Some limits are necessary

[Sean]

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

[bildan]

On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean > wrote:
> 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

While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
technology be outlawed before it's been invented. It would seem a
better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
another.

It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. For
example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
cannot forecast the future. It might show a good thermal at 10
kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
when you arrive. In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.

If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
a short time scale - often in minutes. A successful pilot will always
need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
cockpit.

As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
will eventually appear in gliders. However, using one correctly
requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
you in trouble fast. For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
you should have left the thermal. Managing autopilots can require
more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.

Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
longer, faster and more reliable flights. Contest tasks will expand
with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. CD: "Well, I
was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 11:23*am, bildan > wrote:
> On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
> technology be outlawed before it's been invented. *It would seem a
> better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
> if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
> another.
>
> It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. *For
> example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
> cannot forecast the future. *It might show a good thermal at 10
> kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
> when you arrive. *In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
> there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.
>
> If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
> a short time scale - often in minutes. *A successful pilot will always
> need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
> cockpit.
>
> As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
> will eventually appear in gliders. *However, using one correctly
> requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
> you in trouble fast. *For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
> thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
> you should have left the thermal. *Managing autopilots can require
> more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.
>
> Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
> longer, faster and more reliable flights. *Contest tasks will expand
> with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. *CD: "Well, I
> was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
> gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
establish and communicate the philosophy of
what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
from developing something that gets outlawed
and puts their investment in the garbage.
The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
BB's article.
UH

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Recall that the very first variometer was used experimentally and
secretively to win a contest in Germany.

At 16:08 18 May 2011, wrote:
>On May 18, 11:23=A0am, bildan wrote:
>> On May 18, 8:01=A0am, Sean wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.
>>
>> > Let=92s 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=92s 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
>>
>> While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
>> technology be outlawed before it's been invented. =A0It would seem a
>> better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
>> if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
>> another.
>>
>> It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology.
=A0For
>> example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
>> cannot forecast the future. =A0It might show a good thermal at 10
>> kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
>> when you arrive. =A0In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
>> there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.
>>
>> If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes
on
>> a short time scale - often in minutes. =A0A successful pilot will
always
>> need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
>> cockpit.
>>
>> As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
>> will eventually appear in gliders. =A0However, using one correctly
>> requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
>> you in trouble fast. =A0For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
>> thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
>> you should have left the thermal. =A0Managing autopilots can require
>> more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.
>>
>> Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by
allowing
>> longer, faster and more reliable flights. =A0Contest tasks will expand
>> with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. =A0CD: "Well,
I
>> was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
>> gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
>establish and communicate the philosophy of
>what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
>from developing something that gets outlawed
>and puts their investment in the garbage.
>The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
>BB's article.
>UH
>

[Sean]

On May 18, 12:08*pm, wrote:
> On May 18, 11:23*am, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean > wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
> > While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
> > technology be outlawed before it's been invented. *It would seem a
> > better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
> > if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
> > another.
>
> > It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. *For
> > example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
> > cannot forecast the future. *It might show a good thermal at 10
> > kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
> > when you arrive. *In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
> > there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.
>
> > If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
> > a short time scale - often in minutes. *A successful pilot will always
> > need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
> > cockpit.
>
> > As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
> > will eventually appear in gliders. *However, using one correctly
> > requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
> > you in trouble fast. *For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
> > thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
> > you should have left the thermal. *Managing autopilots can require
> > more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.
>
> > Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
> > longer, faster and more reliable flights. *Contest tasks will expand
> > with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. *CD: "Well, I
> > was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
> > gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
> establish and communicate the philosophy of
> what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
> from developing something that gets outlawed
> and puts their investment in the garbage.
> The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
> BB's article.
> UH

UH,
Thank you for your work on the rules committee. Same to Ken, Mike and
John.

I believe the racing rules committee would do well to outline what
qualities exist in a racing champion.

To use the fishing analogy one more time- I grew up next to the Tioga
river in NY. As I sat there with Zebco reel and a worm, I marveled at
occasional fisherman who would float by with a string of fish hanging
off his boat. I never got into fishing, but as a youngster learning to
fly on Harris Hill, I was very impressed with the great glider pilots
who would come to race and consistently make superior decisions given
the many variables and randomness of a contest task area.

I was drawn to these people. I wanted know what made them tick. This
has lead to my involvement in cross country soaring, racing, and so
many great memories.

So maybe identifying the qualities we seek in a champion would be a
good starting point to evaluate new technologies and how they will
change our sport. In this way we don't have to exactly define limits.
As new products appear on the horizon, we can estimate how consistent
they are with the ideals we seek in a champion.

By the way UH, thanks for taking me on my first cross country flight
in your Lark many years ago. I still remember that flight and what you
taught me.

XC

[bildan]

On May 18, 10:08*am, wrote:
> On May 18, 11:23*am, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean > wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
> > While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
> > technology be outlawed before it's been invented. *It would seem a
> > better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
> > if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
> > another.
>
> > It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. *For
> > example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
> > cannot forecast the future. *It might show a good thermal at 10
> > kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
> > when you arrive. *In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
> > there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.
>
> > If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
> > a short time scale - often in minutes. *A successful pilot will always
> > need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
> > cockpit.
>
> > As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
> > will eventually appear in gliders. *However, using one correctly
> > requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
> > you in trouble fast. *For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
> > thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
> > you should have left the thermal. *Managing autopilots can require
> > more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.
>
> > Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
> > longer, faster and more reliable flights. *Contest tasks will expand
> > with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. *CD: "Well, I
> > was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
> > gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
> establish and communicate the philosophy of
> what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
> from developing something that gets outlawed
> and puts their investment in the garbage.
> The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
> BB's article.
> UH

With respect, an a priori "chilling effect" is exactly what we should
avoid at all costs. There's no way to predict the effect of a
technology until people have had a chance to use it. We just don't
have perfect foreknowledge of technology's impact.

Rule making "philosophy" has a spotty history at best - frequently
outlawing tech which later proved extremely useful. Look at the
arguments which raged against GPS. If variometers were invented
today, imagine the RAS discussion. (Wow! if a pilot actually KNEW
they were in a thermal..... Gotta outlaw that!)

Let the market decide which technology gets adopted and write the
rules for it later.