IGC. If the
SSA decides to just ignore the IGC rules then I could see the final
outcome would be to lose FAI record and badge setting authority. I
agree it's worth identifying the jackass responsible for this, but I
don't think it is the SSA.

Darryl

Darryl,

You have my sympathy but you're in good company - hundreds if not
thousands of pilots have had badge claims denied over the years
because of a paperwork glitch. * It pays to read the rules - and have
a good OO looking over your shoulder as you fill out the forms.

It happened to me. *I flew an 300 km out and return but got credit for
Gold Distance and not Diamond Goal because the start and finish were 1
km apart - not the same point - my bad. *I didn't complain, I just
cleared the memory of the Volkslogger and flew another 300 km O&R for
Diamond Goal. *Both flights were a lot of fun so I didn't have much to
complain about.

Bill D

I don't need your sympathy. I've never had a badge claim rejected, but
I've come close more than once. And As I've suggested here Scott's
most effective resolution of this problem is to go do the flight again
properly.

As somebody's who has worked to locally promote badge flights, given
local seminars/talks on badges, helped explain the common traps and
helped mentor a few people through badges, worked with local clubs/
FBOs etc to make sure they are clear on the exact GLIDERID/Contest ID
issue discussed here, etc... I'll restate my points on this...

1. The sporting code _is_ clear. You do have to read it a few times.

2. The SSA has communicated this issue fairly well.

3. While Scott has my sympathy, I really don't care about the impact
on an individual badge claim.

4. I do care on the net overall affect of this particularly pedantic
rule and the impact on lots of Scott's and others trying for their
badges. Especially combined with -
a) A long running tradition in the USA of entering the SSA Contest
number as the GLIDERID
b) Confusing software UI and documentation from IGC flight recorder
vendors that state "contest ID" when it means "GLIDER ID".
c) The complete pedantic nature of this actual rule interpretation,
and its non-impact of this on anything important.

Here is the minimal solution I would like for the USA: *have the OO
just be able to document (post-badge application on inquiry from the
SSA if needed) that in cases where a valid SSA contest ID was entered
for that pilot instead of the N-number what the actual glider N-number
was. Of course this is perfectly easily handled today by doing a paper
declaration after the electronic one. As has been suggested on r.a.s
many times. So while I'm complaining about the IGC interpretation of
this rule I'm equally complaining about pilots who cannot get basic
stuff like this right _and_ also choose to not do a paper declaration.
The suggestion for doing a paper declaration has been around for ages,
it covers a lot of possible sins, so it's not a new thing. The OO in
this case really let the pilot down.

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Responding here completely in an unofficial capacity, Darryl has
really done a wonderful job in this thread of getting to the essence
of the issue. In years past (pre 1995), a "declaration" was a
piece of paper with crystal clear instructions. At least here in the
US, the "identifying information" including Pilot, Crew Member,
Sailplane Model and Registration,and Barograph Serial Number (i.e.
the parts of the declaration that DON'T impact the TASK) were rarely
if ever entered erroneously. 99% of claims here in the US were done
against a simple form that made it (almost) impossible to get this
stuff wrong.

Fast forward to 2010, and we have PDAs running various software
(Winpilot, Seeyou, FlywithCE, Glide Naviator, MyCousinBobsMovingMap)
all trying to interface to dozens of FRs (old CAI, Newer CAI,
Volksloggers, Colibris, EWs, etc.) . Not to mention laptops that
aren't talking to older, serial-based devices, newer devices with SD
cards and inscrutable boot sequences, etc. The problem is that the
technology and the rules have diverged. And, the more we've tried to
get prescriptive in the declaration, the more chances we've created
for pilots to get it wrong.

Anyway, I'm certainly hopeful that we'll find some common sense fixes
to the rash of issues we're seeing.

P3

On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."

But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
requirement.

-T8

On Jun 12, 8:18*am, T8 wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:01*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

*FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS REQUIREMENT TO ENTER THE
GLIDER N-NUMBER FOR GLIDERID INSTEAD OF A CONTEST ID WILL RESULT IN
THE DENIAL OF THE BADGE CLAIM."

But it would just be so much simpler to eliminate this totally useless
requirement.

-T8

It would be even simpler to tell the IGC to take a hike, and tell the
badge lady to quit rejecting badge and record claims over
technicalities. If the IGC wants to go to the trouble of rejecting
claims that the SSA has already approved, let them. I'll bet $10 that
the IGC (remember, its just another big, bloated bureaucracy filled
with people who don't like doing work) will never trouble itself.
After all, if it is clear that the flight actually happened, and any
technical difficulties with the declaration can be cleared up with a
few emails, then that should do it.

If the IGC *does* object to common sense, then its time to drop the
IGC entirely and go our own way with badges and records. I could care
less if a badge award says 'FAI' or 'SSA' - does anyone else in the
U.S.?

Frank