Diamond goal flight rejected due to typo

On Jun 10, 11:13*am, Andy wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander
wrote:

Sorry for your loss. *I'm glad I got all my diamonds in the days when
a camera, barograph, and the word of my observer were all that
mattered.

Even a person on trial for murder seems to get more "reasonable doubt"
than a badge applicant these days.

Andy

guilty until proven innocent does seem to be the status quo for the
FAI.

On Jun 10, 10:08*am, Scott Alexander
wrote:
I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
good, it's still rejected.

On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
count.

I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.

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? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
diamond flight.

As mentioned to Scott offline, there is a formal appeals process that
first needs to be followed. More shortly.

Cringingly,
Erik Mann
SSA's FAI B&R Committee

snip
*Never mind
that many igc approved flight recorders do not specifically ask you
for this. *My C-302, for instance, prompts one for the "competition
ID". *And in competition, this is what the scorer wants in that field
(I've asked).

There are many in the SSA that would like to see this sorted out. *The
obvious place to go is the badge and record committee chairman, who
(ahem) is probably reading this and cringing (sorry). *Judy, as you
have already guessed, takes the other side of the debate.

snip

This is a good point, I looked back through the IGC files I have from
the 18 meter nationals last year and see a mix of Contest Numbers and
N-numbers used in the IGC files. I don't recall any serious issues
with this during scoring so I am suspicious that Guy has somehow
accounted for this in the Winscore software. I do see most are using
the competition ID.

I have sent Guy an email for confirmation of if the N number is
acceptable in the GLIDERID field and still have the contest number
show on the score sheet.

If the FAI is going to require the N-number in this field, it only
makes sense that we should be either require it be used in our
contests or at least allow either to be used so it doesn't need to be
change between contest flights and badge flights.

Brian C.

On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander
wrote:
I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
good, it's still rejected.

On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
count.

I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.

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? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
diamond flight.

Scott

It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
of this IGC/FAI stupidity.

But I want to be fair to Judy and others involved in this from the SSA
side. And as I've pointed out to Scott before privately, this was not
just something buried in fine print in Soaring Magazine. Judy and
others have posted on r.a.s about this specific issue (e.g. here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e65a08771f765a)

And this is specifically clarified in the latest (2009 revised) Pilot
and OO Guide Section 6.3.c. Which unfortunately has the effect of
tying Judy's hands on this issue.

So your likely most effective line of attack here is to make your next
flight count, read the current (i.e. 2009 revised) sporting code and
guide carefully and do what Judy has advised clearly in the past --
*always* do a paper declaration after you make the electronic one so
that paper declaration will override the electronic one. Doing that
will normally cure this and several other common declaration problems.
I've recently helped one pilot with advice through to his diamonds and
he had gone through all sorts of similar frustrations before, but he
was recently saved by doing just that paper declaration.

And just so I don't look like I am defending the IGC on this... If the
goal of the IGC/FAI was to marginalize soaring badges, to make them
look like petty bureaucratic bull****, they are doing a bang-up job.
The role of badges will continue to wane, lots of local pilots seem to
have little interest in dealing with this anymore. And having a set of
badges to your name as proof of skill or accomplishment is replaced
for many people by a decent OLC ranking or at least some great OLC
flights. There is no proof that the pilot in the cockpit is who is
described in the IGC file header, and there is no proof that the
logger was installed in the glider claimed in the header, it all
relies on the OO being honest. So given that I cannot fathom why IGC
bureaucrats care whether the GLIDERID field in the header contains the
glider registration or a pilot specific contest ID. If they want to be
pedantic for world records then fine, but for badges this is just mind-
numbingly stupid bureaucracy.


Darryl

On Jun 10, 10:51*am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:08*am, Scott Alexander
wrote:





I received an email stating that my diamond goal flight has been
rejected due to a typo on my igc declaration. *Despite the fact that
the security was good, all turnpoints rounded ok, and everything else
good, it's still rejected.

On the IGC declaration where it says "registered ID" *I typed in "SA"
because that is my paid-for registered contest ID. *Apparently I
should have typed in "N-2429". *So because of this, the flight doesn't
count.

I was also informed that on page 53 of the March 2010 Soaring
magazine, it says (in 8 point font) that you can no longer use your
register contest ID. *This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to
me. *The glider type is in question, not the security, date or name
even though it's not a handicapped claim! *I only own one aircraft,
which can be easily verified through the FAA aircraft registry.

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? *I would really like to say I did a diamond flight
but unfortunately because of this new rule, I can't say I did a
diamond flight.

Scott

It is saddening to see an otherwise valid badge claim rejected because
of this IGC/FAI stupidity.

But I want to be fair to Judy and others involved in this from the SSA
side. And as I've pointed out to Scott before privately, this was not
just something buried in fine print in Soaring Magazine. Judy and
others have posted on r.a.s about this specific issue (e.g. herehttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/browse_frm/thread...)

And this is specifically clarified in the latest (2009 revised) Pilot
and OO Guide Section 6.3.c. Which unfortunately has the effect of
tying Judy's hands on this issue.

So your likely most effective line of attack here is to make your next
flight count, read the current (i.e. 2009 revised) sporting code and
guide carefully and do what Judy has advised clearly in the past --
*always* do a paper declaration after you make the electronic one so
that paper declaration will override the electronic one. Doing that
will normally cure this and several other common declaration problems.
I've recently helped one pilot with advice through to his diamonds and
he had gone through all sorts of similar frustrations before, but he
was recently saved by doing just that paper declaration.

And just so I don't look like I am defending the IGC on this... If the
goal of the IGC/FAI was to marginalize soaring badges, to make them
look like petty bureaucratic bull****, they are doing a bang-up job.
The role of badges will continue to wane, lots of local pilots seem to
have little interest in dealing with this anymore. And having a set of
badges to your name as proof of skill or accomplishment is replaced
for many people by a decent OLC ranking or at least some great OLC
flights. There is no proof that the pilot in the cockpit is who is
described in the IGC file header, and there is no proof that the
logger was installed in the glider claimed in the header, it all
relies on the OO being honest. So given that I cannot fathom why IGC
bureaucrats care whether the GLIDERID field in the header contains the
glider registration or a pilot specific contest ID. If they want to be
pedantic for world records then fine, but for badges this is just mind-
numbingly stupid bureaucracy.

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

Guy just got back to me and as usually he is pretty much on top of
this from the contest scoring side. IGC files can have either a a
GLIDERID field or a COMPETITIONID feild. The Winscore software checks
both for the competition ID.

The issue appears to be with some loggers. In looking at a selection
of files I have seen either field and some have both. The problem
would only occur if the logger only stores a GLIDERID field. It would
be interesting to know what what loggers do this but do not store the
COMPETITIONID. This would force the pilot to use the GLIDERID for the
COMPETITIONID.

Brian

I check the IGC files I had and found of the ones I could check the
C302 and Clearnav and my EW-model D seemed to be the only Loggers that
did not have a competion ID.

It looked like perhap only the older Cambridge, I am unsure what model
did not have a GliderID.

This doesn't meant that they can't be configured to have both, I just
didn't see them in the IGC files I looked at.

here are my results:

GLIDERID COMPETITIONID
Clearnav X
Volkslogger X X
Cambridige? X
C302 X
EW-MR X X
EW-mod D X
Flarm X X
Winpilot X X
Zander GP940 X X

Brian

On Jun 10, 10:02Â*am, Wojciech Scigala wrote:
Użytkownik Scott Alexander napisał:

I want this time to count. Â*Glad you got it approved Evan....anyone
else have any suggestions?

SC3 (valid 2009 AL0 edition), para 4.2.1.c (declaration content):
- glider type, and its registration _or_ serial number _or_ unique
NAC-assigned contest number.

Are SSA contest IDs unique?

Also, SC3 Annex C, para 1.2:
"OOs and National Claim Officers are encouraged to take the position
that, ensuring the rules are met, their goal is to make awards, not turn
them down for minor errors or oversights that do not affect the proof of
a soaring performance."

An OO's special statement about the glider flown should be enough to
solve the case IMHO.

--
WojtuÅ›.net

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

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.

On Jun 10, 4:43*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 feel your pain Scott. I lost a 500K flight last year, due to a
faulty way point file in my logger, that did not show up on the PDA
while flying.