End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

No doubt about the fact that Doug is promoting OLC. I don't think I
directed public trashing at him, if it seems like, my appologize. I
(and others) simply pointed out the inaccuracies, consequences and
potential consequences of some of his acts.
I rest my case,

Ramy

Quebec Tango wrote:
Ramy,
Give it a rest. Along with his day job, Doug puts in many long hours
promoting OLC in the USA. Like the rest of us he is human. He just
doesn't deserve the public trashing you have been directing at him.
QT

Well, Tom, the answer, as always, is yes and no. Please see some comments
below.

"5Z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug and others are contacting the pilots directly and asking them to
remove the flight. It is the pilot's responsibility to remove the
flight - if I understand what has been going on recently. As I
understand it, there needs to be a gross disregard for sporting conduct
for the OLC organizers to remove a flight without a pilot's permission.

The idea here is to present a good image of our sport, not to nitpick
nuances of regulations.

Technically, I have to give it to Doug -- no flights that I know of have
been removed, per se. Instead, the score has been set to zero -- to my
knowledge, without as much as a notice to the pilot -- which has the effect
of moving the flight to the bottom of the very last page in daily results.
So if I am looking at the daily flights on the default OLC page, then the
flight simply won't be there. Do you call this "removed"? Well, yes and no.

(It is interesting to note that this action seems entirely
counter-productive in regards to the SSA-OLC's declared goal of presenting
good image to the FAA. If FAA were to trawl OLC for violations they'd pay no
attention to scores whatsoever.)

When I look at a flight on the OLC and the altitude exceeds 5500m
consistently, I'll take a closer look and may ping the pilot about it.
I don't (and probably Doug as well) download all logs and run them
through my "OLC Scruitinizer 2006"

I'll bet you a buck that this is precisely what Doug does -- download logs
and run them through "OLC Scrutinizer 2006". (Maybe not *all* logs... which
is a problem in and by itself that I already ranted about: how does he pick
the ones to scrutinize? Based on "formal complaints", we were told, but
let's face it -- this is not a transparent process.)

The reason I am so sure is this. Some violations that Doug alleges simply
can not be seen on the OLC flight information pages. Crude barogram in
meters is one example, but the latest wave of allegations (see the subject)
is a better one. Did you notice that takeoff and landing times do not show
anywhere on the OLC flight info page, nor do the local sunrise and sunset
times? Only the start and finish times do. So if a pilot finishes a task
before sunset, then that's what the OLC shows. If said pilot then makes a
straight line dash to the nearest suitable airport for a safe landing, and
meanwhile the Sun happens to cross the imaginary (as anybody who flies in
the mountains would know) line called horizon, then yes, we have a
violation. However, it won't show on the OLC -- instead, the trace will have
to be downloaded, run through the "OLC Scrutinizer 2006" and the actual
landing time extracted and compared to a reliable source of astronomic data.

So one thing I can tell: if anybody does actually benefit from this, this
fella Doug does a heluva lot of work for them.

-Tom
--
Yuliy

Denis wrote:
Doug Haluza a écrit :

Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.

Is there a sporting aspect to the presence of night lights ? Does it
provide any competitive advantage ? Or does it show up in the flight log ???

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

The flying past sunset does give a competitive advantage, since it
extends the length of the day, and therefore the distance covered. And
it does show up in the flight log. Since night lighting is very rare on
gliders, the pilot needs to make a note on the OLC claim if the glider
was equipped with lights.

Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this.

So if a glider is equiped with light, and legally lands 30 minutes
after sunset, it would no longer consider an unfair advantage?

Doug Haluza wrote:
Denis wrote:
Doug Haluza a écrit :

Now as far as OLC goes, there is no sporting aspect to the N-number
placement. Putting N-numbers on the gear doors does not provide any
meaningful competitive advantage. And it does not show up in the flight
log. So we would not be concerned with this in the OLC.

Is there a sporting aspect to the presence of night lights ? Does it
provide any competitive advantage ? Or does it show up in the flight log ???

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

The flying past sunset does give a competitive advantage, since it
extends the length of the day, and therefore the distance covered. And
it does show up in the flight log. Since night lighting is very rare on
gliders, the pilot needs to make a note on the OLC claim if the glider
was equipped with lights.

Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this.

Doug Haluza wrote:
Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this.

Being specific:
===
Sport Code - Section 3
4.5.3 Night flight

A flight which continues beyond the hours of legal daylight in the
country concerned shall not be validated, except where the glider and
pilot comply with the laws of that country for night flight.
===

There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

Marc

Is night cross-country in an adequately-equipped glider
inherently more dangerous than night cross-country
in a Cessna ? Each is one failure [loss of lift or
loss of engine] away from that dark field. It might
be more accurate to say that at night you need to give
yourself much wider safety margins than in daylight.

Ian





At 23:12 12 September 2006, Doug Haluza wrote:

Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility
of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until
someone dies to
address this.

Nicely put, Marc.

Marc Ramsey wrote:
There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

Marc

Ramy wrote:
So if a glider is equiped with light, and legally lands 30 minutes
after sunset, it would no longer consider an unfair advantage?

Just as it's not an unfair advantage to put every available electronic
device in the cockpit.

Nor is it unfair to file an instrument flight plan to make a wave
flight, etc....

-Tom

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
Now as for whether we should allow night flight in gliders equipped
with lights, FAI has not yet covered this in the Sporting Code. It
still permits night flight with lights. Obviously, night cross country
in gliders is very dangerous, due to the possibility of an outlanding
in a dark field, so I hope we don't have to wait until someone dies to
address this.

Being specific:
===
Sport Code - Section 3
4.5.3 Night flight

A flight which continues beyond the hours of legal daylight in the
country concerned shall not be validated, except where the glider and
pilot comply with the laws of that country for night flight.
===

There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

Do you believe requiring pilots to adhere to FAA rules (already in place
before the flight) like airspace and sunset for an OLC flight is
"changing the rules" for an OLC flight? As far as the lights go, I can
imagine the IGC, OLC, or the SSA might decide (sometime in the future)
that competitions would be better if sunset was chosen for the end of
the day. I can't imagine it would happen without the usual discussion
(meaning, for example, Doug H wouldn't decide it on his own); and if it
did, there would be lot of discussion afterwards, and undoubtedly
pressure on our directors to reconsider, so it wouldn't remain for long
as an "arbitrary" decision.

Personally, I would be in favor of an OLC rule that requires landing by
sunset to avoid giving an advantage to the few gliders with lights, and
to discourage pilots from adding lights. It would not require a change
in the sporting code.

I have a 36 ah battery, so I could add lights without too much trouble,
but I think the OLC would be better if I had to land before sunset.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Marc Ramsey wrote:
There is a defined process for changing the Sporting Code, involving
public notifications, votes at more than one plenary session, discussion
amongst delegates, etc. This is intended to provide stability, such
that if one goes to the trouble of, say, adding position lights to their
glider, they don't have to worry that some people sitting around a table
three months later will arbitrarily change the rules on them. With
respect, I wish the same could be said of the SSA...

I don't see this as any kind of rules change. The SSA stated a postion
last year that it is unsportsmanlike to break FARs. The SSA will not
enforce these rules, but suggests we strive to police ourselves.

I am taking it on faith that Doug is not scanning logs for violations,
but is responding to individuals bringing particular flights to his
attention.

-Tom