new Soaring article

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
Title: "Gizmo Future." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in the
future for Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
can't wait for July,

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/gizmo.html

John Cochrane

[Lars Peder Hansen]

John,

One of the best soaring related articles I have read in a long time!

You ask about a military application for thermal detectors. I seem to
remember reading somewhere that the US military is involved in exactly this
technology, to make their light UAV's able to stay airborne much longer on a
given amount of fuel/battery.

And you state that your ASW-27 will outfly any ETA if you had these modern
technologies. -But.... Then you'd have trouble with ETA's that also have the
gizmo's, right? Well, I guess that is what drives innovation, anyway.

Cheers,
Lars Peder
DG-600, Denmark



"John Cochrane" > wrote in message
...
>I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
> Title: "Gizmo Future." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in the
> future for Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
> can't wait for July,
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/gizmo.html
>
> John Cochrane

[Tony[_5_]]

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony > wrote:
> yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > yes, very nice article John. Thanks!
>
> I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
> owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
> problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
> $15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
> cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
> pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
> think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Thanks for the important thought.
There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
John

[Papa3]

On May 12, 4:19*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > yes, very nice article John. Thanks!
>
> > I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
> > owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
> > problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
> > $15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
> > cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
> > pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
> > think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.
>
> Thanks for the important thought.
> There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
> I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
> though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
> Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
> John

I think "allow" is the operative word. One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

Probably kind of hard to swallow coming from a guy with an LS8 and a
brand new ClearNav, but believe me, the conversation around the dinner
table certainly gravitates to "So, what was in that box from [insert
name of soaring instrument supplier here] that arrived via UPS more
often than I'd like..."

P3

[noel.wade]

On May 12, 1:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > yes, very nice article John. Thanks!
>
> I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
> owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
> problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
> $15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
> cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
> pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
> think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Andrzej -

Good point. However, I would like to point out that the current club/
sports class prohibits water-ballast, right? So there's already a
precedent for limiting equipment in specific competition classes. And
as prices and equipment changes over time, these limitations can be
reviewed and adjusted.

--Noel

[mike]

On May 12, 5:08*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On May 12, 1:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > yes, very nice article John. Thanks!
>
> > I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
> > owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
> > problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
> > $15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
> > cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
> > pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
> > think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.
>
> Andrzej -
>
> Good point. *However, I would like to point out that the current club/
> sports class prohibits water-ballast, right? *So there's already a
> precedent for limiting equipment in specific competition classes. *And
> as prices and equipment changes over time, these limitations can be
> reviewed and adjusted.
>
> --Noel

I can see yet another sailplane class...."Unlimited Electronics Class "

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>One thing that all of the
> various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
> point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
> the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
> broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
> events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
> entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
> in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
> $30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
> us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

[Tom[_13_]]

On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> >One thing that all of the
> > various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
> > point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
> > the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
> > broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
> > events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
> > entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
> > in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
> > $30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
> > us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.
>
> They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
> response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
> pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
> wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
> selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>
> It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.
>
> John Cochrane
>
> John Cochrane

BB, man, you are behind the times. All this is here now and for a few
bucks you become a real sailplane racer. Yes sir baby, you download
Condor, you buy TA's new book(he'll even sign it), and stay at home.
You can compete against Frank and you will shortly learn that thermals
are just a key stroke away. Ya, you can fly all day, all nite, any
weather, from one to thermal to another and see where they are all
at. You can even go around the sink and see how low the bottom of the
lift band really is. Make your own weather and even race anywhere you
want in the world. Heck, you can now drink your favorite beverage,
settle back and if it doesn't go as plan, go to your bed and not be in
a tent. No need for Flarm, no need to even look out, as your just a
key stroke from racing again. You can talk all you want, with who ever
you want on Skype, while your racing or not, all for free. No
unsportslike conduct or lost of points to fear.
You can even become mother goose and lead all them duckings around. Be
grateful BB, I am saving you big bucks. You no longer will feel the
agony of defeat, the thrill of victory, or them low saves you been
doing lately. No more outlandings or your trailer getting hit, as it
did in Szeged. NO MORE AIRLINE FOOD. NO MORE TSA.
Since you will be playing Condor now, I problay won't be seeing you at
the 18's, so have a nice summer, ya hear...............

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> >One thing that all of the
> > various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
> > point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
> > the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
> > broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
> > events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
> > entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
> > in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
> > $30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
> > us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.
>
> They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
> response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
> pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
> wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
> selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>
> It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.
>
> John Cochrane
>
> John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On May 13, 12:20*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >One thing that all of the
> > > various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
> > > point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
> > > the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
> > > broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
> > > events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
> > > entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
> > > in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
> > > $30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
> > > us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.
>
> > They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
> > response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
> > pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
> > wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
> > selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>
> > It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.
>
> Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
> including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.
>
> Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

[Tony[_5_]]

> Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
> handicapped, likely no water. This would be
> the most likely to get best participation.
> Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
> UH
> RC Chair


Sounds good to me Hank, I'll get to working on 13.5 meter tips for the
Cherokee!

[lyle]

Hi John,

Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it.

Do you have a list of references? I am particularly interested in
what is described in the section "New Varios and Dynamic Soaring."
The hardware for the vario you describe could probably be built for <
$500 in parts. I'd love to see any papers or other documentation on
the state-estimation techniques that would use the information from
those sensors to make a more sensitive vario.

-Lyle


On May 11, 6:36*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
> Title: "GizmoFuture." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in thefuturefor Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
> can't wait for July,
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/gizmo.html
>
> John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> > Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
> > including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.
>
> > Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
> the RC this Fall.
> One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
> will be at the world level. As of the last
> IGC meeting, this is now defined.
> The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
> the most important ones on this year's
> pilot poll.
> Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
> handicapped, likely no water. This would be
> the most likely to get best participation.
> Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
> UH
> RC Chair

Let me echo that in case previous comments weren't clear. 13.5 m
gliders including PW5 are great little machines, and we need to find a
good home for them in contest soaring. The one-class PW5 format didn't
prove popular enough to be viable, so we all need to think of a
viable class going forward. Like Hank said, expect a lot of polling
this question. The IGC may make decisions on class definition,
handicapping and water that aren't the best tradeoff for US contests.

For the US, one big question is how much to merge 13.5 and 1-26
classes -- necessarily with handicaps. I'm sure that will be a big
topic of discussion at the upcoming 1-26 and 13.5 contest.

As I see it, the other viable option is to form a handicapped class
for all gliders below club class performance. If the "13.5" class
could include, say, the KA6 and ASK21, then everyone would have a
place to compete. If we have a club class and a 13.5 meter class, the
KA6, ASK21, etc. have nowhere to go. But there is always a tradeoff
between participation and purity, so owners of these gliders have to
think about what they'd like.

There's nothing like a vague "lack of support from the SSA" to get UH
and me all riled up! What do you want?

John Cochrane

[Tony[_5_]]

> For the US, one big question is how much to merge 13.5 and 1-26
> classes -- necessarily with handicaps. I'm sure that will be a big
> topic of discussion at the upcoming 1-26 and 13.5 contest.

why do they need to be merged? The 1-26 Championships are organized
by the 1-26 Association and have been and I suspect always will be
limited to 1-26's. I can see though that a future US 13.5 meter
nationals would peacefully co-exist with the 1-26 Championships. In
fact, if you all could make that happen for the 2012 1-26 contest at
TSA I'd appreciate it. Leah fell in love with the 1-26 guys at the
conference and we're penciled in to take at least one Cherokee down
there to fly as guests. But if I could instead fly 13.5 meter
nationals and still have the fun of hanging out with the 1-26 gang
that would be even better :)

[Alpha Eight]

A very well written and though provoking article as always.

Aside from the dollars there is a complexity issue that is largely
ignored. It used to be that glider pilots stood around and discussed
speed-to-fly, cloud selection and what the hay fields looked like near
the first turn. We now stand around and talk about file protocol, baud
rates, IGC formats and screen brightness. My point is there is another
barrier aside from funds, the complexity or hassle barrier in which
technology has changed the flavor of our sport.

I cannot help but think about the hero's of our sport in the USA (Dick
Johnson, AJ Smith, Dick Schreder, Karl Striedieck, Dick Butler, George
Moffat and their ilk). Would they be attracted to modern soaring?
Have we lost some of the beauty of flying in which ones understanding
of nature not technology makes the glider go fast and far? The march
of technology is undeniable and unstoppable but travels with some cost
as well as bestowing great benefit.

A8

[kirk.stant]

On May 13, 11:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
>
> As I see it, the other viable option is to form a handicapped class
> for all gliders below club class performance. If the "13.5" class
> could include, say, the KA6 and ASK21, then everyone would have a
> place to compete. If we have a club class and a 13.5 meter class, the
> KA6, ASK21, etc. have nowhere to go. But there is always a tradeoff
> between participation and purity, so owners of these gliders have to
> think about what they'd like.

This is basically what the Arizona Soaring Association has been doing
in it's local contest series for many years. "Classes" are based on
handicapped glider performance AND pilot skill, with the A class for
the serious racers in basically FAI-class gliders, the B class for
less experieced pilots or lower performance gliders (think Club
class), and if needed, a C class for 1-26s, 2-33s, PW-5s, etc. Tasks
are set accordingly, with B being perhaps 80% of the A task, and C
again 80% of the B class, or whatever is reasonable for the gliders
competing.

This has worked great for longer than I have been racing!

And a feature is that if you win the B class races for the year, you
automatically have to move up to A class!

Kirk
66

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 13, 9:25*am, wrote:
> On May 13, 12:20*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > >One thing that all of the
> > > > various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
> > > > point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
> > > > the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
> > > > broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
> > > > events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
> > > > entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
> > > > in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
> > > > $30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
> > > > us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.
>
> > > They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
> > > response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
> > > pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
> > > wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
> > > selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>
> > > It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.
>
> > Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
> > including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.
>
> > Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
> the RC this Fall.
> One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
> will be at the world level. As of the last
> IGC meeting, this is now defined.
> The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
> the most important ones on this year's
> pilot poll.
> Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
> handicapped, likely no water. This would be
> the most likely to get best participation.
> Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
> UH
> RC Chair

Thanks for the update. That wasn't the sense I got in January.

Frank

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 00:32 13 May 2011, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
>response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
>pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
>wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
>selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>
>It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

Sounds like we're back to the standards of motor racing.
As the saying goes, "Speed costs money. How fast can
you afford to go?"

Jim Beckman

[Papa3]

On May 12, 8:32*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
>
> They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
> response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
> pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
> wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
> selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>
> It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.
>
> John Cochrane
>

John,

All that this failed experiment proved is that there isn't necessarily
a market for a purpose-built one-design that turns out to be more
expensive than much higher perforance ships readily available on the
market. Again working the analogy, many of the successful sailing
classes (Sunfish comes to mind) were built and became popular first -
then someone decided to race them. Same with cars.

If we set out with a mission statement where one of the primary
objectives was to "contain costs", the class specifications would
follow.

P3

[Tony V]

On 5/12/2011 8:32 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
>> One thing that all of the
>> various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
>> point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. .....
>
> They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
> response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
> pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
> wallets,...

No. They voted for better performance at equal cost (OK, the equal cost
means used gliders) and good taste.

Tony

[noel.wade]

On May 13, 10:15*am, Alpha Eight > wrote:
>
> Have we lost some of the beauty of flying in which ones understanding
> of nature not technology makes the glider go fast and far? The march
> of technology is undeniable and unstoppable but travels with some cost
> as well as bestowing great benefit.
>
> A8

As someone who's joined the sport in the last 5 years and who started
flying competitively, I think the answer to your question is No.

First, most of the technology out there now (as well as many of the
items John talks about) are intended to help the pilot _understand_
the natural forces and maximize their use. As long as we fly un-
powered aircraft, we're dependent upon Nature and therefore must be in
tune with it.

Let me put it another way: Do we begrudge a farmer who uses a tractor
to plant and harvest his crops? Is he less of a farmer than someone
who does everything by hand? He still must understanding planting and
growing and harvesting...

Also, I'd like to point out the fact that technology means something
different to folks my age or older (and I'm "only" 33), when compared
to the younger set. 21 year-olds in the USA are old enough to drink,
vote, and fight in wars... AND THEY DON'T KNOW A WORLD WITHOUT THE
INTERNET. The world-wide web became popular before they were in
_kindergarten_. The first computer operating system they probably
worked with was Windows 98. Not only does this younger group not know
what a typewriter is, they vaulted past monochrome monitors, dot-
matrix printers, DOS, floppy-disks of all kinds, pre-USB connectors
and their sometimes-byzantine drivers, etc. Technology has come a
long, long way in a very short time. It is hard on those of us who
lived through it; but easy on those who came along afterwards.

Ignore the value-judgement of whether social & technological trends
are "good" or "bad" for a moment, and take note of how innately
comfortable they are with technology, and what an everyday component
of their lives its become. New technological developments (in or out
of the cockpit) will not be as much of a shock to them as it is to
most of us. It will also be less-distracting to them, and they will
be able to better-integrate avionics into their training because of
their familiarity with technology.

Note that I'm not predicting the kids of tomorrow will be super-
smart. Just as most people today don't know how their car engine
works or how their electric appliances work around the house, the kids
of tomorrow may not understand how their fancy tech works down at the
microchip level. The point is that technology will be at the point
where they won't *have* to - it just works. The good news is that
these same children of tomorrow will still have to understand what the
technology is trying to do (like detect a thermal); and that means
they'll still have to understand Nature and her fickle ways. It is up
to us, their fellow humans, to show them that this knowledge is
beautiful and valuable.

--Noel
P.S. I also don't like the costs of top-end competitive flying. But
you don't try to win a Formula 1 competition in a street car (even a
high-end street car). The "average joe" who wants that sort of
experience can do so relatively inexpensively through things like the
SCCA Road-racing or Autocross (Solo 2) programs. NASCAR fans can
participate in their local short-track racing for a fraction of the
cost of a Winston/Nextel cup car. And in the soaring world we have
the Sports/Club class - as well as the OLC - to fulfill the lower-
budget area. I find it funny how my pilot friends complain about
their particular sailplane not being competitive and wanting the class
rules to change; whereas my race-car driving friends simply buy a
different car. :-)

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Noel, you can't be the judge. You don't know what beauty was given up;
it is an experiential level that you will never be able to know. You are
correct, of course, that the technology of today helps understand the
natural forces better and we wouldn't give them up, but SOMETHING at the
experiential level always disappears with new advancements in any
endeavour. Only those who operated at length in the old way know what
that is, but it is an aesthetic sense that comes from using the old system
well.


At 02:48 15 May 2011, noel.wade wrote:
>On May 13, 10:15=A0am, Alpha Eight wrote:
>>
>> Have we lost some of the beauty of flying in which ones understanding
>> of nature not technology makes the glider go fast and far? The march
>> of technology is undeniable and unstoppable but travels with some cost
>> as well as bestowing great benefit.
>>
>> A8
>
>As someone who's joined the sport in the last 5 years and who started
>flying competitively, I think the answer to your question is No.
>
>First, most of the technology out there now (as well as many of the
>items John talks about) are intended to help the pilot _understand_
>the natural forces and maximize their use. As long as we fly un-
>powered aircraft, we're dependent upon Nature and therefore must be in
>tune with it.
>
>Let me put it another way: Do we begrudge a farmer who uses a tractor
>to plant and harvest his crops? Is he less of a farmer than someone
>who does everything by hand? He still must understanding planting and
>growing and harvesting...
>
>Also, I'd like to point out the fact that technology means something
>different to folks my age or older (and I'm "only" 33), when compared
>to the younger set. 21 year-olds in the USA are old enough to drink,
>vote, and fight in wars... AND THEY DON'T KNOW A WORLD WITHOUT THE
>INTERNET. The world-wide web became popular before they were in
>_kindergarten_. The first computer operating system they probably
>worked with was Windows 98. Not only does this younger group not know
>what a typewriter is, they vaulted past monochrome monitors, dot-
>matrix printers, DOS, floppy-disks of all kinds, pre-USB connectors
>and their sometimes-byzantine drivers, etc. Technology has come a
>long, long way in a very short time. It is hard on those of us who
>lived through it; but easy on those who came along afterwards.
>
>Ignore the value-judgement of whether social & technological trends
>are "good" or "bad" for a moment, and take note of how innately
>comfortable they are with technology, and what an everyday component
>of their lives its become. New technological developments (in or out
>of the cockpit) will not be as much of a shock to them as it is to
>most of us. It will also be less-distracting to them, and they will
>be able to better-integrate avionics into their training because of
>their familiarity with technology.
>
>Note that I'm not predicting the kids of tomorrow will be super-
>smart. Just as most people today don't know how their car engine
>works or how their electric appliances work around the house, the kids
>of tomorrow may not understand how their fancy tech works down at the
>microchip level. The point is that technology will be at the point
>where they won't *have* to - it just works. The good news is that
>these same children of tomorrow will still have to understand what the
>technology is trying to do (like detect a thermal); and that means
>they'll still have to understand Nature and her fickle ways. It is up
>to us, their fellow humans, to show them that this knowledge is
>beautiful and valuable.
>
>--Noel
>P.S. I also don't like the costs of top-end competitive flying. But
>you don't try to win a Formula 1 competition in a street car (even a
>high-end street car). The "average joe" who wants that sort of
>experience can do so relatively inexpensively through things like the
>SCCA Road-racing or Autocross (Solo 2) programs. NASCAR fans can
>participate in their local short-track racing for a fraction of the
>cost of a Winston/Nextel cup car. And in the soaring world we have
>the Sports/Club class - as well as the OLC - to fulfill the lower-
>budget area. I find it funny how my pilot friends complain about
>their particular sailplane not being competitive and wanting the class
>rules to change; whereas my race-car driving friends simply buy a
>different car. :-)
>

[noel.wade]

Nyal -

Who are YOU to judge what I can and cannot experience, and what beauty
I can or cannot appreciate? Do you have a private window into my soul
or my brain?

I reject your notion that I am unable to appreciate things simply
because I am of a different age or did not experience things the same
way you did.

--Noel

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

I'm sorry you have taken offense. My comment was not an attack on you; it
was a comment about everyone's experience. George Moffat lamented the
passing of those days when navigational skills without use of GPS were as
important to winning races as the weather judgment skills. Until you or I
become as fluent as he was using that system we cannot appreciate the
subtleties and enjoyment of them that he gave up by accepting GPS.

You CAN experience that, of course, if you take the time to do all the
flying he did using only the equipment he used. Until you do that you
cannot say he has lost nothing because you don't know what it was.
Possibly George himself could not articulate all of it.

Best,

Nyal

At 04:08 15 May 2011, noel.wade wrote:
>Nyal -
>
>Who are YOU to judge what I can and cannot experience, and what beauty
>I can or cannot appreciate? Do you have a private window into my soul
>or my brain?
>
>I reject your notion that I am unable to appreciate things simply
>because I am of a different age or did not experience things the same
>way you did.
>
>--Noel
>
>

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 12:27 15 May 2011, Nyal Williams wrote:
>I'm sorry you have taken offense. My comment was not an attack on you;
i
>was a comment about everyone's experience. George Moffat lamented th
>passing of those days when navigational skills without use of GPS were a
>important to winning races as the weather judgment skills. Until you or
>become as fluent as he was using that system we cannot appreciate th
>subtleties and enjoyment of them that he gave up by accepting GPS.

The rules define the nature of the competition. Navigation
used to be an important, nay vital, part of racing sailplanes.
It no longer matters. The equipment changes, the rules
change, the competition changes. It's just different.

It used to be important that you knew how to maneuver
your glider to get a good photograph of the turnpoint.
It wasn't as easy as you might assume.

Jim Beckman

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

No question about that.

When a baby learns to walk it gives up its crawling skill-set for an
overall advantage, but there is no question that it has lost SOMETHING for
a net gain.


At 22:39 15 May 2011, Jim Beckman wrote:
>At 12:27 15 May 2011, Nyal Williams wrote:
>>I'm sorry you have taken offense. My comment was not an attack on
you;
>i
>>was a comment about everyone's experience. George Moffat lamented th
>>passing of those days when navigational skills without use of GPS were
a
>>important to winning races as the weather judgment skills. Until you or

>>become as fluent as he was using that system we cannot appreciate th
>>subtleties and enjoyment of them that he gave up by accepting GPS.
>
>The rules define the nature of the competition. Navigation
>used to be an important, nay vital, part of racing sailplanes.
>It no longer matters. The equipment changes, the rules
>change, the competition changes. It's just different.
>
>It used to be important that you knew how to maneuver
>your glider to get a good photograph of the turnpoint.
>It wasn't as easy as you might assume.
>
>Jim Beckman
>
>
>

[Newill]

On May 12, 1:40*pm, "Lars Peder Hansen" >
wrote:
> John,
CLIP . I seem to
> remember reading somewhere that the US military is involved in exactly this
> technology, to make their light UAV's able to stay airborne much longer on a
> given amount of fuel/battery.
> CLIP

>Correct - this is a DARPA funded project. I do not know if it is still running but it was two years ago

dbn

[noel.wade]

On May 15, 5:28*pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
>
> When a baby learns to walk it gives up its crawling skill-set for an
> overall advantage, but there is no question that it has lost SOMETHING for
> a net gain.

Nyal -

Its not so much that I'm offended as it is that I find your premise
illogical and ridiculous. I believe you are speaking to nostalgia and
your view of history through rose-colored glasses; not any real loss.

To use your analogy: A Baby that learns to walk does not forget how
to crawl. We can crawl even as fully-grown adults. We haven't "lost"
a skill; we have simply found a better way to do things. Maybe
standing on two legs alters our perception of the world and the way we
interact with it; but we CAN go back and interact with it in a
different manner if we want. We _choose_ not to; we don't lose the
innate ability.

Similarly, I can turn off my GPS and/or jump in a Schweizer and
experience soaring "like the old-timers" anytime I want to. Just
because I have a DG-300 and use a PDA does not mean that other soaring
skills are lost, or that I cannot appreciate the simple beauties of
physics, nature, weather, aerodynamics, and the 3-dimensional freedom
of flight. There is no causal relationship between my ability to
perceive beauty and the equipment that I use.

In summary: You may long for simpler times; or for a period in which
different skills were _emphasized_. There's nothing wrong with that.
But confuse your desires with the skills of other pilots; and don't
impugn their sense of artistry or beauty.

--Noel
P.S. To be clear: this is not just a personal defense; its also a
reaction to the attitude that many in the Soaring community have about
newer generations of pilots. Attitudes like what Nyal is displaying
*do* come across as negatives and a discouragement to newer pilots.
With a shrinking pilot population the last thing people should be
doing is telling new folks what they _can't_ do or how they'll never
be like the people that have come before them.

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

This has gone on too long on here. You mistake my comments as desires for
the past, which I do not hold, and even more as disparaging newer pilots
because they haven't flown without technological advances. I don't do
that either. As a matter of fact, I never discuss these matters with most
pilots. In particular, I have not said that there is a causal
relationship between [the]ability to perceive beauty and the equipment
that [one] uses. I was referring only to those qualities as they pertain
to a particular skill set, which has been abandoned. Even less do I
denigrate younger pilots for not having certain experiences.

As for the baby, neither of us can now crawl with the same facility as a
baby. We don't want to, of course; our lives are much better because we
have abandoned that for walking. Nontheless, we have lost a particular
facility that had its own usefulness and enjoyment. (We can't have it
all.) Nor can we suddenly shut down our electronics and fly with the same
facility as those who have constantly practiced that way (i.e. hang-glider
pilots) until we gain that facility.

I only responded to your original post because you said NOTHING was given
up. I'd be happy to continue this conversation in a friendly manner
offline either by direct email or on FaceBook if you like, but not here
any longer.

I'll wait for any further contact you might like to make.

Best wishes.




At 21:07 16 May 2011, noel.wade wrote:
>
>On May 15, 5:28=A0pm, Nyal Williams wrote:
>>
>> When a baby learns to walk it gives up its crawling skill-set for an
>> overall advantage, but there is no question that it has lost SOMETHING
>fo=
>r
>> a net gain.
>
>Nyal -
>
>Its not so much that I'm offended as it is that I find your premise
>illogical and ridiculous. I believe you are speaking to nostalgia and
>your view of history through rose-colored glasses; not any real loss.
>
>To use your analogy: A Baby that learns to walk does not forget how
>to crawl. We can crawl even as fully-grown adults. We haven't
"lost"
>a skill; we have simply found a better way to do things. Maybe
>standing on two legs alters our perception of the world and the way we
>interact with it; but we CAN go back and interact with it in a
>different manner if we want. We _choose_ not to; we don't lose the
>innate ability.
>
>Similarly, I can turn off my GPS and/or jump in a Schweizer and
>experience soaring "like the old-timers" anytime I want to. Just
>because I have a DG-300 and use a PDA does not mean that other soaring
>skills are lost, or that I cannot appreciate the simple beauties of
>physics, nature, weather, aerodynamics, and the 3-dimensional freedom
>of flight. There is no causal relationship between my ability to
>perceive beauty and the equipment that I use.
>
>In summary: You may long for simpler times; or for a period in which
>different skills were _emphasized_. There's nothing wrong with that.
>But confuse your desires with the skills of other pilots; and don't
>impugn their sense of artistry or beauty.
>
>--Noel
>P.S. To be clear: this is not just a personal defense; its also a
>reaction to the attitude that many in the Soaring community have about
>newer generations of pilots. Attitudes like what Nyal is displaying
>*do* come across as negatives and a discouragement to newer pilots.
>With a shrinking pilot population the last thing people should be
>doing is telling new folks what they _can't_ do or how they'll never
>be like the people that have come before them.
>
>

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 5/14/2011 6:34 AM, Papa3 wrote:
> On May 12, 8:32 pm, John >
> wrote:
>>
>> They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
>> response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
>> pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
>> wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
>> selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.
>>
>> It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.
>>
>> John Cochrane
>>
>
> John,
>
> All that this failed experiment proved is that there isn't necessarily
> a market for a purpose-built one-design that turns out to be more
> expensive than much higher perforance ships readily available on the
> market. Again working the analogy, many of the successful sailing
> classes (Sunfish comes to mind) were built and became popular first -
> then someone decided to race them. Same with cars.
>
> If we set out with a mission statement where one of the primary
> objectives was to "contain costs", the class specifications would
> follow.

I was there as a Director of the SSA when the specifications were being
discussed, and "containing costs" was a major specification. Turned out,
pilots would rather have an old glider with more performance than a new
glider for the same money. It's very hard to compete against the used
market on price, and this was not appreciated at the time.

If soaring was growing instead of shrinking, used gliders would cost
more, and the PW5 would have sold a more, maybe a lot more, gliders.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Rick Culbertson[_2_]]

Thanks John,
As expected, your soaring articles are entertaining and to quote A8,
thought provoking. I’m always a bit amused how many of us tend to
discount equipment advances as losing our soaring souls and pinning
for the romanticism of the long lost glory days, i.e. Good then Bad
now!

I originally came to this sport of sailplane soaring in late 1999
after 23 years playing in the Hang Gliding world, arguably the purest
form of human soaring. All my hang gliding XC & contest flying was
conducted without the assistance of GPS, I used a map to navigate just
like everyone else. I can honestly state that at the end of the day I
never got lost, but just as true, I didn’t always know exactly where I
was either, retrievals were often rough on everyone. These were
exciting Glory / barnstorming days to be sure but you won’t find a
single hang glider pilot today who goes XC or races in contests
wishing for the good ol days of non GPS and low tech equipment. I'd
personally today, say the same is generally true for our sport of
sailplane soaring.

I still study the maps and carry one with me (big picture visual back
up) but IMO I’m a far more well informed pilot as are my friends and
family and indeed a safer pilot due to the various electronic “gizmos”
I carry in the cockpit such as: Transponder, Spot, 302 (gps), Pcas,
PDA(s) w/ color moving maps, cell phone (shut off of course) & my
Flarm brick (as soon as it arrives in...2012, ouch!).

Not to invite rebutal, but do I recall and it’s still a faint
grumbling today how the thought of mandating a sailplane to install a
Transponder is wholly unfair, too expensive and impractical due to
battery power problems. The SSA won that ancient battle on our behalf
(thank you SSA) but can we really say that today with a straight
face…? I’m very happy, I know my family is and the 737 passengers
would feel the same way if aware, that when I see (thanks to Pcas) an
approaching- descending or climbing 300kt+ heavy make a slight
deviation in flight path because it’s seeing my 1201 squawk well in
advance. Or, If I land out or have an incident my crew or the
authorities can instantly find out using my spot tracker page
"exactly" where I am located... simply priceless!

I’m firmly in the camp that would say it was indeed glorious then but
it’s even better now, bring on the Gizmos!
Rick
21

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

At 22:46 17 May 2011, Rick Culbertson wrote:
>Thanks John,
>As expected, your soaring articles are entertaining and to quote A8,
>thought provoking. I=92m always a bit amused how many of us tend to
>discount equipment advances as losing our soaring souls and pinning
>for the romanticism of the long lost glory days, i.e. Good then Bad
>now!
>
>I originally came to this sport of sailplane soaring in late 1999
>after 23 years playing in the Hang Gliding world, arguably the purest
>form of human soaring. All my hang gliding XC & contest flying was
>conducted without the assistance of GPS, I used a map to navigate just
>like everyone else. I can honestly state that at the end of the day I
>never got lost, but just as true, I didn=92t always know exactly where I
>was either, retrievals were often rough on everyone. These were
>exciting Glory / barnstorming days to be sure but you won=92t find a
>single hang glider pilot today who goes XC or races in contests
>wishing for the good ol days of non GPS and low tech equipment. I'd
>personally today, say the same is generally true for our sport of
>sailplane soaring.
>
>I still study the maps and carry one with me (big picture visual back
>up) but IMO I=92m a far more well informed pilot as are my friends and
>family and indeed a safer pilot due to the various electronic
=93gizmos=94
>I carry in the cockpit such as: Transponder, Spot, 302 (gps), Pcas,
>PDA(s) w/ color moving maps, cell phone (shut off of course) & my
>Flarm brick (as soon as it arrives in...2012, ouch!).
>
>Not to invite rebutal, but do I recall and it=92s still a faint
>grumbling today how the thought of mandating a sailplane to install a
>Transponder is wholly unfair, too expensive and impractical due to
>battery power problems. The SSA won that ancient battle on our behalf
>(thank you SSA) but can we really say that today with a straight
>face=85? I=92m very happy, I know my family is and the 737 passengers
>would feel the same way if aware, that when I see (thanks to Pcas) an
>approaching- descending or climbing 300kt+ heavy make a slight
>deviation in flight path because it=92s seeing my 1201 squawk well in
>advance. Or, If I land out or have an incident my crew or the
>authorities can instantly find out using my spot tracker page
>"exactly" where I am located... simply priceless!
>
>I=92m firmly in the camp that would say it was indeed glorious then but
>it=92s even better now, bring on the Gizmos!
>Rick
>21
>

[Sean]

On May 11, 6:36*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
> Title: "Gizmo Future." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in the
> future for Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
> can't wait for July,
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/gizmo.html
>
> John Cochrane

It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout
fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.
Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we
must
think about and establish.
It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate their
ability to read the weather in the air.
Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent
reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilot’s vision. This would rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made
for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.
With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software
to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if
I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should
be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.
These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.
XC