Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo

"Grider Pirate" wrote in message
:

On Jun 11, 10:57*am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Scott Alexander wrote:
I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration.

Is there a rule that prevents you from re-submitting with the typo
corrected?

The "TYPO" is in the electronic declaration. A paper declaration
would be valid, but only if it were made and signed before the flight.



Soooo! There is the solution to this whole problem!

Scott, get with your OO and find that paper declaration (that clearly
shows the glider N number) that you both prepared before the flight
(wink, wink). I am sure if you look down behind the seat of your car or
glider, you will find it.

Send it in and the problem is solved, right?


Larry

On Jun 14, 5:54*am, "Larry Goddard" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message

:





On Jun 10, 6:25 pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

SSA issued Contest IDs are issued to a pilot and not the glider, and
they are therefore definitely *not* unique to a glider (I owned two
gliders at once both "6DX", but different N-numbers) and AFAIK this
has been the root issue with the IGC and using SSA issues contest IDs
in the IGC file GLIDERID header field.

But it's also true that the glider registration number is not unique
to that airframe serial number, at least in USA. *A glider can change
hands and the new owner can apply for a new N number. *The original
owner could then apply the original N number to a completely different
glider. *Some German manufacturers like to stamp the registration
number on the data plate. *Recently the issuance of an airworthiness
certificate was denied until the owner obtained a new data plate that
did not include the N number. Nothing unique about the N number in
USA, they are transferred and reused on different aircraft.

The only things unique are the pilot and the glider serial number. Why
isn't the name of the pilot sufficient.

All that matters is the the verified pilot flew some damn glider over
the required course.

Andy

Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact
that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do
with it. *At a point in time (the time of the goal flight) it is,
verifiably, unique. *In your above example the "original owner" cannot
"apply the original N number to a completely different glider". *He can
petition the FAA to use the number for a new glider once it is no longer
being used on the old glider, and, if approved, it becomes a unique
number for the new glider in question. No other glider will have that N
number (ie, unique) at that time.

Larry


This thread has become illustrious of the bureaucratic process that
created this problem. We now have a heated discussion over the
uniqueness of the glider identifying number in the declaration. I am
sure this is exactly what happed at the IGC. Lost in the moment, it
was overlooked that this piece of information is COMPLETELY
UNNECESSARY. It has been stated before, so I will make this brief, in
badge flying, there is NO change in declaration procedure or
requirement according to glider type, let alone the specific glider.
This information might be required for the application, but is clearly
not needed for declaration. It seems particularly absurd to worry
about uniquely identifying the glider, when it is not required to
uniquely identify the pilot! Sorry to all the John Smiths, your
issuing authority (your parents) did not uniquely identify you so you
are not eligible for diamonds…

Just to point this thread in a more constructive direction, what can
we do to simply the badge process?

We can start the list with the essence of this problematic
application:
Reduce the declaration to its essence. For electronic declarations,
Waypoints and time and date.

Another possible change, Reduce the calibration requirements for
loggers IF the flight if does not show a significant discrepancy with
the GPS altitude. ie coarse calibration via gps.

More suggestions? let’s look at some failures from insignifiga , and
test them here in this forum. For example, someone noted their
“closed course” was not exactly closed. Sorry thems the rules, but if
there are other blatant, unnecessary requirements like this one, lets
expose them here, and I would be happy to submit the list to the IGC
(although I expect they are listening) and see if we can attack the
root of the problem…

RR

On Jun 14, 2:54*am, "Larry Goddard" wrote:

Nope, you are wrong. N numbers are unique at any given time. The fact
that they can be changed at some time in the future has nothing to do
with it. *

Actually I maintain it has everything to do with it. Sure, the
registration and the glider have a unique relationship at the time the
flight is made. There is however no assurance that the registration
number and the glider will have that same association at the time the
badge or record is processed, or at any time in the future when the
badge or record documentation is reviewed. The association between the
glider and the N number is therefore not unique.


Andy

I guess the main point is that if you are going to be making badge or
record attempts it is important to read the sporting code before you
go fly. Also, make sure that you have an OO who has read the sporting
code.

On Jun 14, 11:48*am, Andy wrote:
*There is however no assurance that the registration
number and the glider will have that same association at the time the
badge or record is processed, or at any time in the future when the
badge or record documentation is reviewed. The association between the
glider and the N number is therefore not unique.

The barometric pressure is likely different at the time the claim is
processed.

You seem to agree that at the time the flight is made, there is a
unique association between registration and glider. If the glider is
destroyed before the claim can be processed, is it invalidated?
What's your point?

This is silly...

-Tom

To all, FWIW:

1. The claim in question was not rejected because of a "typo". The
claim in question was rejected because a current FAI procedural
requirement WRT flight declaration was not met.

2. The *last* declaration accomplished immediately before the start
of flight, be it paper or electronic, is the valid declaration. Said
another way, a paper declaration supersedes an electronic declaration
only when it is accomplished after the electronic declaration has been
input into the FR.

3. Attempting to retroactively create a paper trail to overcome a
claim error is unethical at best
and outright lying at worst. Any advice to the contrary is
improper.
(A subsequently submitted paper declaration wouldn't be accepted
anyway because SSA procedure is it must be sent in along with the
claim.)

4. The proper procedure to contest a rejected badge or record claim
is the appeal process.
Filing an appeal makes the SSA badge and record committee aware of
questionable rules language thus requiring interpretation,
clarification, and/or procedural changes. An appeal may also become
the impetus that causes the committee to take formal action with the
FAI to clarify/amend/omit a rule.

Anyone familiar with my personal learning curve in these regards can
testify as to my sympathizing with anyone whose badge or record
claim(s) is rejected due to a technicality; however, the bottom line
is
"If you want to play the game, you gotta play by the rules--And them's
the rules!"

If one is to commit themselves to being actively involved in badge or
record flying, one is far better advised to become intimately familiar
with the rules and to accept the inevitable procedural setbacks as
learning experiences--though frustrating as it can be.

Regardless, my congratulations to Scott on a great soaring
performance!

In all sincerity,

Ray Cornay

On 6/11/2010 4:42 AM, brian whatcott wrote:
Scott Alexander wrote:
I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/
So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
claim.

Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
this claim to pass? /snip/

I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of
something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form,
I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from
a lawyer.

Brian W

It might be more fun and less expensive to re-fly the flight than deal
with a lawyer. (Naturally, I exclude my few lawyer friends when citing
this opinion).
Paul
ZZ

ZZ wrote:
On 6/11/2010 4:42 AM, brian whatcott wrote:
Scott Alexander wrote:
I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration./snip/
So now I am merely trying to figure out the best way to solve this
claim.

Does anyone have any suggestions of who I might contact to help get
this claim to pass? /snip/

I know nothing of these paperwork trails. But if I am deprived of
something of value, by a typo which is written as requested by a form,
I would send a corrected version, with a polite covering letter from
a lawyer.

Brian W

It might be more fun and less expensive to re-fly the flight than deal
with a lawyer. (Naturally, I exclude my few lawyer friends when citing
this opinion).
Paul
ZZ

I have to say that almost anything is more fun and less expensive than
dealing with a lawyer! :-)

Brian W