[USA] What do you think of mandatory FLARM at Uvalde? [Archive]

Andy[_1_]

January 25th 11, 01:35 AM

On Jan 24, 5:51*pm, R S > wrote:
> At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> at World Gliding Championships. *Additionally, we will vote on:
>
> The future WGC calendar
> The site of the 2014 WGC
> Ballast in the 13.5 meter class
> Handicaps in the 20 meter 2 seat class
> The Club class handicap list
> Use of GPS altitude above FL 500
> Pilot ID in the declaration
> Medals for team performances
> Using GPS for Silver and Gold Altitude
>
> Details on all the proposals are athttp://www.fai.org/gliding/igc_plenary11
>
> What are your views on these issues? *How should USA vote? *Let me
> know here, or by email, or in person at the SSA Conference.
>
> Rick Sheppe
> usa.igc.fai 'at' gmail.com

I don't expect to be at Uvalde but I'm opposed to mandatory FLARM.
The issue is not that use of FLARM is not a good idea rather how you
enforce the rule and what you do if a pilot has a FLARM failure.

If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. With no FCC
certification they will not be legal for use in USA. IGC cannot, or
at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.

Andy

Andreas Maurer

January 25th 11, 12:51 PM

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:35:36 -0800 (PST), Andy >
wrote:

>If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
>pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. With no FCC
>certification they will not be legal for use in USA. IGC cannot, or
>at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.

Then CANCEL the WGC at Uvalde.
Period.

If the organizers of a WGC forbid the use of THE major safety device,
they ought to be forbidden to hold ANY international contests.
Period.

Sorry if I sound angry - but I am.
Forbidding the use of FLARM at a WGC is about the dumbest thing that I
ever read on r.a.s.

Andreas

Andy[_1_]

January 25th 11, 01:12 PM

On Jan 25, 5:51*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:35:36 -0800 (PST), Andy >
> wrote:
>
> >If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
> >pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. *With no FCC
> >certification they will not be legal for use in USA. *IGC cannot, or
> >at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
>
> Then CANCEL the WGC at Uvalde.
> Period.
>
> If the organizers of a WGC forbid the use of THE major safety device,
> they ought to be forbidden to hold ANY international contests.
> Period.
>
> Sorry if I sound angry - but I am.
> Forbidding the use of FLARM at a WGC is about the dumbest thing that I
> ever read on r.a.s.
>
> Andreas

Cool down. Who said anything about prohibiting anything?

There is a big difference between a) prohibiting/forbidding, b)
encouraging, and c) mandating.

Where did you read on RAS that anyone advocated option a)? I
certainly didn't say that.

Andy

Big Wings

January 25th 11, 01:28 PM

An interesting argument. My glider was manufactured in Europe, all of the
instruments, except for the Australian radio are European, the parachute
is European, and of course the Flarm is European although I can change the
run-time options for it to transmit on USA frequencies. The glider is
registered in Europe and, as far as I know, none of it is FAA approved.
Does that mean that I, a European, cannot fly it in the USA? I thought
that the FAA recognised aircraft that are regulated by EASA and allowed
them unrestricted access to USA airspace (in terms of airworthiness
regulations).

A World competition with only American gliders?

At 01:35 25 January 2011, Andy wrote:

>
>If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
>pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. With no FCC
>certification they will not be legal for use in USA. IGC cannot, or
>at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
>
>Andy
>

Andy[_1_]

January 25th 11, 01:59 PM

On Jan 25, 6:28*am, Big Wings > wrote:
> An interesting argument. *My glider was manufactured in Europe, all of the
> instruments, except for the Australian radio are European, the parachute
> is European, and of course the Flarm is European although I can change the
> run-time options for it to transmit on USA frequencies. * The glider is
> registered in Europe and, as far as I know, none of it is FAA approved.
> Does that mean that I, a European, cannot fly it in the USA? *I thought
> that the FAA recognised aircraft that are regulated by EASA and allowed
> them unrestricted access to USA airspace (in terms of airworthiness
> regulations).
>
> A World competition with only American gliders?
>
> At 01:35 25 January 2011, Andy wrote:
>
>
>
> >If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
> >pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. *With no FCC
> >certification they will not be legal for use in USA. *IGC cannot, or
> >at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
>
> >Andy

Please note that my comments related to FCC certification of FLARM. I
said nothing about FAA approval of anything.

The reason many US pilots are paying far more for a FLARM system than
anyone else in the world is that we have all been assured that "rest
of the world" FLARM is not legal for use in USA. It is not FCC
certified for use in USA and its use in USA is prohibited by the
manufacturer. That has nothing to do with FAA.

My personal opinion is that some pilots will choose to bring their
gliders to WGC and use their non US approved FLARM. My point is that
IGC should not mandate that use since it is not legal.

Again I said nothing about the glider, the instruments, the radio, the
parachute, or anything else except FLARM

Andy

Mike the Strike

January 25th 11, 03:26 PM

On Jan 25, 6:59*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:28*am, Big Wings > wrote:
>
>
>
> > An interesting argument. *My glider was manufactured in Europe, all of the
> > instruments, except for the Australian radio are European, the parachute
> > is European, and of course the Flarm is European although I can change the
> > run-time options for it to transmit on USA frequencies. * The glider is
> > registered in Europe and, as far as I know, none of it is FAA approved.
> > Does that mean that I, a European, cannot fly it in the USA? *I thought
> > that the FAA recognised aircraft that are regulated by EASA and allowed
> > them unrestricted access to USA airspace (in terms of airworthiness
> > regulations).
>
> > A World competition with only American gliders?
>
> > At 01:35 25 January 2011, Andy wrote:
>
> > >If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
> > >pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. *With no FCC
> > >certification they will not be legal for use in USA. *IGC cannot, or
> > >at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
>
> > >Andy
>
> Please note that my comments related to FCC certification of FLARM. *I
> said nothing about FAA approval of anything.
>
> The reason many US pilots are paying far more for a FLARM system than
> anyone else in the world is that we have all been assured that "rest
> of the world" FLARM is not legal for use in USA. *It is not FCC
> certified for use in USA and its use in USA is prohibited by the
> manufacturer. *That has nothing to do with FAA.
>
> My personal opinion is that some pilots will choose to bring their
> gliders to WGC and use their non US approved FLARM. My point is that
> IGC should not mandate that use since it is not legal.
>
> Again I said nothing about the glider, the instruments, the radio, the
> parachute, or anything else except FLARM
>
> Andy

Yes, indeed. You may not operate any radio transmitter in the USA
that does not have FCC approval and most certainly not on frequencies
except those approved for the particular service. Based on this, I
don't believe approval to operate European Flarm equipment in the USA
is possible.

If you want to make Flarm compulsory, it will have to be a US-approved
device (which even PowerFlarm isn't yet!)

Mike

January 25th 11, 04:34 PM

On Jan 25, 10:26*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> Yes, indeed. *You may not [...]

Some interesting technical questions are: how does a European Flarm
behave when operated in the US? Does it even work? What frequency
does it use and does it cause any interference with other (presumably
legitimate) users or do other users of the same frequency band
interfere with it? If there are _technical_ problems that prevent
successful use of Flarm in the US, then the rest of the issue is
moot.

-T8

John Cochrane[_2_]

January 25th 11, 04:55 PM

On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
> At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> at World Gliding Championships. *

No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down -- Flarm and
the organizers will get it figured out for Uvalde.

Worlds should include a simple power-flarm rental program.

The wording should recognize that other anti-collision systems may
emerge in the future. The Flarm requirement is only in place because
right now Flarm is the only viable device. So write the rule "every
glider must carry an approved anti-collision device" and the list of
"approved devices" right now reads 1. Flarm 2. Power-Flarm.

You don't mention the question whether stealth mode is a) allowed b)
mandated. At Szeged there was a rule that it was mandated, which was
totally unenforced and totally ignored. IGC needs either to enforce
the rule (a pain in the butt) or not have it. (This is in local
procedures, but local procedures have to conform to IGC norms. So,
local procedures can't say "you must use stealth" mode -- or if they
do, they must follow a verification procedure which the IGC will
write. Good luck with that one.)

Additionally, we will vote on:
>
> The future WGC calendar
> The site of the 2014 WGC

Interesting that at a meeting with a lot of "safety" discussion one
site is in the Alps, and another is in the forests and lakes.

> Ballast in the 13.5 meter class

1. Get rid of this class! The "legacy" gliders PW5, Russia, etc. will
be instantly outdated the minute somebody designs a new glider to this
class rule (sparrowhawk?) -- or just saws a few meters off the wing
of an LS4. The last thing we need is a new class!

Seriously. There is a nice vision of small ultralight gliders and
giving them a place to race. The right place for PW5, Russia,
Sparrowhawk, Apis, etc. is in a handicapped lower performance version
of club class. Split club in 2 at the 1.0 handicap range.

But none of these gliders will survive in a 13.5 meter class. For
that, you build a mini version of an ASW27 made out of super expensive
lightweight materials, redesigned for lower Reynolds numbers.

2. If they do go ahead with this class, it should have ballast. If
there is no ballast, then the design that is optimal for winning
worlds has a quite high wingloading, making the glider unsuitable for
clubs and new pilots. That makes it a "specialist" tiny class at the
outset.

> Handicaps in the 20 meter 2 seat class

Or else it is the "arcus" class and all the other existing gliders are
obsolete. Handicaps will also allow gliders designed for this class to
remain easy to fly and useable by clubs, able to make small tradeoffs
of useability for performance. For example, without handicaps, non-
retractable nosewheels will disappear; designers will either make them
retractable or have to put in monster mains that swing forward.

Handicaps aren't appropriate in every class, but this class certainly
should have them.

> The Club class handicap list
> Use of GPS altitude above FL 500

I couldn't find this one. I hope this is for altitude records only, as
it would cause unholy chaos in competitions. Airspace restrictions are
barometric, and all our instruments want barometric!

> Pilot ID in the declaration
> Medals for team performances
> Using GPS for Silver and Gold Altitude

Of course. Does anyone even bother with badges anymore or just go
OLC?

>
> Details on all the proposals are athttp://www.fai.org/gliding/igc_plenary11
>
> What are your views on these issues? *How should USA vote? *Let me
> know here, or by email, or in person at the SSA Conference.

The fai website has a lot of other discussion about safety issues.
Great! Some comments

-"Safety pays" proposal to give contest points for gliders that meet
certain safety standards. This won't work in practice for lots of
reasons. And what's the problem we're trying to fix here? There are
lots of crashes at glider championships, but so far as I can tell zero
crash, damage or injury is the result of people flying unsafe
uncertified gliders.

- If they're really serious about safety, they should
1) Put in a "hard deck" finish at 250 meters, with no speed points
below (See Szeged finish crash),
2) Implement altitude-limited starts with a requirement to spend 2
minutes below the start height, to stop all the silly prestart cloud
flying and VNE dives below start heights
3) Get rid of the switch from speed to distance points, which is
behind all the start roulette and gaggling.

-The "permit to fly" controversy = should Dianas be allowed to
compete. If a glider and pilot are legal to fly in the country where
the contest is held, they should be allowed to fly. The IGC should not
get in the certification business. Innovation and competition are
good!

-Minor issue. The IGC ranking system doesn't work for those of us who
don't fly in Europe, which unfairly disadvantages us when slots are
scarce.

Thanks for representing us!

John Cochrane

>
> Rick Sheppe
> usa.igc.fai 'at' gmail.com

Andy[_1_]

January 25th 11, 06:31 PM

On Jan 25, 9:55*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
>
> > At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> > at World Gliding Championships. *
>
> No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
> message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down

John,

What rule would you propose? How will that rule take account of the
non zero probability that a FLARM will fail.

As you said the rule is hardly necessary since we all got the message.

Andy

John Cochrane[_2_]

January 25th 11, 06:50 PM

On Jan 25, 12:31*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:55*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
>
> > > At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> > > at World Gliding Championships. *
>
> > No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
> > message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down
>
> John,
>
> What rule would you propose? *How will that rule take account of the
> non zero probability that a FLARM will fail.
>
> As you said the rule is hardly necessary since we all got the message.
>
> Andy

A world contest can say "you have to have a flarm" the same way they
can say "you have to have a parachute" and "you can't have a turn and
bank." It's part of the scrutineering. I don't think there will be a
huge problem of people getting a flarm or parachute to show organizers
and then deliberately removing them for flight. There is the minor
issue of people turning flarm off if they think someone might follow
them, but that's a separate issue.

I do not favor mandatory flarm for US contests BTW. But it makes much
more sense for world events. People are putting a lot (a LOT) of money
already into world competition, so extra cost is really not an issue;
they have 150 gliders not the 20 that fill a typical US contest, and
they have tasks and rules that encourage mass gaggling. 95% already
have flarm.

John Cochrane

lanebush

January 25th 11, 07:01 PM

On Jan 25, 1:50*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:31*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:55*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
>
> > > > At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> > > > at World Gliding Championships. *
>
> > > No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
> > > message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down
>
> > John,
>
> > What rule would you propose? *How will that rule take account of the
> > non zero probability that a FLARM will fail.
>
> > As you said the rule is hardly necessary since we all got the message.
>
> > Andy
>
> A world contest can say "you have to have a flarm" the same way they
> can say "you have to have a parachute" and "you can't have a turn and
> bank." *It's part of the scrutineering. *I don't think there will be a
> huge problem of people getting a flarm or parachute to show organizers
> and then deliberately removing them for flight. There is the minor
> issue of people turning flarm off if they think someone might follow
> them, but that's a separate issue.
>
> I do not favor mandatory flarm for US contests BTW. But it makes much
> more sense for world events. People are putting a lot (a LOT) of money
> already into world competition, so extra cost is really not an issue;
> they have 150 gliders not the 20 that fill a typical US contest, and
> they have tasks and rules that encourage mass gaggling. 95% already
> have flarm.
>
> John Cochrane

I can address the "does anyone bother with badges anymore?"

As one of the club CFIGs the badges are a motivator for our students /
members. I love the OLC and am a participant. However, the OLC is
not the same motivator as a badge and does not have the nostalgia or
duration of a badge. The badge program really seems to be getting
slammed by competition pilots and I just don't quite get it. Newly
certified pilots can ready the Silver requirements and it provides
real inspiration as does the ABC/Bronze program. There are plenty of
improvements that could be made to make the approval more user
friendly but as leaders in the cross country scene lets quit slamming
the badge program please.

Tony[_5_]

January 25th 11, 07:12 PM

On Jan 25, 1:01*pm, lanebush > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 1:50*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:31*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:55*am, John Cochrane >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
>
> > > > > At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> > > > > at World Gliding Championships. *
>
> > > > No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
> > > > message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down
>
> > > John,
>
> > > What rule would you propose? *How will that rule take account of the
> > > non zero probability that a FLARM will fail.
>
> > > As you said the rule is hardly necessary since we all got the message..
>
> > > Andy
>
> > A world contest can say "you have to have a flarm" the same way they
> > can say "you have to have a parachute" and "you can't have a turn and
> > bank." *It's part of the scrutineering. *I don't think there will be a
> > huge problem of people getting a flarm or parachute to show organizers
> > and then deliberately removing them for flight. There is the minor
> > issue of people turning flarm off if they think someone might follow
> > them, but that's a separate issue.
>
> > I do not favor mandatory flarm for US contests BTW. But it makes much
> > more sense for world events. People are putting a lot (a LOT) of money
> > already into world competition, so extra cost is really not an issue;
> > they have 150 gliders not the 20 that fill a typical US contest, and
> > they have tasks and rules that encourage mass gaggling. 95% already
> > have flarm.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> I can address the "does anyone bother with badges anymore?"
>
> As one of the club CFIGs the badges are a motivator for our students /
> members. *I love the OLC and am a participant. *However, the OLC is
> not the same motivator as a badge and does not have the nostalgia or
> duration of a badge. *The badge program really seems to be getting
> slammed by competition pilots and I just don't quite get it. *Newly
> certified pilots can ready the Silver requirements and it provides
> real inspiration as does the ABC/Bronze program. *There are plenty of
> improvements that could be made to make the approval more user
> friendly but as leaders in the cross country scene lets quit slamming
> the badge program please.

Lane - +1! I love the badge program. Our pilots earned a lot of A,B,
and C badges at the club last year and hopefully we can do the same
next year. I also spent a fair amount of time working with our new XC
pilots and managed to get 100% first time approval on all of our badge
applications. We had a lot of fun!

John Cochrane[_2_]

January 25th 11, 07:13 PM

On Jan 25, 1:01*pm, lanebush > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 1:50*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:31*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:55*am, John Cochrane >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
>
> > > > > At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> > > > > at World Gliding Championships. *
>
> > > > No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
> > > > message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down
>
> > > John,
>
> > > What rule would you propose? *How will that rule take account of the
> > > non zero probability that a FLARM will fail.
>
> > > As you said the rule is hardly necessary since we all got the message..
>
> > > Andy
>
> > A world contest can say "you have to have a flarm" the same way they
> > can say "you have to have a parachute" and "you can't have a turn and
> > bank." *It's part of the scrutineering. *I don't think there will be a
> > huge problem of people getting a flarm or parachute to show organizers
> > and then deliberately removing them for flight. There is the minor
> > issue of people turning flarm off if they think someone might follow
> > them, but that's a separate issue.
>
> > I do not favor mandatory flarm for US contests BTW. But it makes much
> > more sense for world events. People are putting a lot (a LOT) of money
> > already into world competition, so extra cost is really not an issue;
> > they have 150 gliders not the 20 that fill a typical US contest, and
> > they have tasks and rules that encourage mass gaggling. 95% already
> > have flarm.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> I can address the "does anyone bother with badges anymore?"
>
> As one of the club CFIGs the badges are a motivator for our students /
> members. *I love the OLC and am a participant. *However, the OLC is
> not the same motivator as a badge and does not have the nostalgia or
> duration of a badge. *The badge program really seems to be getting
> slammed by competition pilots and I just don't quite get it. *Newly
> certified pilots can ready the Silver requirements and it provides
> real inspiration as does the ABC/Bronze program. *There are plenty of
> improvements that could be made to make the approval more user
> friendly but as leaders in the cross country scene lets quit slamming
> the badge program please.

I'm sorry if it came out wrong -- no "slam" intended at all. And the
whole badge idea is great -- a set of concrete goals to help pilots
cut the apron strings and go on to start flying cross country.

I just noticed that more pilots seem to be moving straight to OLC and
contests and not pursuing badges any more. Kudos to those who do.

John Cochrane

[email protected]

January 25th 11, 08:17 PM

On Jan 25, 2:01*pm, lanebush > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 1:50*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:31*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 9:55*am, John Cochrane >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S > wrote:
>
> > > > > At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
> > > > > at World Gliding Championships. *
>
> > > > No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
> > > > message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down
>
> > > John,
>
> > > What rule would you propose? *How will that rule take account of the
> > > non zero probability that a FLARM will fail.
>
> > > As you said the rule is hardly necessary since we all got the message..
>
> > > Andy
>
> > A world contest can say "you have to have a flarm" the same way they
> > can say "you have to have a parachute" and "you can't have a turn and
> > bank." *It's part of the scrutineering. *I don't think there will be a
> > huge problem of people getting a flarm or parachute to show organizers
> > and then deliberately removing them for flight. There is the minor
> > issue of people turning flarm off if they think someone might follow
> > them, but that's a separate issue.
>
> > I do not favor mandatory flarm for US contests BTW. But it makes much
> > more sense for world events. People are putting a lot (a LOT) of money
> > already into world competition, so extra cost is really not an issue;
> > they have 150 gliders not the 20 that fill a typical US contest, and
> > they have tasks and rules that encourage mass gaggling. 95% already
> > have flarm.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> I can address the "does anyone bother with badges anymore?"
>
> As one of the club CFIGs the badges are a motivator for our students /
> members. *I love the OLC and am a participant. *However, the OLC is
> not the same motivator as a badge and does not have the nostalgia or
> duration of a badge. *The badge program really seems to be getting
> slammed by competition pilots and I just don't quite get it. *Newly
> certified pilots can ready the Silver requirements and it provides
> real inspiration as does the ABC/Bronze program. *There are plenty of
> improvements that could be made to make the approval more user
> friendly but as leaders in the cross country scene lets quit slamming
> the badge program please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I violently agree!
The badge program sets a series of good objectives.
UH

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

January 25th 11, 08:22 PM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:01:34 -0800, lanebush wrote:

> I can address the "does anyone bother with badges anymore?"
>
> As one of the club CFIGs the badges are a motivator for our students /
> members. I love the OLC and am a participant. However, the OLC is not
> the same motivator as a badge and does not have the nostalgia or
> duration of a badge. The badge program really seems to be getting
> slammed by competition pilots and I just don't quite get it. Newly
> certified pilots can ready the Silver requirements and it provides real
> inspiration as does the ABC/Bronze program. There are plenty of
> improvements that could be made to make the approval more user friendly
> but as leaders in the cross country scene lets quit slamming the badge
> program please.
>
+1

In addition I'd like to point out that the badge system, at least as my
club uses it, is a direct stepping stone to competition flying. This is
because we start out by encouraging the use of predeclared tasks for all
XC flying:

- Silver distance: fly to a designated gliding club and land there

- 100 km diploma: this is a UK qualification that requires a
predeclared 100 km task to be scored. 1st leg involves simply flying
the task. 2nd leg involves flying the task and achieving a handicapped
65+ kph task speed.

- Gold distance: we usually fly that as a Diamond Goal flight and claiming
for both

- Diamond distance: again we pre-declare it.

Our prime reason for pre-declaring an xc flight and leaving a written
declaration at the launch point is safety: if the pilot doesn't return or
ring in after a land-out we have some idea of where to search. Secondly,
flying a predeclared task and making correct use of FAI or beer-can
turnpoints is good for honing and keeping navigation skills.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Scott[_7_]

January 25th 11, 10:42 PM

On 1-25-2011 12:51, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:35:36 -0800 (PST), >
> wrote:
>
>
>> If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
>> pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. With no FCC
>> certification they will not be legal for use in USA. IGC cannot, or
>> at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
>
> Then CANCEL the WGC at Uvalde.
> Period.
>
> If the organizers of a WGC forbid the use of THE major safety device,
> they ought to be forbidden to hold ANY international contests.
> Period.
>
>
> Sorry if I sound angry - but I am.
> Forbidding the use of FLARM at a WGC is about the dumbest thing that I
> ever read on r.a.s.
>
>
>
>
> Andreas

I have no idea what these devices even are (I'm a powered plane guy with
just some time in gliders). However, if I understand what you are
saying is these devices may not be "type accepted" by the FCC, in which
case they would be illegal in the USA. So, are you suggesting that laws
be broken just because they are perceived to be a safety device and to
just use them anyway? As a (licensed) user of FCC regulated airwaves in
my other hobby, I can not condone having illegal "transmitters" used
against present FCC regs. I ASSUME these things use transmitters or are
they strictly a receive only device?

Andreas Maurer

January 25th 11, 11:06 PM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:42:02 +0000, Scott >
wrote:

>So, are you suggesting that laws
>be broken just because they are perceived to be a safety device and to
>just use them anyway?

No.

To repeat myself:
What I'm suggesting is that an organizer who is prohibiting the use of
effective safety equipment should not be allowed to run any
competition, especially not the most prestigious one.

Cancel the WGC at Uvalde if there is no way to use FLARM legally.

Have you ever heard of a Nascar or Formula 1 race where the rules
*prohibited* drivers from wearing their safety belts?

Andreas

Andy[_1_]

January 25th 11, 11:30 PM

On Jan 25, 4:06*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:42:02 +0000, Scott >
> wrote:
>
> >So, are you suggesting that laws
> >be broken just because they are perceived to be a safety device and to
> >just use them anyway? *
>
> No.
>
> To repeat myself:
> What I'm suggesting is that an organizer who is prohibiting the use of
> effective safety equipment should not be allowed to run any
> competition, especially not the most prestigious one.
>
> Cancel the WGC at Uvalde if there is no way to use FLARM legally.
>
> Have you ever heard of a Nascar or Formula 1 race where the rules
> *prohibited* drivers from wearing their safety belts?
>
> Andreas

Where is exactly did you see anyone say that anything was being
prohibited by WGC organizers. Will you please quote what you think
was said. Otherwise please stop being so upset about an issue that
exists only in your imagination.

Andy

Mike the Strike

January 26th 11, 12:21 AM

Let's look at this sensibly. The WGC is a year and a half away. In
the next few months, we expect to have FCC approval for a US Flarm.
Pre-orders are such that these will be widely in service later in the
year and pretty universal for contests by 2012. European Flarms may
or may not be FCC approved by then, but there will be rental US units
available to enable all gliders to be equipped.

Right now, no-one can mandate an approved Flarm unit in the USA
because there aren't any! That will likely change in the near future.

None of us are suggesting that encouraging the devices is bad, and
they are certainly not going to be banned, but it's just too early to
say how we will accomplish equipping the competing gliders.

Mike

Alan[_6_]

January 26th 11, 01:26 AM

In article > Andreas Maurer > writes:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:42:02 +0000, Scott >
>wrote:
>
>
>>So, are you suggesting that laws
>>be broken just because they are perceived to be a safety device and to
>>just use them anyway?
>
>No.
>
>To repeat myself:
>What I'm suggesting is that an organizer who is prohibiting the use of
>effective safety equipment should not be allowed to run any
>competition, especially not the most prestigious one.
>
>Cancel the WGC at Uvalde if there is no way to use FLARM legally.
>
>
>
>Have you ever heard of a Nascar or Formula 1 race where the rules
>*prohibited* drivers from wearing their safety belts?
>
>
>Andreas
>

If I show up in Germany and start transmitting radio signals on
cellular bands with something other than a cellphone, the German
government is going to be displeased with that action. The same is
true of any such activity on inappropriate frequencies.

Just because I like using radios on U.S. frequencies to coordinate
my activities, doesn't mean that they will be legal in another
country.

I don't get to fly in some types of airspace without permission,
either.

Do the contest organizers in Germany approve of breaking laws,
violating airspace, violating radio frequency space, and the like?

Alan

Andreas Maurer

January 26th 11, 02:20 AM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:30:42 -0800 (PST), Andy >
wrote:

>Where is exactly did you see anyone say that anything was being
>prohibited by WGC organizers. Will you please quote what you think
>was said. Otherwise please stop being so upset about an issue that
>exists only in your imagination.

--- snip ---
If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. With no FCC
certification they will not be legal for use in USA. IGC cannot, or
at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
--- snip ---

Since the use of European Flarm units is illegal in the US, US laws
(and therefore WGC organizers) obviously prohibit their use at the
Uvalde WGC.
I'm curious what solution will be found to equip all 200 gliders at
the Uvalde WGC with US compliant PowerFlarm.

Looking at the midair history at recent WGC's and at US gliding
operations I regard Flarm as a necessity.

Andreas

Darryl Ramm

January 26th 11, 03:08 AM

On Jan 25, 6:20*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:30:42 -0800 (PST), Andy >
> wrote:
>
> >Where is exactly did you see anyone say that anything was being
> >prohibited by WGC organizers. *Will you please quote what you think
> >was said. *Otherwise please stop being so upset about an issue that
> >exists only in your imagination.
>
> --- snip ---
> If you mandate FLARM at Uvalde WGC what will you do about visiting
> pilots that bring their own FLARM equipped gliders. *With no FCC
> certification they will not be legal for use in USA. *IGC cannot, or
> at least should not, mandate an illegal operation.
> --- snip ---
>
> Since the use of European Flarm units is illegal in the US, US laws
> (and therefore WGC organizers) obviously prohibit their use at the
> Uvalde WGC.
> I'm curious what solution will be found to equip all 200 gliders at
> the Uvalde WGC with US compliant PowerFlarm.
>
> Looking at the midair history at recent WGC's and at US gliding
> operations I regard Flarm as a necessity.
>
> Andreas

Nothing at all should be a suprise here. Lack of Flarm FCC approval
and prohibition by Flarm on use of existing devices it the USA have
been know about for years. The benefits and usage levels of Flarm
devices in world and other contests have been know about. PowerFLARM
coming to the USA market has been known about publicly for much of
2010 and seemingly privately by some others for longer.

So the original question was should this be mandated. Don't know - I'd
like to leave that mostly up to contestants and very few others (e.g.
organizers who are exposed to liability risks). But there is a
bleeding obvious need to at least allow/support/encourage (but not
necessarily mandate) use of PowerFLARM in this contest. Forget FLARM
classic etc. if they are not FCC approved and legal for use in the
USA. This is not somethign that anybody will/can change. So since none
of this should be a surprise at all I hope the FAI/IGC/SSA and local
contest organizers have a plan to ensure contestants can rent, loan,
or purchase PowerFLARM units. Or work to help them easily bring in
PowerFLARM units purchase overseas. Of course if I was actually a
contestant I'd like to hear more details on what that plan is. (and in
the remote change this is not actually been thought about/in plan then
yes I agree with Andreas that the USA should not be running this
contest).

Darryl

Scott[_7_]

January 26th 11, 04:22 AM

On 1-25-2011 23:06, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:42:02 +0000, >
> wrote:
>
>
>> So, are you suggesting that laws
>> be broken just because they are perceived to be a safety device and to
>> just use them anyway?
>
> No.
>
> To repeat myself:
> What I'm suggesting is that an organizer who is prohibiting the use of
> effective safety equipment should not be allowed to run any
> competition, especially not the most prestigious one.
>
> Cancel the WGC at Uvalde if there is no way to use FLARM legally.

I'm still not 100% sure I understand. Are you implying it is unsafe to
fly without FLARM and nobody should be able to host a "World" event if
FLARM is not allowed? I assume you are from outside the USA. When
Americans fly in competitions overseas, can we use stuff that is legal
in the USA but not legal in the hosting country? Why should the hosting
country have to allow a technology that is not legal there?

>
>
>
> Have you ever heard of a Nascar or Formula 1 race where the rules
> *prohibited* drivers from wearing their safety belts?

I don't know of any countries where safety belts are illegal. Safety
belts are not transmitters that could interfere with radio receivers
already installed in aircraft or interfere with other licensed radio
services.

>
>
> Andreas
>

BruceGreeff

January 26th 11, 08:22 AM

Badges are a great tool.

They give the pilot motivation and structure to set out on a planned
flight as opposed to heading off wherever the weather looks good.

Don't get me wrong - there are days when just following the good lift is
huge fun, and some long and impressive flights are made on OLC that way.
However, the discipline of having to plan a flight - predict where the
weather will be, declare the thing and fly it is invaluable.

When you move up to contests the task often gets set for the purpose of
challenging the pilots. Contests are generally won in the poor
conditions where the pilot who knows how to keep going makes points.
Getting there takes experience that badges give.

So - for me badges involve a lot more commitment, and deliberation and
skill development. They teach the pilot to have a clear idea of his/her
intentions for the day. Without that I see people drift around for a
while and then lose interest. These skills will all stand you in good
stead on the OLC, but I advocate starting with badges.

Log the flights on OLC by all means.
Now - if it jusr stops raining here before winter comes around

Cheers
Bruce

On 2011/01/25 9:12 PM, Tony wrote:
> On Jan 25, 1:01 pm, > wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 1:50 pm, John >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
<SNIP>

> Lane - +1! I love the badge program. Our pilots earned a lot of A,B,
> and C badges at the club last year and hopefully we can do the same
> next year. I also spent a fair amount of time working with our new XC
> pilots and managed to get 100% first time approval on all of our badge
> applications. We had a lot of fun!

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

John Cochrane[_2_]

January 26th 11, 01:56 PM

Is there any way to hijack this thread back to Rick's post? Mandatory
flarm vs 99% voluntary at Uvalde, how Flarm will make euro and us
flarms interoperable (of course they will), FCC legalities, how US
Uvalde organizers will handle flarm are non-issues that none of us
knows anything about.

Rick asked about the insane (my opinion) 13.5 meter class, including
the momentous issue of water ballast. I responded with, let's split
club in two instead. He asked about handicaps in Arcus class (sorry,
20 m double seat), wgc locations, various "safety" measures. All these
and more seem like far more important and contentious items on the IGC
agenda.

Can't we give him and other IGC delegates some more useful feedback
before the meeting?

John Cochrane

Andy[_1_]

January 26th 11, 02:26 PM

On Jan 26, 6:56*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Is there any way to hijack this thread back to Rick's post? Mandatory
> flarm vs 99% voluntary at Uvalde, how Flarm will make euro and us
> flarms interoperable (of course they will), *FCC legalities, how US
> Uvalde organizers will handle flarm are non-issues that *none of us
> knows anything about.
>
> Rick asked about the insane (my opinion) 13.5 meter class, including
> the momentous issue of water ballast. I responded with, let's split
> club in two instead. He asked about handicaps in Arcus class (sorry,
> 20 m double seat), wgc locations, various "safety" measures. All these
> and more seem like far more important and contentious items on the IGC
> agenda.
>
> Can't we give him and other IGC delegates some more useful feedback
> before the meeting?
>
> John Cochrane

Is it surprising that the majority of posts relate to the question
that was posed in the thread title?

Maybe the way to promote discussion of the other issues would be to
start new threads with appropriate titles?

Andy

Big Wings

January 26th 11, 02:38 PM

Flarm has a configuration file in which it is possible to specify the
frequency to be used. The current options are:
Australia 921 MHz
New Zealand 869.2 MHz
North America 915 MHz
Rest of the World 868.0 - 868.6 MHz

No doubt if the FCC specified a different frequency in this part of the
spectrum additional config. file options would be made available.

Tony[_5_]

January 26th 11, 02:53 PM

On Jan 26, 7:56*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Is there any way to hijack this thread back to Rick's post? Mandatory
> flarm vs 99% voluntary at Uvalde, how Flarm will make euro and us
> flarms interoperable (of course they will), *FCC legalities, how US
> Uvalde organizers will handle flarm are non-issues that *none of us
> knows anything about.
>
> Rick asked about the insane (my opinion) 13.5 meter class, including
> the momentous issue of water ballast. I responded with, let's split
> club in two instead. He asked about handicaps in Arcus class (sorry,
> 20 m double seat), wgc locations, various "safety" measures. All these
> and more seem like far more important and contentious items on the IGC
> agenda.
>
> Can't we give him and other IGC delegates some more useful feedback
> before the meeting?
>
> John Cochrane

13.5 meter - John your comments seem to make sense to me. The other
morning I was thinking about it and the answer seemed obvious. A 13.5
meter, ballasted Sparrowhawk. That is, if they allow ballast. I like
your suggestion of just making it the 13.5 meter handicapped class,
but the IGC already denied handicaps once. I guess they could change
their mind. Looking at the sailplane directory I picked out the
following likely contenders in a 13.5 meter race and their US
handicaps:

Russia - 1.145
L33 - 1.18
SZD-59 - 1.04
PW-5 - 1.18
Sparrowhawk - 1.17

So maybe, re-defining the class to be 13.5 meters or less with a (US)
handicap of 1.1 or greater would be the way to go. Or if you want to
be even more limiting run the handicap range from 1.1 to 1.2. But
then I wouldn't be able to fulfill my dream of flying my Cherokee II
in the Worlds...:)

20 meter 2 seat - I guess it depends on what the IGC wants the class
to be. You are basically talking about three types here, right? Duo
Discus, DG-1000, and Arcus? Handicap it and all three will show up
and you'll probably have a pretty popular class. It seems to me there
are a fair number of people who fly their Duo's and DG's in contests
in the US. The last I knew there was ~1 Arcus in the US. But if they
want to encourage further development in the 20 meter 2 seater class
then it will be the Arcus class until something better comes along.

Darryl Ramm

January 26th 11, 03:50 PM

On Jan 26, 6:38*am, Big Wings > wrote:
> Flarm has a configuration file in which it is possible to specify the
> frequency to be used. *The current options are:
> Australia * * * * 921 MHz
> New Zealand * 869.2 MHz
> North America 915 MHz
> Rest of the World 868.0 - 868.6 MHz
>
> No doubt if the FCC specified a different frequency in this part of the
> spectrum additional config. file options would be made available.

This has been discussed many times on ras already. Flarm classic
devices already support the USA 915 MHz ISM band (and will
automatically frequency switch as well as being manually configurable
if you want), this is the same frequency band that PowerFLARM will use
in the USA. However having something implemented in the code and
having the devices legal/FCC approved are two different things. And
the Flarm classic devices are not FCC approved. I do not believe there
is any work underway by FLARM or any OEM to have any existing devices
FCC approved and FLARM seems to be putting significant work into
meeting all the niggly specs for FCC approval on the PowerFLARM units.
This is something I would assume the IGC and others involved in this
contest know all the details on, if not its a simple email or phone
call to the Flarm guys to find out the details to help with making
decisions to ensure Flarm technology is available for those
contestants that want it at this contest. Again not one thing here
should be a surprise.

Darryl

mattm[_2_]

January 26th 11, 04:04 PM

On Jan 26, 10:50*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 6:38*am, Big Wings > wrote:
>
> > Flarm has a configuration file in which it is possible to specify the
> > frequency to be used. *The current options are:
> > Australia * * * * 921 MHz
> > New Zealand * 869.2 MHz
> > North America 915 MHz
> > Rest of the World 868.0 - 868.6 MHz
>
> > No doubt if the FCC specified a different frequency in this part of the
> > spectrum additional config. file options would be made available.
>
> This has been discussed many times on ras already. Flarm classic
> devices already support the USA 915 MHz ISM band (and will
> automatically frequency switch as well as being manually configurable
> if you want), this is the same frequency band that PowerFLARM will use
> in the USA. However having something implemented in the code and
> having the devices legal/FCC approved are two different things. And
> the Flarm classic devices are not FCC approved. I do not believe there
> is any work underway by FLARM or any OEM to have any existing devices
> FCC approved and FLARM seems to be putting significant work into
> meeting all the niggly specs for FCC approval on the PowerFLARM units.
> This is something I would assume the IGC *and others involved in this
> contest know all the details on, if not its a simple email or phone
> call to the Flarm guys to find out the details to help with making
> decisions to ensure Flarm technology is available for those
> contestants that want it at this contest. Again not one thing here
> should be a surprise.
>
> Darryl

I'll also point out that the midair that occurred last summer involved
a plane
that didn't have FLARM, so I can see the point of requiring it during
a WGC.
This year's pre-worlds contest is limited to 40 planes so it should be
less
of an issue.

-- Matt

Darryl Ramm

January 26th 11, 04:25 PM

On Jan 26, 8:04*am, mattm > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:50*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 6:38*am, Big Wings > wrote:
>
> > > Flarm has a configuration file in which it is possible to specify the
> > > frequency to be used. *The current options are:
> > > Australia * * * * 921 MHz
> > > New Zealand * 869.2 MHz
> > > North America 915 MHz
> > > Rest of the World 868.0 - 868.6 MHz
>
> > > No doubt if the FCC specified a different frequency in this part of the
> > > spectrum additional config. file options would be made available.
>
> > This has been discussed many times on ras already. Flarm classic
> > devices already support the USA 915 MHz ISM band (and will
> > automatically frequency switch as well as being manually configurable
> > if you want), this is the same frequency band that PowerFLARM will use
> > in the USA. However having something implemented in the code and
> > having the devices legal/FCC approved are two different things. And
> > the Flarm classic devices are not FCC approved. I do not believe there
> > is any work underway by FLARM or any OEM to have any existing devices
> > FCC approved and FLARM seems to be putting significant work into
> > meeting all the niggly specs for FCC approval on the PowerFLARM units.
> > This is something I would assume the IGC *and others involved in this
> > contest know all the details on, if not its a simple email or phone
> > call to the Flarm guys to find out the details to help with making
> > decisions to ensure Flarm technology is available for those
> > contestants that want it at this contest. Again not one thing here
> > should be a surprise.
>
> > Darryl
>
> I'll also point out that the midair that occurred last summer involved
> a plane
> that didn't have FLARM, so I can see the point of requiring it during
> a WGC.
> This year's pre-worlds contest is limited to 40 planes so it should be
> less
> of an issue.
>
> -- Matt

I would hope the pre-worlds could be used by all attending/organizing
to shake out use of PowerFLARM systems for their upcoming word
contest, including dealing with organizational logistics for rentals/
loaners etc. If there is possibility the Worlds will mandate FLARM
then it makes sense to run through the validation/checking procedures
that a mandate might involve even if the pre-worlds was not also
affected by a mandate. And again I am not suggesting there needs to be
a mandate, IMNSHO that should be left mostly to the competitors to
decide if they want a mandate. What is more important in my opinion is
absolutely ensuring the world contest every competitor who want to use
FLARM technology has reasonably easy access to a PowerFLARM device.
The discussion should be on what "reasonably easy" means.

Darryl