2011 USA Proposed Competition Rules Changes Posted. [Archive]

Andy[_1_]

December 27th 10, 08:06 PM

On Dec 27, 12:21Â*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> Discussion invited.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> SSA Competition Rules Committee

"6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with
the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight
capabilities beyond those referenced below:
ï‚· An aircraft-band VHF radio
ï‚· An aircraft transponder
ï‚· A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
ï‚· A air-to-ground position reporting device
ï‚· An anti-collision device (Note: this is not meant to forbid the use
of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
device).

Appendix SPOT is an example of an air-to ground position reporting
device. Examples of anti-collision devices include Flarm and PCAS such
as the Zaon MRX unit. Though Flarm is not required, the Rules
Committee recommends the use of Flarm by every competition pilot. The
potential safety benefit is large. This could be a suitable topic for
a safety briefing"

Strictly speaking the SPOT units carried in a glider are not an "air
to ground reporting device". While they are part of a system that
allows the glider position to be reported to a ground observer, the
unit itself relies on a satellite uplink. It reports nothing to the
ground.

Why can't the text say "a position reporting device"? This allows the
use of SPOT and also allows the position reporting capability of
FLARM.

The text will also need to be changed to allow reception and display
of data from position reporting devices since that is a capability of
FLARM that is more than required for collision avoidance and which
would violate "not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond
those referenced below"

If the rule is adopted exactly as proposed it would not be legal to
output the FLARM data stream to a display that provided glider
position and altitude when that display was not a required part of the
collision avoidance system.

Note also that the "list" is a list of device types, not a list of in-
flight capabilities.

Andy

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 27th 10, 08:24 PM

On Dec 27, 3:06Â*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 12:21Â*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
> > Discussion invited.
>
> >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > John Godfrey (QT)
> > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> "6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with
> the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
> commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight
> capabilities beyond those referenced below:
> ï‚· An aircraft-band VHF radio
> ï‚· An aircraft transponder
> ï‚· A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
> ï‚· A air-to-ground position reporting device
> ï‚· An anti-collision device (Note: this is not meant to forbid the use
> of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
> device).
>
> Appendix SPOT is an example of an air-to ground position reporting
> device. Examples of anti-collision devices include Flarm and PCAS such
> as the Zaon MRX unit. Though Flarm is not required, the Rules
> Committee recommends the use of Flarm by every competition pilot. The
> potential safety benefit is large. This could be a suitable topic for
> a safety briefing"
>
> Strictly speaking the SPOT units carried in a glider are not an "air
> to ground reporting device". Â*While they are part of a system that
> allows the glider position to be reported to a ground observer, the
> unit itself relies on a satellite uplink. Â*It reports nothing to the
> ground.
>
> Why can't the text say "a position reporting device"? Â*This allows the
> use of SPOT and also allows the position reporting capability of
> FLARM.
>
> The text will also need to be changed to allow reception and display
> of data from position reporting devices since that is a capability of
> FLARM that is more than required for collision avoidance and which
> would violate "not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond
> those referenced below"
>
> If the rule is adopted exactly as proposed it would not be legal to
> output the FLARM data stream to a display that provided glider
> position and altitude when that display was not a required part of the
> collision avoidance system.
>
> Note also that the "list" is a list of device types, not a list of in-
> flight capabilities.
>
> Andy

The language wrt (Power)Flarm is very difficult at this point, simply
because we do not yet have specific knowledge of the details of what
operational modes it will have with and without external displays.

There are two philosophical positions, which remain to be reconciled:
1. Allowing display of who is out there and what their ROC is will
forever change the nature of the sport; and
2. It won't make any practical difference

Until we have the device much of the argument reduces to "If more than
50 morbidly obese angels fit on the head of a pin, do you need to file
a 337 to install the pin in your ship?"

How the potential for display of glider ids and ROC should be handled
(or if it matters) is worthy of thoughtful discussion.

In the end, I would like the rule(s) to read: "You can carry device X
and its knob must be in position B." We just don't have the required
info yet.

John Godfrey (QT)
Rules Committee

Wayne Paul

December 27th 10, 11:54 PM

"John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in message ...
> Discussion invited.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20101227..pdf
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> SSA Competition Rules Committee

After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 01:00 AM

On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > Discussion invited.
>
> >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > John Godfrey (QT)
> > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"

I wondered about that. What commercially available device performs
the complete APRS function?

If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
functionality is commercially available?

Andy

[email protected]

December 28th 10, 01:18 AM

On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > Discussion invited.
>
> > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010....
>
> > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > Wayne
> > HP-14 "6F"
>
> I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
> the complete APRS function?
>
> If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> functionality is commercially available?
>
> Andy

Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
some homebuilt device
that someone my claim is equivalent.
Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
that outside information is limited to that
which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
additional information that is useful tactically, such as
gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
under the current rules philosophy.
What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
opinions.
UH

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 02:43 AM

On Dec 27, 6:18*pm, wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > Discussion invited.
>
> > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > > Wayne
> > > HP-14 "6F"
>
> > I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
> > the complete APRS function?
>
> > If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> > why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> > functionality is commercially available?
>
> > Andy
>
> Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
> some homebuilt device
> that someone my claim is equivalent.
> Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
> that outside information is limited to that
> which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
> additional information that is useful tactically, such as
> gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
> under the current rules philosophy.
> What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
> opinions.
> UH

Ok, let's get specific. I have ordered PowerFLARM. I am also an
alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
computer software. Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?

Andy

Wayne Paul

December 28th 10, 06:38 AM

"Andy" > wrote in message ...
On Dec 27, 6:18 pm, wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:00 pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 4:54 pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > Discussion invited.
>
> > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > > Wayne
> > > HP-14 "6F"
>
> > I wondered about that. What commercially available device performs
> > the complete APRS function?
>
> > If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> > why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> > functionality is commercially available?
>
> > Andy
>
> Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
> some homebuilt device
> that someone my claim is equivalent.
> Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
> that outside information is limited to that
> which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
> additional information that is useful tactically, such as
> gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
> under the current rules philosophy.
> What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
> opinions.
> UH

> Ok, let's get specific. I have ordered PowerFLARM. I am also an
> alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
> computer software. Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
> PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
> LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?

Andy,

I also am on the PowerFLARM list and am testing LK8000. It provides a lot of information!! (http://www.LK8000.it) I have also noted that XCSoar version 6 has a nice PowerFLARM interface. I don't own SeeYou Mobile; however, I believe it also has an interface.

Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 01:12 PM

On Dec 27, 12:21*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> Discussion invited.

Is there a conflict between rule 10.9.5.3 and rule 11.2.2.4?

10.9.5.3 says the safety finish is only valid if no more points were
claimed after the finish fix:

"10.9.5.3 When a Safety finish is active, a pilot may (using a Task
Claim form - Rule 10.5.1.3.1) claim a finish by obtaining one fix
within the Safety finish cylinder, provided the slope from the claimed
fix to the Projected Finish Location is not less than 200 feet per
mile and no claimed turnpoint was achieved after the time of the
claimed fix."

But 11.2.2.4 is intended to allow a new task attempt after finishing:

"11.2.2.4 Task completion – The pilot has completed the task if all
turnpoints are valid, yield a scored distance (Rule 11.2.3) not less
than the Standard Minimum Task Distance, and the pilot obtained a
scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing, and either
landed at the contest site or after finishing obtained a valid start
(10.8.5) and a subsequent fix at least 5 miles from the start fix.
Otherwise the task is incomplete.
Appendix This rule allows a pilot to finish a task and then make
another attempt without having to land and without jeopardizing the
results of the first attempt. The change also ensures that a pilot who
finishes so low that s/he fails to reach the airfield cannot claim s/
he was off on a second task attempt."

What happens if a pilot make a valid safety finish then waits for the
weather to clear, restarts, and makes a second task attempt that is
abandoned after the first turnpoint? It appears that the the first
task attempt is invalidated because a claimed turnpoint was achieved
after the safety finish fix.

Does there need to be some language in 10.9.5.3 that allows a second
task attempt?

Andy

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 01:27 PM

On Dec 27, 11:38*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> "Andy" > wrote in ...
>
> On Dec 27, 6:18 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 8:00 pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 4:54 pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > > Discussion invited.
>
> > > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > > > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > > > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > > > Wayne
> > > > HP-14 "6F"
>
> > > I wondered about that. What commercially available device performs
> > > the complete APRS function?
>
> > > If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> > > why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> > > functionality is commercially available?
>
> > > Andy
>
> > Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
> > some homebuilt device
> > that someone my claim is equivalent.
> > Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
> > that outside information is limited to that
> > which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
> > additional information that is useful tactically, such as
> > gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
> > under the current rules philosophy.
> > What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
> > opinions.
> > UH
> > Ok, let's get specific. *I have ordered PowerFLARM. *I am also an
> > alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
> > computer software. *Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
> > PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
> > LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?
>
> Andy,
>
> I also am on the PowerFLARM list and am testing LK8000. *It provides a lot of information!! (http://www.LK8000.it) *I have also noted that XCSoar version 6 has a nice PowerFLARM interface. *I don't own SeeYou Mobile; however, I believe it also has an interface.
>
> Back to APRS, they are commercially available. *Maybe I should have said the off the shelf components are available. *(It is kind of like hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) *The tall pole in the tent for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F" W7ADK

I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. However the ZAON MRX
is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. It does
not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
section.

There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
communication devices. Maybe also need a separate section for
position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
reception of APRS reports is allowed.

The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a 2m amateur
band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.

Andy

[email protected]

December 28th 10, 01:59 PM

On Dec 27, 9:43*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 27, 6:18*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > > Discussion invited.
>
> > > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > > > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > > > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > > > Wayne
> > > > HP-14 "6F"
>
> > > I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
> > > the complete APRS function?
>
> > > If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> > > why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> > > functionality is commercially available?
>
> > > Andy
>
> > Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
> > some homebuilt device
> > that someone my claim is equivalent.
> > Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
> > that outside information is limited to that
> > which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
> > additional information that is useful tactically, such as
> > gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
> > under the current rules philosophy.
> > What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
> > opinions.
> > UH
>
> Ok, let's get specific. *I have ordered PowerFLARM. *I am also an
> alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
> computer software. *Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
> PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
> LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?
>
> Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know a lot of detail about the LK8000, but what I understand
is that it may embody the
kind of processing and display of information that is not addressed in
the text of the rules but is outside
the scope of what has been the philosophy of the rules intent.
One of the reasons we are not black and white is it has not been clear
how quickly useful tactical devices
will appear.
It is quite possible that we will end with rules that do not permit
the exporting of tactically useful information such as climb
rate from PowerFlarm.
In fairness to those who may be contemplating buying new devices to
get an advantage over the other guy, they
should know that they may well not be permitted.
As to exactly what will be available for 2010, that is one element of
the debate.
UH

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 28th 10, 02:06 PM

>
> Is there a conflict between rule 10.9.5.3 and rule 11.2.2.4?
>
> 10.9.5.3 says the safety finish is only valid if no more points were
> claimed after the finish fix:
>
> "10.9.5.3 When a Safety finish is active, a pilot may (using a Task
> Claim form - Rule 10.5.1.3.1) claim a finish by obtaining one fix
> within the Safety finish cylinder, provided the slope from the claimed
> fix to the Projected Finish Location is not less than 200 feet per
> mile and no claimed turnpoint was achieved after the time of the
> claimed fix."
>
> But 11.2.2.4 is intended to allow a new task attempt after finishing:
> What happens if a pilot make a valid safety finish then waits for the
> weather to clear, restarts, and makes a second task attempt that is
> abandoned after the first turnpoint? *It appears that the the first
> task attempt is invalidated because a claimed turnpoint was achieved
> after the safety finish fix.
>
> Does there need to be some language in 10.9.5.3 that allows a second
> task attempt?

I think it's pretty clear that "no claimed turnpoint" refers to the
first task attempt. After all, under the old rules you could land,
takeoff again and restart, and we understood the new task was not an
additional turnpoint per safety finish. All we're doing now is
changing things so you don't have to land.

John Cochrane

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

December 28th 10, 02:07 PM

Good to see you put back the "finish" call, but wouldn't it be a good
idea to also make a call entering the pattren? With the 4-mile call,
finish, and entering down-wind for runway X, a clear flow progression
would be shown and spacing for pattern entry would be enhanced.
Calling entry to the pattern is
good airmanship and should be included in the rules. As observed at
Parowan this year, only about half the pilots were making a pattern
entry call. If I don't know who else is trying to land I can't make
adjustment to accomodate them.
Food for thought,
JJ

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 02:40 PM

On Dec 28, 7:06*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Is there a conflict between rule 10.9.5.3 and rule 11.2.2.4?
>
> > 10.9.5.3 says the safety finish is only valid if no more points were
> > claimed after the finish fix:
>
> > "10.9.5.3 When a Safety finish is active, a pilot may (using a Task
> > Claim form - Rule 10.5.1.3.1) claim a finish by obtaining one fix
> > within the Safety finish cylinder, provided the slope from the claimed
> > fix to the Projected Finish Location is not less than 200 feet per
> > mile and no claimed turnpoint was achieved after the time of the
> > claimed fix."
>
> > But 11.2.2.4 is intended to allow a new task attempt after finishing:
> > What happens if a pilot make a valid safety finish then waits for the
> > weather to clear, restarts, and makes a second task attempt that is
> > abandoned after the first turnpoint? *It appears that the the first
> > task attempt is invalidated because a claimed turnpoint was achieved
> > after the safety finish fix.
>
> > Does there need to be some language in 10.9.5.3 that allows a second
> > task attempt?
>
> I think it's pretty clear that "no claimed turnpoint" refers to the
> first task attempt. After all, under the old rules you could land,
> takeoff again and restart, and we understood the new task was not an
> additional turnpoint per safety finish. All we're doing now is
> changing things so you don't have to land.
>
> John Cochrane

I think the significant difference between the old and new rules is
that the log file for the first attempt will now be the same log file
as for the second attempt. Under the old rules the first flight log
had to be submitted before the next attempt and was therefore
completely separate from the second attempt log file.

As long as the CD has the same interpretation and Winscore handles it
properly then no issue.

Andy

Wayne Paul

December 28th 10, 03:47 PM

> "Andy" > wrote in message news:7205138d-41a2-401d-bc7b-

.... Snip ...

>> Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should
>> have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like
>> hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent
>> for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.
>>
>> Wayne
>> HP-14 "6F" W7ADK
>
>
> I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
> 6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
> it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
> in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. However the ZAON MRX
> is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. It does
> not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
> section.
>
> There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
> section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
> communication devices. Maybe also need a separate section for
> position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
> prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
> reception of APRS reports is allowed.
>
> The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a 2m amateur
> band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.
>
> Andy

I guess I was reading 6.6.3 a bit differently. The allowed devices type "A air-to-ground position reporting device" to me would include an APRS system. I didn't consider the fact it used the 2 meter frequencies and equipment a disqualification.

Wayne

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 04:15 PM

On Dec 28, 8:47*am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> > "Andy" > wrote in message news:7205138d-41a2-401d-bc7b-
>
> ... Snip ...
>
>
>
> >> Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should
> >> have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like
> >> hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent
> >> for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.
>
> >> Wayne
> >> HP-14 "6F" W7ADK
>
> > I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
> > 6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
> > it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
> > in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. *However the ZAON MRX
> > is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. *It does
> > not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
> > section.
>
> > There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
> > section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
> > communication devices. *Maybe also need a separate section for
> > position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
> > prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
> > reception of APRS reports is allowed.
>
> > The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a *2m amateur
> > band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.
>
> > Andy
>
> I guess I was reading 6.6.3 a bit differently. *The allowed devices type "A air-to-ground position reporting device" to me would include an APRS system. I didn't consider the fact it used the 2 meter frequencies and equipment a disqualification. *
>
> Wayne

It may be prohibited because the transceiver used for the APRS radio
downlink is a 2 way communication device that is not an aircraft band
VHF radio and it provides in flight communication capability other
than the APRS position reporting function.

Maybe that obstacle can be overcome by making it impossible for the
voice communication capability to be used in flight.

However you may still not be permitted to use an APRS system that was
made up of multiple modules since that is not "a commercially
available model". I suppose you could always offer to sell copies of
your favorite system ;)

As I said earlier, position reporting needs a separate rules section.

Andy

Britton

December 28th 10, 04:24 PM

Careful, some clarification might be in order for APRS. APRS can be
set up with different types of devices. There's the 1-way 'dumb'
trackers that just send position reports (a la SPOT), then there's a
full up HAM in the cockpit. So it's the equipment capability, not a
frequency thing. Look at it this way, you have a choice of what
equipment to use: a 1-way tracker that just broadcasts and doesn't
receive, a 2-way device, and also a 2-way device that is setup in a 1-
way mode.

We should encourage position reporting by whatever means.
Britton

Wayne Paul

December 28th 10, 04:49 PM

Andy,

There are commercially available systems on the market. Here is an example.
http://wa8lmf.net/aprs/TH-D71.htm Kenwood makes a couple other APRS models, but none as compact as the TH-D71. ICOM D-STAR series are also off-the-shelf APRS options.

BTW, this is my last comment on the APRS issue.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK

"Andy" > wrote in message ...
On Dec 28, 8:47 am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> > "Andy" > wrote in message news:7205138d-41a2-401d-bc7b-
>
> ... Snip ...
>
>
>
> >> Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should
> >> have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like
> >> hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent
> >> for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.
>
> >> Wayne
> >> HP-14 "6F" W7ADK
>
> > I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
> > 6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
> > it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
> > in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. However the ZAON MRX
> > is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. It does
> > not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
> > section.
>
> > There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
> > section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
> > communication devices. Maybe also need a separate section for
> > position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
> > prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
> > reception of APRS reports is allowed.
>
> > The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a 2m amateur
> > band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.
>
> > Andy
>
> I guess I was reading 6.6.3 a bit differently. The allowed devices type "A air-to-ground position reporting device" to me would include an APRS system. I didn't consider the fact it used the 2 meter frequencies and equipment a disqualification.
>
> Wayne

It may be prohibited because the transceiver used for the APRS radio
downlink is a 2 way communication device that is not an aircraft band
VHF radio and it provides in flight communication capability other
than the APRS position reporting function.

Maybe that obstacle can be overcome by making it impossible for the
voice communication capability to be used in flight.

However you may still not be permitted to use an APRS system that was
made up of multiple modules since that is not "a commercially
available model". I suppose you could always offer to sell copies of
your favorite system ;)

As I said earlier, position reporting needs a separate rules section.

Andy

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 28th 10, 05:58 PM

>
> As I said earlier, position reporting needs a separate rules section.
>
> Andy

Boy, I hope not. A lot of pain went in to current rules. It's next to
impossible to write broad rules that encompass all the equipment that
people might use now or invent in the future.

Instead, if you have a piece of equipment you really want to use, just
ask the CD for permission. If the CD isn't clear on what to do, ask
for a waiver. Explain why you want to use it and how it works. If the
function is reasonable and consistent with the philosophy of what is
currently allowed -- if, for example, it's there to help crew find you
if you land out -- the answer will probably be yes. If the equipment
is useful for others it will make its way into the rules. That's how
spot evolved. Ham could evolve the same way.

If the function violates the intent of the rules -- if the equipment
can be used as a two-way data link to your ground command station, two-
way video sharing to your teammate, etc. -- the answer will probably
be no.

There is also a reasonable demand to keep rules simple!

John Cochrane

Andy[_1_]

December 28th 10, 06:53 PM

On Dec 28, 6:59*am, wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:43*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 6:18*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > > > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > > > Discussion invited.
>
> > > > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > > > > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > > > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > > > > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > > > > Wayne
> > > > > HP-14 "6F"
>
> > > > I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
> > > > the complete APRS function?
>
> > > > If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> > > > why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> > > > functionality is commercially available?
>
> > > > Andy
>
> > > Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
> > > some homebuilt device
> > > that someone my claim is equivalent.
> > > Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
> > > that outside information is limited to that
> > > which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
> > > additional information that is useful tactically, such as
> > > gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
> > > under the current rules philosophy.
> > > What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
> > > opinions.
> > > UH
>
> > Ok, let's get specific. *I have ordered PowerFLARM. *I am also an
> > alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
> > computer software. *Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
> > PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
> > LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?
>
> > Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't know a lot of detail about the LK8000, but what I understand
> is that it may embody the
> kind of processing and display of information that is not addressed in
> the text of the rules but is outside
> the scope of what has been the philosophy of the rules intent.
> One of the reasons we are not black and white is it has not been clear
> how quickly useful tactical devices
> will appear.
> It is quite possible that we will end with rules that do not permit
> the exporting of tactically useful information such as climb
> rate from PowerFlarm.
> In fairness to those who may be contemplating buying new devices to
> get an advantage over the other guy, they
> should know that they may well not be permitted.
> As to exactly what will be available for 2010, that is one element of
> the debate.
> UH

I understand the problem you are facing with PowerFLARM data usage,
but please be careful that any constraints that may be imposed on
PowerFLARM transmitted data, or on the usage of the data, are not
incompatible with the apparent move towards allowing team flying in
SSA sanctioned contests.

One could perhaps implement a contest mode in which climb rate data is
suppressed except between pilots that have each entered a prearranged
team code. That would presumably require PowerFLARM to transmit the
team code and the receiving unit would only display climb rate (or
other restricted use data) if its team code was the same. A public
team code would allow all users to see everyone's data when not flying
in a contest.

Andy

[email protected]

December 28th 10, 10:03 PM

On Dec 28, 1:53*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 28, 6:59*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 9:43*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 6:18*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > > > > Discussion invited.
>
> > > > > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%2010...
>
> > > > > > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > > > > > SSA Competition Rules Committee
>
> > > > > > After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.
>
> > > > > > Wayne
> > > > > > HP-14 "6F"
>
> > > > > I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
> > > > > the complete APRS function?
>
> > > > > If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
> > > > > why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
> > > > > functionality is commercially available?
>
> > > > > Andy
>
> > > > Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
> > > > some homebuilt device
> > > > that someone my claim is equivalent.
> > > > Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
> > > > that outside information is limited to that
> > > > which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
> > > > additional information that is useful tactically, such as
> > > > gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
> > > > under the current rules philosophy.
> > > > What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
> > > > opinions.
> > > > UH
>
> > > Ok, let's get specific. *I have ordered PowerFLARM. *I am also an
> > > alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
> > > computer software. *Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
> > > PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
> > > LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?
>
> > > Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't know a lot of detail about the LK8000, but what I understand
> > is that it may embody the
> > kind of processing and display of information that is not addressed in
> > the text of the rules but is outside
> > the scope of what has been the philosophy of the rules intent.
> > One of the reasons we are not black and white is it has not been clear
> > how quickly useful tactical devices
> > will appear.
> > It is quite possible that we will end with rules that do not permit
> > the exporting of tactically useful information such as climb
> > rate from PowerFlarm.
> > In fairness to those who may be contemplating buying new devices to
> > get an advantage over the other guy, they
> > should know that they may well not be permitted.
> > As to exactly what will be available for 2010, that is one element of
> > the debate.
> > UH
>
> I understand the problem you are facing with PowerFLARM data usage,
> but please be careful that any *constraints that may be imposed on
> PowerFLARM transmitted data, or on the usage of the data, are not
> incompatible with the apparent move towards allowing team flying in
> SSA sanctioned contests.
>
> One could perhaps implement a contest mode in which climb rate data is
> suppressed except between pilots that have each entered a prearranged
> team code. *That would presumably require PowerFLARM to transmit the
> team code and the receiving unit would only display climb rate (or
> other restricted use data) if its team code was the same. *A public
> team code would allow all users to see everyone's data when not flying
> in a contest.
>
> Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

RC has agreed to permit radio usage in Regionals, by waiver, as one
thing that could be used to allow punditing
to help bring beginners along. To make the assumption that we are
moving toward allowing team flying would be a pretty big stretch
from the action we are taking.
UH