A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 27th 19, 03:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.

Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.
  #32  
Old December 27th 19, 04:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 7:15:07 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:

You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.

Tom


Correct. I'm among the few lucky glider pilots with night flights endorsement. Three flights (patterns) with an instructor, three solo, the last one midnight to 12:08 AM. Didn't see the tow plane, just its navigation lights.. The runway was a black hole, couldn't see it, but it was marked ny a row of tourist propane lamps, including the landing position. All practically spot landings, unforgettable. I know, it's off topic, great experience anyway.


That sounds as interesting as doing night auto-rotations in the rain.
  #33  
Old December 27th 19, 05:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 394
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

1/8th of a mile? A sectional will shrink more than that by folding and unfolding it! If you’d have ironed the map, bet the 1/8th mile would miraculously reappear?

I remember Marcel Goudinat, I was working film in the 1975 Nationals at Minden. Marcel wasn’t in the contest, but handed me one roll of film and ask me to develop it for his badge flight................somehow his film got lost!............I told him to get his other roll of film (everybody used 2 cameras) Not Marcel........ If that little German had a gun, he’d of shot me!
RIP Nitpicker,
JJ
  #34  
Old December 27th 19, 05:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

An interesting question.Â* Do the FAI/IGC rules state simply that the
flight must be legal or that the flight must be completed before some
specifically defined time for the location, e.g., sunset, civil
twilight, night?

On 12/26/2019 6:18 PM, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 2:29:01 PM UTC-8, Tom BravoMike wrote:
On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
If sunset time is stated in hours and minutes, then minutes are what you validate, not minutes and seconds? I guess there is a lot more to this story we are not told.

Exactly my opinion, too.

You can legally fly a glider after sunset IF it is equipped with navigational lights. A friend of mine did exactly that. So, unless you KNOW the glider DIDN'T have nav lights, you can't say DEFINITIVELY that the flight was illegal.

Tom


--
Dan, 5J
  #35  
Old December 27th 19, 06:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition
by not completing a task under the established rules.

I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture
was taken outside of the zone.Â* Remember cameras and barographs?Â* The
pilot had shot three pictures (prematurely due to his excitement) and,
by connecting the pictures to show his flight path, it was clear to me
that he had, indeed, turned the point.Â* But the rules were specific.

I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn
point was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby
(within a mile) road intersection.Â* Sure, I flew the distance, but I did
not meet the letter of the rule.Â* I simply flew a different flight at a
later date.

So, I think that, should I attempt a 1,000 km flight in my Stemme, and I
need to run the engine for just a minute or so to avoid landing short of
home, I'll submit the claim and expect it to be approved.Â* I know I'll
get a lot of support here, since it's only just a little bit outside the
rules.

On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.

Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.


--
Dan, 5J
  #36  
Old December 27th 19, 06:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Roy B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 304
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

if you claim a record you have to sign the following statement:

I certify that this flight was conducted in accordance with the FAI
Sporting Code and with (1) all operating
limitations established by the aircraft manufacturer, (2) any more
restrictive operating limitations
imposed by national airworthiness regulations of the civil aviation
authority of the country of registration,
and (3) airspace regulations where the flight took place.
Signature of pilot

Jan:
While the contrary position is certainly reasonable, if I was the OO or the pilot here I would have confidence that a 2-3 minute late landing was neither an "operating limitation" nor an "airspace regulation" violation. I would sign the certification for that new record. I read items 1 and 2 as relating to the problem of flying overweight or similar matters, and #3 as relating to delineated controlled airspace violations. If the FAI wanted a certification that "all applicable flight regulations" were complied with - they would know how to write that, and they did not write that.
ROY
  #37  
Old December 27th 19, 06:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition
by not completing a task under the established rules.

I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture
was taken outside of the zone.Â* Remember cameras and barographs?Â* The
pilot had shot three pictures (prematurely due to his excitement) and,
by connecting the pictures to show his flight path, it was clear to me
that he had, indeed, turned the point.Â* But the rules were specific.

I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn
point was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby
(within a mile) road intersection.Â* Sure, I flew the distance, but I did
not meet the letter of the rule.Â* I simply flew a different flight at a
later date.

So, I think that, should I attempt a 1,000 km flight in my Stemme, and I
need to run the engine for just a minute or so to avoid landing short of
home, I'll submit the claim and expect it to be approved.Â* I know I'll
get a lot of support here, since it's only just a little bit outside the
rules.

On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:
Hey its great they were granted the record, as someone said, more power to them. I hope I can get the same minor consideration on a record flight.

Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good, but my OO was a wonderfull old minden soaring legend by the name of Marcel Goudinat. Being german, everything he did was with german precision. When he measured off my declaration (pre gps days) on the sectional, he told me I was 1/8 mile short. It did’nt matter that I had probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I was still deemed to be short lol.


--
Dan, 5J


I was denied a diamond goal when I had a logged position on either side of the 90 degree zone and a line could be drawn that would have crossed the zone, but because I made a sharp turn there was not a logged point in the sector. Flew it again, but for some reason my logger had a 2 minute gap in the logged flight. Third time was the charm.
  #38  
Old December 27th 19, 06:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

On 12/27/2019 10:12 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
I'm astonished that everyone seems to be OK with "winning" recognition by
not completing a task under the established rules.

I once denied a Diamond Distance claim because the turn point picture was
taken outside of the zone...snip...[b]ut the rules were specific.

I was once denied my Diamond Distance claim because, since the turn point
was covered by a thunder storm, I took a picture of a nearby (within a
mile) road intersection...



On 12/27/2019 7:40 AM, wrote:

snip
Years ago I missed out on my diamond goal by 1/8 of a mile in a low
performance machine. I made all my turnpoints, the pictures were good,
but [my O.O.] told me I was 1/8 mile short. It didn't matter that I had
probably flown an extra 20 miles that day working around areas of OD, I
was still deemed to be short lol.



BTDT - denied a badge claim for 'a technical infraction' (photos taken outside
the rules' sector) while acting as O.O. Spent more time
explaining-to/consoling applicant than was spent analyzing the photos.
'Rightly' he was mostly disappointed, as distinct from combative, hence the
commiseration. I'll bet Big Bucks he felt better after later achieving -
within the rules - that particular goal on a subsequent attempt.

I submit that anyone who deems it sufficiently important 'to the world' to
claim a flight (record or not) as 'completed within the rules' (a reasonable,
if oft-hidden assumption of Joe Casual Peruser of such flights) - when it is
NOT so completed - is a strange creature indeed...a person who can live with
himself and go to sleep with a peaceful mind knowing rules intended ONLY for
peer approval (as distinct from - say- monetary reward, etc.) were not
followed. A person comfortable lying to himself and lying to the world.
Perhaps for some...

Philosophically pondering,

Bob W.
  #39  
Old December 27th 19, 06:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 12:17:25 PM UTC-5, Roy B. wrote:
if you claim a record you have to sign the following statement:

I certify that this flight was conducted in accordance with the FAI
Sporting Code and with (1) all operating
limitations established by the aircraft manufacturer, (2) any more
restrictive operating limitations
imposed by national airworthiness regulations of the civil aviation
authority of the country of registration,
and (3) airspace regulations where the flight took place.
Signature of pilot

Jan:
While the contrary position is certainly reasonable, if I was the OO or the pilot here I would have confidence that a 2-3 minute late landing was neither an "operating limitation" nor an "airspace regulation" violation. I would sign the certification for that new record. I read items 1 and 2 as relating to the problem of flying overweight or similar matters, and #3 as relating to delineated controlled airspace violations. If the FAI wanted a certification that "all applicable flight regulations" were complied with - they would know how to write that, and they did not write that.
ROY


The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.

4.4.2.a. says...

"For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."

If I'd flown that flight, I'd have not submitted a record claim. I would not have signed off as an OO and I darned sure would not have ratified the record as a record keeper. And I'm only half German, lol. The flight is not diminished in any way, it's just another amusing story to tell.

The pilot that can fly 1250 km doesn't do so by accident. Do it again, do it correctly in all respects, get the record without fudging anything, have an even better story to tell and *another* wonderful flight.

Bless those fussy full blooded Germans, long may they continue to build such beautiful and capable flying machines. Bless the nitpickers, may they find jobs in QC working for our favorite manufacturers of flying machines of all types.

T8
  #40  
Old December 27th 19, 07:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Roy B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 304
Default FAI ratifies records of illegal flights.

The 2017 SC3 is worded differently.
4.4.2.a. says...
"For all claims the pilot must certify that the flight was conducted in accordance with the Code, was flown in compliance with all the glider manufacturer’s and national operating limitations, and in accordance with national flight regulations (airspace use, night flight, etc.)."

Tango:
This just confirms the point I am trying to make. The FAI had the right to make the certification more strict than it was and it later did that. That means that there was an issue (maybe) with the old form of certification - but it does not mean the pilot or OO were wrong to sign the old certification.

There seems no question but had any of the 3 bodies (NAC of South Africa, the NAC of Holland, or the FAI itself) all of whom reviewed and approved this record denied the record - the pilot would have won his appeal. He did the flight, the record performance ended at the finish line, and the issue of landing time was outside the certification. Case over. He gets the record.
ROY
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
North American X-15 pics [1/8] - Boeing_NB-52A_carrying_X-15 horizontal X-15 silhouettes denote glide flights, diagonal silhouettes denote powered flights.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 June 10th 18 02:01 PM
North American X-15 pics 1 [03/11] - NB-52A , permanent test variant, carrying an X-15, with mission markings...horizontal X-15 silhouettes denote glide flights, diagonal silhouettes denote powered flights..jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 October 5th 17 10:58 AM
All US Records are Now Motor Glider Records Tango Eight Soaring 99 March 23rd 17 01:07 PM
Night lights, night flights, OLC and records Denis Soaring 19 October 9th 06 11:51 PM
40,000 U$ Soldiers are Illegal Aliens, Drafted for Illegal War Gordon Military Aviation 6 September 7th 03 03:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.