End of Season Sunset Warning for SSA-OLC Participants

Looking at the cover of the current Soaring, Eric M. is clearly
operating in violation of CFR 14 Section 45.25. If he's submitted any
flights to OLC this year, does he have to remove them all? 8^)

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Looking at the cover of the current Soaring, Eric M. is clearly
operating in violation of CFR 14 Section 45.25. If he's submitted any
flights to OLC this year, does he have to remove them all? 8^)

Marc

Well, actually you bring up a very good point with this, whether you
meant to or not. This is analgous to the problem we are dealing with in
the OLC. By publishing this photo, on the cover of Soaring no less, it
damages the group by reinforcing incorrect behavior. Not only does it
show non-glider pilots that we don't do the right thing (even when it's
just as easy to do it right), it also shows glider pilots the wrong
thing to do, which they may try to emulate.

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.

But I would expect that if the pilot showed up at a contest with this,
and someone noted the problem, a reasonable pilot would correct the
problem immediately. I think it would be unreasonable to take the
position that since nobody specificaly told them in advance that they
must display proper N-numbers, that they don't have to fix it until
next year.

Ramy wrote:
Doug, the sunset rule may have been on the books, but not on olc rules
until recently.

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

You decided to enforce it retroactively, which is unfair to say the
least. I guess this is one way to win a contest, when someone is
catching up - remove their flights...

The OLC software developers *could* create various validation schemes,
but have instead chosen to provide a method for peers to submit a
complaint. The SSA put out a statement regarding the FARs sometime
last fall, in Dennis' column in "Soaring" if I recollect correctly.

There have been several statements made through various channels in the
last year about the need for peer review of flying habits. Now,
finally, Doug has found the time to go over claims made this year to
identify some of the more obvious ones.

simple fact is that OLC was great until SSA took over. It is simply a
shame the way it has been administered. You managed to upset your most
loyal promoters and contestants.

What is a shame, is that some participants make what they feel are
"harmless" violations of regulations, then make a record of this
behavior available online.

It is a shame that one pilot will choose to open the spoilers and land
before sunset while another continues to climb in that last evening
thermal, watch the sun set, then glide another 50 miles - and then
claim the distance in a sporting competition.

-Tom

5Z wrote:

Violating FARs is unsportsmanlike. An IGC file provides definitive
proof of the time and 3D location of the sailplane. The OLC has always
stated or implied that one must adhere to local flight regulations.
Doing anything else is unsportsmanlike.

So what about FAR Part 91 Sec. 91.119(c) which keeps get violated on
the ridges? Just look at the top scores in olc, there are some definite
proof there as well.

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

There are several factual inacuracies in this post, as noted below:

Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are not
FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the pilots
worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations, if they become aware of it.
I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in the
most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed against
them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why have some
scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing lately? *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.
Only two pilots have refused, and taken their position public on r.a.s.


Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That* is
what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go back
and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull them.

No, the SSA has been checking since the beginning of the year, and
reporting to the SSA ExCom at their request. We did find one flight
early in the season that appeared to land too late in SeeYou, but not
when checked against the USNO, so no action was taken. We did not
become aware of any other cases until recently. No flights have been
"pulled" but flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null" and a note
added in the offiicial comments to avoid duplicate complaints.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
Board.

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC. The two parties executed a formal Memorandum of
Understanding on July 7, 2005. SSA has not restricted who can post (but
only members will be elligible for awards). SSA has taken the position
that flights above 18,000' without a proper ATC clearance, or flights
after sunset without approved lighting should not be posted because it
could damage the SSA's working relationship with the FAA (and is also
unsporting conduct).

Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with commercial
ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the Board" could
decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the image of our
sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s. Admin" telling
us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because they make us look
bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the Internet, you
know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my OLC
the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you insist,
please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed too much of
it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
ps.com...

Actually, the OLC rules say they reserve the right to take action
against the pilot for airspace violations

Correct. But does it say anything about any other regulations that SSA seems
to turn on and off on a whim, or, correction, "as directed by the Board"?

, if they become aware of it.

Correct. But SSA, apparently, had nothing better to do but to take it upon
itself to *make* them aware of such cases -- apparently in a very selective
and retroactive way.

I have confirmed with the OLC International team that they do not wish
to sanction flights that the national OLC team does not wish to
sanction.

Correct. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over. You call it
sanctioning, I call it policing.

The flights that have quietly disappeared were withdrawn voluntarily by
the pilots, once the problems were pointed out to them in private. Most
pilots have been quite reasoanble and decided to do the right thing.

Correct. Now we have in SSA the authority to tell us what's the right thing
to do.

flights that have received formal complaints that appear
to be valid have had the scores temporarily set to "null"

Oh. Formal complaints, huh? Given that, I quote, "the SSA has been checking
since the beginning of the year, and reporting to the SSA ExCom at their
request", I can't help but wonder how many of those "formal complaints" came
straight from the person or persons appointed by the SSA to "sanction" (your
word) flights. Would SSA-OLC like to publish those "formal complaints", so
that we don't have to speculate?

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

Posting to r.a.s is not the proper way to put business before the
Board.

Excuse my improper ways, please. In fact, obviously, I was not trying to but
any new business before the Board -- indeed, I would like to think that the
Board has enough business before it at the moment. Quite the opposite, I was
pointing out the fact that the Board has put too much business before itself
trying to pick and choose which FARs to enforce, which *not* to enforce, and
when.

SSA was invited by the OLC organizers to sanction the OLC-US which was
renamed the SSA-OLC.

I don't blame them -- it takes money to run the OLC. However, I happen to
think that inviting the SSA, if they indeed did so, might have been a
mistake on their part.
--
Yuliy

Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an even
more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Mike Schumann

"Yuliy Gerchikov"
and_.hope.it.travel wrote
in message ...
"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...

As far as changing the rules, the sunset rule has been on the books for
longer than almost anyone can remember.

Doug, I think you know very well which rules I refer to -- and those are
not FARs. OLC has been designed and introduced as an open forum for the
pilots worldwide to share and compare flight traces online. Their rules
specifically said that they did not intend to police submitted traces for
airspace violations, etc. *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

If you insist on quoting the rules, their rules, in particular, say (in
the most current version dated 7/13/2006 available at
http://www2.onlinecontest.org/regeln/2006/regeln.php): "10. Validation.
Flights and scores will be accepted if no objections have been filed
against them within 4 weeks after the corresponding weekly deadline". Why
have some scored flights much older than that been quietly disappearing
lately? *That* is what has changed since SSA took over.

Another example, from your own presentation: "SSA has exclusive rights to
OLC in US -- SSA Membership is now required." Makes me go Hmmm.... *That*
is what has changed since SSA took over.

The SSA did not make this [FAR] rule, they just decided not to ignore it.

Exactly, they *just* decided. Just like that. They *just* decided to go
back and check some of the flights for some of the violations and pull
them.

If it is indeed true that "the [SSA] Board has directed [you] to look at
Sunset and Class-A", then, again, one has to wonder what rules will be
pulled out of the hat (or out of the FAR) tomorrow. I gave you some ideas
yesterday -- anybody on the Board listens?

The aspect of it that strikes me most is that SSA came uninvited and took
over this great public resource, this open forum for pilots, and started
telling everybody what can and what can't be posted there -- and by whom.
Here is an idea for you: why doesn't SSA take over the US part of
rec.aviation.soaring as well? You could make another presentation and tell
us that "SSA has exclusive rights to r.a.s. in US -- SSA Membership is now
required." While you are at it, why not put a big SSA banner with
commercial ads right on top of every posting. And then somebody on "the
Board" could decide that some things posted here are "damaging to the
image of our sport", and next thing we know is some appointed "SSA-r.a.s.
Admin" telling us "you must remove these postings from the r.a.s. because
they make us look bad as a group". This kind of things can be done to the
Internet, you know -- just look at China.

I'd like to send this new SSA-OLC dish back to the kitchen, and have my
OLC the old way, the way we grew to like it. SSA on the side, if you
insist, please, thank you. So that I can throw it away if I am being fed
too much of it to my taste.
--
Yuliy

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
ink.net...
Maybe the SSA should leave the postings alone, and just submit the
questionable ones to the FAA for enforcement action. That might be an
even more effective strategy to solve the problem.

Gee, Mike, thanks! That's exactly what SSA should be doing. Many were
wondering what SSA was actually doing for the members for their money.
Somebody mentioned the magazine, others said group insurance rates. Well, no
more guessing -- now we know .

BTW, that was exactly one of my points: leave enforcement to FAA. It's not
up to SSA, OLC, r.a.s. or any of us to call violations. It's between the
pilot and the feds. If SSA realized this, the world would be a better place.

Now, if SSA wanted to take upon itself the burden of inspecting all (or, as
it's been the case, some) of the flights for all (or some) violations and
pass them to FAA, that, actually, would be totally fine with me. I've seen
stranger hobbies. Except, not on my nickel. I just don't need to be a part
of it.
--
Yuliy

12. Airspace Violations
The OLC organizers have to assume that the participants
in the contest will not violate restricted airspace
during their flights. ATC clearances are necessary
to enter certain airspace. The OLC team will not check
if a pilot has obtained the necessary clearance to
enter airspace which needs ATC clearance. This is not
within our competences and responsibilities. However,
if we get to know that there has been an obvious violation
of airspace then we reserve the right to carry out
special actions against that pilot and his participation
in the OLC. Of course every pilot is allowed to contact
other pilots in case of a potential airspace violation.

What rules are they changing? Is busting FAR's okay
if they do not specify not to? Will your insurance
pay a claim if you get hit at FL200 or flying after
sunset? If we as a group knowingly allow cheating
to occur, are we liable as well? If pilots want to
fly illegally, they don't need to post logs for the
rest of us to see.

I wish pilots flew in accordance to the *privilege*
of the license...then this discussion would be moot.
Calling enforcement an issue is a weak argument.




At 01:06 07 September 2006, Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
Doug,

May I make some suggestions? (1) Do not change OLC
rules mid-season. (2) If
you insist on checking all traces for certain violations,
do it at the time
of claim -- automatically -- and reject those that
do not pass, there and
then.