New Butterfly Vario

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
and many other very nice features. You can see details here:
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 25, 12:15*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. *It is a very
> impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
> flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
> and many other very nice features. *You can see details here:http://www..cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
contests that this instrument, as described, will not
be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
artificial horizon.
UH

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 26, 12:14*pm, wrote:
> It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> artificial horizon.
> UH

Early reports on this unit indicated the horizon can be disabled.
Don't know the means or whether such disabling would be considered
equivalent to having a conventional mechanical gyro instrument removed
from the glider. It seems the designers did consider the need though.


Andy

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 26, 12:14*pm, wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:15*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. *It is a very
> > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
> > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
> > and many other very nice features. *You can see details here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > Good Soaring,
>
> > Paul Remde
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> artificial horizon.
> UH

I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.

It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
forward to hearing some flight reviews.

Mike

[Brad[_2_]]

On Jan 26, 12:07*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:14*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:15*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. *It is a very
> > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
> > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
> > > and many other very nice features. *You can see details here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > Paul Remde
> > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > artificial horizon.
> > UH
>
> I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> Mike

I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.

Brad

[[email protected]]

On Jan 26, 3:01*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:14*pm, wrote:
>
> > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > artificial horizon.
> > UH
>
> Early reports on this unit indicated the horizon can be disabled.
> Don't know the means or whether such disabling would be considered
> equivalent to having a conventional mechanical gyro instrument removed
> from the glider. *It seems the designers did consider the need though.
>
> Andy

It will remain to be seen as to how it is disabled and how this is
confirmed so enforcement isn't a PITA.
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Im debating this and the V7. Maybe even the clearNAV. With Flarm, nano and the butterfly vario I would have 3 certified loggers in my glider...so it feels a little overkill and very expensive. For another 1500 you can have an LX8000. Not sure if that $3300 price is going to fly. The V7 seems best at the moment.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Jan 26, 2:26*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Im debating this and the V7. *Maybe even the clearNAV. *With Flarm, nano and the butterfly vario I would have 3 certified loggers in my glider....so it feels a little overkill and very expensive. *For another 1500 you can have an LX8000. *Not sure if that $3300 price is going to fly. *The V7 seems best at the moment.

and with Flarm, Nano, and Butterfly you still would need something
additional if you like a moving map. I'm thinking that someday when
my glider fund gets fat enough my Oudie and Nano coupled with the V7
should be a neat setup.

Butterfly would be sweet if you wanted to get into cloud flying. Add
a turn coordinator for a full IFR panel.

[johngalloway[_3_]]

On Jan 26, 8:08*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:07*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 12:14*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 12:15*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. *It is a very
> > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
> > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
> > > > and many other very nice features. *You can see details here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > Paul Remde
> > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > artificial horizon.
> > > UH
>
> > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > Mike
>
> I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> Brad

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237087259684129&set=a.237087179684137.60624.117992798260243&type=1&theater

[Brad[_2_]]

On Jan 26, 12:57*pm, johngalloway > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 8:08*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 12:07*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 26, 12:14*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 12:15*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. *It is a very
> > > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
> > > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
> > > > > and many other very nice features. *You can see details here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > > Paul Remde
> > > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > > artificial horizon.
> > > > UH
>
> > > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> > cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> > Brad
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237087259684129&set=a.23708717....

eventually my panel will consist of either the Butterfly or the V7
that will be talking to my PNA running LK8000 flight software. I do
have a Tru-Trak which adds more to the decision
making.............maybe a lot of used Tru-traks will be on the
market?

thanks for the link.

Brad

[Richard[_9_]]

On Jan 26, 11:14*am, wrote:
> On Jan 25, 12:15*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. *It is a very
> > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS
> > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon,
> > and many other very nice features. *You can see details here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > Good Soaring,
>
> > Paul Remde
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> artificial horizon.
> UH

Horizon:
- the artificial horizon can be deactivated in a secure manner (tamper-
rpoof, just like IGC logging)

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[JohnDeRosa]

Stupid question - the second in as many days on RAS from me - Why is
an artificial horizon illegal? I read it in the rules but the "Why?"
is never included.

It would permit flying into clouds? Bad for obvious safety reasons I
suppose, and someone might be tempted to purposely be sucked up into a
thunderhead to pop out the top and then final glide the entire task!

[Mike[_37_]]

On Jan 26, 7:52*pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
> Stupid question - the second in as many days on RAS from me - Why is
> an artificial horizon illegal? *I read it in the rules but the "Why?"
> is never included.
>
> It would permit flying into clouds? *Bad for obvious safety reasons I
> suppose, and someone might be tempted to purposely be sucked up into a
> thunderhead to pop out the top and then final glide the entire task!

I believe cloud flying in US contesst is no longer allowed.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/26/2012 12:57 PM, johngalloway wrote:

>> I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
>> cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>>
>> Brad
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=237087259684129&set=a.237087179684137.60624.117992798260243&type=1&theater

What are the two gray spots between the knobs on the right?

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

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. It looks
quite impressive to me.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

"Brad" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
> > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
> > > GPS
> > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
> > > horizon,
> > > and many other very nice features. You can see details
> > > here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > Paul Remde
> > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > artificial horizon.
> > UH
>
> I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> Mike

I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.

Brad

[johngalloway[_3_]]

On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks
> quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
> > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
> > > > GPS
> > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
> > > > horizon,
> > > > and many other very nice features. You can see details
> > > > here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > Paul Remde
> > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > artificial horizon.
> > > UH
>
> > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > Mike
>
> I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> Brad

The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
variometry up a notch. There were hopes that the 302 would develop
that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??

If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
including its expensive compass and Artificial Horizon options.

[Richard[_9_]]

On Jan 27, 6:12*am, johngalloway > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks
> > quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Paul Remde
> > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
> > > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
> > > > > GPS
> > > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
> > > > > horizon,
> > > > > and many other very nice features. You can see details
> > > > > here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > > Paul Remde
> > > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > > artificial horizon.
> > > > UH
>
> > > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > > Mike
>
> > I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> > cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> > Brad
>
> The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
> unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
> variometry up a notch. *There were hopes that the 302 would develop
> that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
> development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??
>
> If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
> PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
> including its expensive *compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly FAQs

The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed
to use the
Butterfly Vario in competitions?
The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged
by the integrated IGCLogger
and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to
introduce new
competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud
flying but allows the
installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions.

Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy
Aero Ultimate Le.

http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 26, 8:49*pm, Mike > wrote:
> I believe cloud flying in US contesst is no longer allowed.

No it isn't but that rule is not, and cannot, be enforced. If it was
some very well known pilots would lose their standing.

I'm not talking about being 950ft below when the regulations require
1000ft below (substitute 450/500 for East coasters) but deliberate
entering of a cloud layer for competitive advantage.

Andy

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 27, 7:44*am, Richard > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 6:12*am, johngalloway > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks
> > > quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario
>
> > > Best Regards,
>
> > > Paul Remde
> > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
> > > On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
> > > > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
> > > > > > GPS
> > > > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
> > > > > > horizon,
> > > > > > and many other very nice features. You can see details
> > > > > > here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > > > Paul Remde
> > > > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > > > artificial horizon.
> > > > > UH
>
> > > > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > > > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > > > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > > > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > > > Mike
>
> > > I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> > > cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> > > Brad
>
> > The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
> > unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
> > variometry up a notch. *There were hopes that the 302 would develop
> > that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
> > development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??
>
> > If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
> > PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
> > including its expensive *compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly *FAQs
>
> The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed
> to use the
> Butterfly Vario in competitions?
> The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged
> by the integrated IGCLogger
> and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to
> introduce new
> competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud
> flying but allows the
> installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions.
>
> Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy
> Aero Ultimate Le.
>
> *http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm
>
> Richardwww.craggyaero.com

Perhaps as this technology becomes more widely available we should re-
examine the rules against cloud flying in competitions. In my
experience, these rules are frequently infringed by pilots who fly up
to cloud base, into, round or over cumulus clouds!

I'd be interested to hear from contest pilots who can honestly say
that they have never infringed regulations regarding clearance from
clouds. I suspect the rule is probably unenforceable.

Mike

[[email protected]]

On Jan 27, 11:32*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:44*am, Richard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 6:12*am, johngalloway > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks
> > > > quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario
>
> > > > Best Regards,
>
> > > > Paul Remde
> > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
> > > > On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
> > > > > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
> > > > > > > GPS
> > > > > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
> > > > > > > horizon,
> > > > > > > and many other very nice features. You can see details
> > > > > > > here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > > > > Paul Remde
> > > > > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > > > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > > > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > > > > artificial horizon.
> > > > > > UH
>
> > > > > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > > > > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > > > > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > > > > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > > > > Mike
>
> > > > I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> > > > cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> > > > Brad
>
> > > The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
> > > unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
> > > variometry up a notch. *There were hopes that the 302 would develop
> > > that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
> > > development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??
>
> > > If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
> > > PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
> > > including its expensive *compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly *FAQs
>
> > The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed
> > to use the
> > Butterfly Vario in competitions?
> > The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged
> > by the integrated IGCLogger
> > and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to
> > introduce new
> > competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud
> > flying but allows the
> > installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions.
>
> > Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy
> > Aero Ultimate Le.
>
> > *http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm
>
> > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> Perhaps as this technology becomes more widely available we should re-
> examine the rules against cloud flying in competitions. *In my
> experience, these rules are frequently infringed by pilots who fly up
> to cloud base, into, round or over cumulus clouds!
>
> I'd be interested to hear from contest pilots who can honestly say
> that they have never infringed regulations regarding clearance from
> clouds. *I suspect the rule is probably unenforceable.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you are suggesting that we make IFR flying a part of our
competions?
I'm curious as to how you think that might work.
UH

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 27, 10:07*am, wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:32*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 7:44*am, Richard > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 27, 6:12*am, johngalloway > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks
> > > > > quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm#Butterfly-Vario
>
> > > > > Best Regards,
>
> > > > > Paul Remde
> > > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > > "Brad" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > > > > I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
> > > > > > > > impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
> > > > > > > > GPS
> > > > > > > > flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
> > > > > > > > horizon,
> > > > > > > > and many other very nice features. You can see details
> > > > > > > > here:http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm
>
> > > > > > > > Good Soaring,
>
> > > > > > > > Paul Remde
> > > > > > > > Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>
> > > > > > > It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
> > > > > > > contests that this instrument, as described, will not
> > > > > > > be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
> > > > > > > artificial horizon.
> > > > > > > UH
>
> > > > > > I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
> > > > > > the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.
>
> > > > > > It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
> > > > > > forward to hearing some flight reviews.
>
> > > > > > Mike
>
> > > > > I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
> > > > > cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.
>
> > > > > Brad
>
> > > > The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
> > > > unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
> > > > variometry up a notch. *There were hopes that the 302 would develop
> > > > that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
> > > > development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??
>
> > > > If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
> > > > PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
> > > > including its expensive *compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly *FAQs
>
> > > The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed
> > > to use the
> > > Butterfly Vario in competitions?
> > > The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged
> > > by the integrated IGCLogger
> > > and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to
> > > introduce new
> > > competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud
> > > flying but allows the
> > > installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions.
>
> > > Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy
> > > Aero Ultimate Le.
>
> > > *http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm
>
> > > Richardwww.craggyaero.com
>
> > Perhaps as this technology becomes more widely available we should re-
> > examine the rules against cloud flying in competitions. *In my
> > experience, these rules are frequently infringed by pilots who fly up
> > to cloud base, into, round or over cumulus clouds!
>
> > I'd be interested to hear from contest pilots who can honestly say
> > that they have never infringed regulations regarding clearance from
> > clouds. *I suspect the rule is probably unenforceable.
>
> > Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So you are suggesting that we make IFR flying a part of our
> competions?
> I'm curious as to how you think that might work.
> UH

As Andy pointed out earlier, prohibiting cloud flying is largely
unenforceable and a number of pilots already do this for competitive
advantage. I'm just suggesting leveling the playing field!

Last year, I spotted a fellow competitor exiting a cloud and ribbed
him over a beer afterwards. His comment - "a good job clouds aren't
shown on igc files!"

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. Not the just the IFR flying part. The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.

That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots?

Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation.

If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved.

But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. What I care about is safety. And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. This rule is out of date.

The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank?

Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. Let me know.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 27, 3:58*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. *Not the just the IFR flying part. *The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.
>
> That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. *Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots?
>
> Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. *In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. *In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation.
>
> If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. *On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. *On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. *Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved.
>
> But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. *What I care about is safety. *And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. *This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). *I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. *But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? *I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. *New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. *This rule is out of date.
>
> The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. *Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. *We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. *In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. *I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. *I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. *What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank?
>
> Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? *I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. *Let me know.

Read rule 6.6.1
Also note that flying in cloulds is an FAR violation and obviously it
makes no sense to permit equipment in competition that wouls have the
purpose of making it possible to cloud fly.
The cloud flying that I'm talking about is climbing within the cloud
as a tactical part of the flight.
If we fly legally, there is no significant liklihood of needing an
artificial horizon.
Do you want to be circling up in a cloud with half a dozen of your
friends?
Pilots can always report unsafe flying. I am aware of several cases
where pilots spent too much time in the rags of the clouds and were
reported to the CD. A little wood shed action broughtthat to a halt.
This is also why CD's are encoraged to put the maximum start height
500 feet below cloud base.
UH

[Mike the Strike]

There are times when you might get into clouds unintentionally. Years
ago, on another continent, I got trapped above a layer of low cloud
that formed near storms and had to descend through it. My trusty
Jantar-1 had an SZD gyro turn and bank that enabled me to make the
descent with wings level. I almost never used that instrument, but
was glad I had it on that occasion.

A couple of years ago on a cross-country flight in Arizona, I
thermalled up high on mountains and then flew over lower terrain and
found myself over the tops of cumulus clouds and had to dodge my way
round them to the thermals underneath.

In contests, pilots I observe routinely get up into the wispies (yes,
we all do it!). When you're climbing in a ten-knot thermal it can be
hard to judge when to stop and suddenly you're in the cloud. Where
there is a dome of increased cloudbase under a cumulus, you can end up
exiting through the side of the cloud. I suspect this happens a lot,
even unintentionally.

No-one, let alone a CD at a distant airport, has any clue where the
clouds or cloudbase are.

I'm with Sean in that, if you have an instrument that might improve
safety, it would be stupid to disable it.

More fun for the Rules Committee!

Mike

[Bruno[_2_]]

I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. I
would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
disabled.

How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
that feature is used? It would still be available if the crap hit the
fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
points for the day. Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
accommodate that.

Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. :)
Bruno - B4

[Richard[_9_]]

On Jan 27, 3:31*pm, Bruno > wrote:
> I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
> the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
> why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
> competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
> records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. *I
> would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
> instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
> disabled.
>
> How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
> available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
> of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
> that feature is used? *It would still be available if the crap hit the
> fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
> points for the day. *Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
> safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
> clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
> getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
> to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
> accommodate that.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. :)
> Bruno - B4

I would suggest to all that unless you are a trained and current
instrument pilot your probably should not rely on a butterfly horizon
to get you out of a jam. Many accidents in power aircraft are
attruibted to flight into IMC with perfictly good instrument aircraft
and unprepaired pilots. Entering a cloud in a glider is usually not
a benign manuever, possibly you will be at VNE already in turbulent
conditions and quite easily can go past VNE and flutter the wings off.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Tony[_5_]]

bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
the artificial horizon was used. Like you say I think that is a good
way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud
(See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
zero points.

[Ron Gleason]

On Jan 27, 9:45*pm, Tony > wrote:
> bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
> how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
> the artificial horizon was used. *Like you say I think that is a good
> way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud
> (See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
> instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
> zero points.

This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC
file markers. Are there standards defined for such inclusions within
IGC files?

[T8]

I think there are a lot of straw men being constructed here w.r.t.
contest rules.

The *only* times I have been the least bit concerned about getting
caught in cloud have been when I was deliberately "twisting the
dragon's tail". Can you honestly tell me differently?

Our current rules philosophy is that we do not encourage this sort of
thing in competition, witness recent revisions to finish height
rules. I... somewhat reluctantly... agree that this is probably best
for all concerned.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Jan 28, 7:57*am, Ron Gleason > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:45*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
> > how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
> > the artificial horizon was used. *Like you say I think that is a good
> > way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud
> > (See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
> > instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
> > zero points.
>
> This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC
> file markers. *Are there standards defined for such inclusions within
> IGC files?

There are no provisions for this in Winscore .
The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible
under the long
established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used,
The RC is working with
Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during
competition while not adding to
the work load of the scorer and other contest workers.
This has not yet been determined.
I will provide more information on this as it becomes available.
UH
RC Chair

[kirk.stant]

On Feb 6, 3:38*pm, wrote:

> There are no provisions for this in Winscore .
> The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible
> under the long
> established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used,
> The RC is working with
> Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during
> competition while not adding to
> the work load of the scorer and other contest workers.
> This has not yet been determined.
> I will provide more information on this as it becomes available.
> UH
> RC Chair

Hank, what is the RC position on PDA/PNA software such as LK8000,
which has a functioning "turn-coordinator" page? Sure it says not to
use it for instrument flight, but it sure looks like it could be used
for a little cloud busting -or for getting down through a surprise
cloud layer, which is actually a nice feature and why it is included,
I'm sure.

Ditto some of the Garmin hand-held GPSs, which have a GPS-derived
"panel".

Of course, these are not gyro instruments, so cannot be legally used
for instrument flying, of course...

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 5:56*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > There are no provisions for this in Winscore .
> > The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible
> > under the long
> > established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used,
> > The RC is working with
> > Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during
> > competition while not adding to
> > the work load of the scorer and other contest workers.
> > This has not yet been determined.
> > I will provide more information on this as it becomes available.
> > UH
> > RC Chair
>
> Hank, what is the RC position on PDA/PNA software such as LK8000,
> which has a functioning "turn-coordinator" page? *Sure it says not to
> use it for instrument flight, but it sure looks like it could be used
> for a little cloud busting -or for getting down through a surprise
> cloud layer, which is actually a nice feature and why it is included,
> I'm sure.
>
> Ditto some of the Garmin hand-held GPSs, which have a GPS-derived
> "panel".
>
> Of course, these are not gyro instruments, so cannot be legally used
> for instrument flying, of course...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Read 6.6.1 and draw your own conclusions based upon what you know
about these devices.
If a pilot is using and instrument- PDA's with software could fall
into this catagory, that permits flight without reference
to the horizon, he or she is not in conformity with our rules.
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Exactly. My watch can allow me to cloudfly if I really want to. This is unenforcable and compromises safety over the chance that someone could cheat.. Safety MUST BE the prioriry. No? Not here I guess? Fly into a cloud and die? Thats what this rule says. Wow, thats a great idea!

The JS1 at reno had a mechanical turn and bank? Is that illegal? Must this guy remove it to fly in a regional? I find that silly.

This old, outdated and unenforcable rule should be removed today.

Who is going to enforce this rule? Each task day?

I am installing a turn and bank. I thumb my nose at this rule. Go ahead and throw me out of the contest. I honestly could care less.

That vario by the way is REALLY nice and I strongly encourage anyone interested to buy it regardless of this ridiculous rule which deliberately discourages safety, innovation and trust.

[Herbert kilian]

>
> I am installing a turn and bank. *I thumb my nose at this rule. *Go ahead and throw me out of the contest. *I honestly could care less.
>
> That vario by the way is REALLY nice and I strongly encourage anyone interested to buy it regardless of this ridiculous rule which deliberately discourages safety, innovation and trust.

Hey Sean, aren't you the kid from my 6th birthday party who didn't
like the rules when we played 'hide and seek', packed up the present
he had brought and left??? You haven't changed a bit...

[Dan Marotta]

I was going to ask Sean if he's instrument rated and current. Is he
competent flying partial panel? Notwithstanding the above, is his glider
certified (in this country) for cloud flight? Is he going to pick up an
instrument clearance before needing to use this instrument?

I am qualified and have considerable experience flying partial panel in real
clouds, but I wouldn't so flagrantly voilate the rules as Sean seems to be
implying he's willing to do.

But wait! Wasn't it he who implied that it was *I* who am neither
intelligent nor safety conscious?

Can't have it both ways, Kid...


"Herbert kilian" > wrote in message
...

>
> I am installing a turn and bank. I thumb my nose at this rule. Go ahead
> and throw me out of the contest. I honestly could care less.
>
> That vario by the way is REALLY nice and I strongly encourage anyone
> interested to buy it regardless of this ridiculous rule which deliberately
> discourages safety, innovation and trust.

Hey Sean, aren't you the kid from my 6th birthday party who didn't
like the rules when we played 'hide and seek', packed up the present
he had brought and left??? You haven't changed a bit...

[Sean Fidler]

I choose safety. Continue flailing...I enjoy it.

As for your panic fire about filing, etc. I laugh at you. I am laughing hysterically at you both.

Safety. Its that simple.

[Tony[_5_]]

A very strong safety argument can (and has for many years) been made
for keeping gaggles out of clouds.

[Sean Fidler]

Dan. I honestly feel sorry for you.

Intelligent pilots choose safety. FLARM is safer than nothing at all. You disagree, I shake my head at you. An AH is a life saver in the case of an emergency. Wave closing out below, etc. All of your ridiculous reason on that being illegal is just funny. Sad, but also funny.

So why have safety paint? Why does a cirrus have a chute? Why have a GPS? A Radio? Brilliant Dan...BRILLIANT. Fight the good fight!

I truly enjoy your effort to argue against safety. Please keep trying. We love it. It proves a valuable point to many. You still serve a purpose.

[glider12321]

On Feb 6, 5:08*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Exactly. *My watch can allow me to cloudfly if I really want to. *This is unenforcable and compromises safety over the chance that someone could cheat. * Safety MUST BE the prioriry. *No? *Not here I guess? *Fly into a cloud and die? *Thats what this rule says. *Wow, thats a great idea!
>
> The JS1 at reno had a mechanical turn and bank? *Is that illegal? *Must this guy remove it to fly in a regional? *I find that silly.
>
> This old, outdated and unenforcable rule should be removed today.
>
> Who is going to enforce this rule? *Each task day?
>
> I am installing a turn and bank. *I thumb my nose at this rule. *Go ahead and throw me out of the contest. *I honestly could care less.
>
> That vario by the way is REALLY nice and I strongly encourage anyone interested to buy it regardless of this ridiculous rule which deliberately discourages safety, innovation and trust.

As for flying with a turn-n-bank, I have never tried it for real. But,
for you condor flyers out there, try climbing into a cloud on your
computer and using the TNB to keep upright and circle. It is VERY
difficult without a lot of practice. Just get straight and try to fly
out of the cloud. Even on the computer without inner ear motion tricks
it's tough to do.

[T8]

This thread has gone from strawman to tinman.

Whistle with me:

"...my head, I'd scratchin' while my thoughts, they'd be hatchin', if
I only...."

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/7/2012 2:17 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I choose safety. Continue flailing...I enjoy it.
>
> As for your panic fire about filing, etc. I laugh at you. I am laughing hysterically at you both.
>
> Safety. Its that simple.

My understanding is the rule was introduced because pilots were using
them for contest advantage rather than increased safety should they
inadvertently enter a cloud. The cloud flying would discourage pilots
from entering contests that were unwilling to take the risk or break the
rules, and would decrease safety as less able pilots attempted to risk
cloud flying.

So, I'd say the question might be: "Are we safer with a rule that might
- very rarely - mean someone is sucked into a cloud accidentally without
a blind-flying instrument; or a rule that encourages frequent
intentional flights into clouds?"

Of course, you can always carry one around when you aren't flying a contest.

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

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Sean Fidler]

It is alot better than nothing if it happens that you ever need it. And it is RIDICULOUS to outlaw it from the cockpit of airplanes when people want to have them as a safety measure, just encase.

Any of you with instrument training, partial panel training...will understand. Sure most people, even with a turn and bank, are in a world of hurt once IMC is encountered. I get that.

But saying the T&B is illegal is like saying to the window washers that its illegal for them to wear safety harnesses because is encourages them to skip maintenance on their cranes.

Shocking to me that someone needs to explain the logic here. Shocking.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 8:52*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> It is alot better than nothing if it happens that you ever need it. *And it is RIDICULOUS to outlaw it from the cockpit of airplanes when people want to have them as a safety measure, just encase.
>
> Any of you with instrument training, partial panel training...will understand. *Sure most people, even with a turn and bank, are in a world of hurt once IMC is encountered. *I get that.
>
> But saying the T&B is illegal is like saying to the window washers that its illegal for them to wear safety harnesses because is encourages them to skip maintenance on their cranes.
>
> Shocking to me that someone needs to explain the logic here. *Shocking.

I made sure to add a Tru-Trak to my panel.

In my early days of hang gliding I got sucked into a cloud as it
rapidly formed and eventually totally engulfed me; it was
terrifying................I eventually spun out the side of the cloud
and once I had ground reference it was easy to correct. If anyone
tells you using a compass will save you it's not true. Another time I
was in wave in my ASK-14 when a wave cloud precessed and totally
whited me out...........I had a Wendezeiger installed in the panel and
it was on. 5 minutes later I flew out of the bottom of that cloud
totally wings level and under control.

The most recent occurance I had no turn instrument, and was lucky
enough the blue hole under me stayed open long enough to spiral down
thru. It's amazing how at 9k the cloud tops and blue holes are easy to
see and navigate around, it's also amazing as you descend how those
cloud towers completely block your view and what ever blue holes are/
were out there get limited rapidly.

From a safety standpoint I'll have that Tru-trak as insurance, and I
have partial panel experience as a PPSEL, and no, just because I have
the training I'll not use that as justification to cloud
fly...........it's illegal and un-safe...there I said
it...............un-safe and I'm not swinging thru the trees as I type
this.

Brad

[Bill D]

On Feb 7, 6:56*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> My understanding is the rule was introduced because pilots were using
> them for contest advantage rather than increased safety should they
> inadvertently enter a cloud. The cloud flying would discourage pilots
> from entering contests that were unwilling to take the risk or break the
> rules, and would decrease safety as less able pilots attempted to risk
> cloud flying.

The following is just some rambling thoughts.

IIRC, the "no-gyro" rule was in effect since at least the early
'60's. Back in those days pilots were not required to carry a
barograph so there was no altitude record. I suspect the rule was
just to insure cloud flying didn't happen.

Safety-wise, the old gliders handled a "benign spiral" better than the
extremely slippery racers of today so the no-gyro rule didn't
introduce much of a safety issue.

Now, loggers provide altitude data so it should be possible to spot
any pilot climbing higher than cloudbase by comparing IGC files so
maybe there is less justification for a no-gyro rule.

[Bart[_4_]]

A couple of thoughts.

I would like to point out that there are good precedents. For example,
some of us already fly with devices that supposedly encourage
excessive risk taking. They are called "engines", and we figured out a
way to handle this issue. You start the engine, your logger detects it
and it counts as a land out.
I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
of cloud flying equipment.

I know that it is possible to get into a cloud without trying to (or
while actively resisting). I got sucked into one. Due to the
cicrumstances it was neither unsafe nor illegal, but certainly
unintended.

Oh, and it is possible to make a sensor that would detect it when a
glider is in a cloud. And there would be countless ways of
circumventing it. Sometimes it is best to rely on a honor system.

Bart

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> your logger detects it
> and it counts as a land out.
> I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
> of cloud flying equipment.

This means the scorer has to get every log every day, so you can't
turn in your primary log and forget to turn in the butterfly log. It
means Guy has to reprogram winscore for every new instrument that
comes out. It means that any failure of the butterfly log also means
zero for the day any gap in the log, any security failure, anything at
all goes wrong with it and you lose points. That's way too much to put
on the poor scorer, and I'm not sure you'd want it once the ifs ands
and buts are spelled out!

>
> I know that it is possible to get into a cloud without trying to (or
> while actively resisting). I got sucked into one. Due to the
> cicrumstances it was neither unsafe nor illegal, but certainly
> unintended.

I'm mr safety in contests, but I think we need just some hint of a
problem before we change rules. I know of zero -- zero -- incidents in
US contest soaring that a cautious pilot, not pushing the limits, got
unintentionally sucked in to a cloud, and wished he had a "safety"
artificial horizon.

I know of lots of incidents of pilots deliberatly flying in to clouds,
with or without gyros; and many more deliberately flying into / under
thunderstorms and other low visibility situations. (We have the
"safety finish" for a reason!)

The balance of safety -- to say nothing of competitive fairness --
still seems to me squarely on the side of the no artificial horizons
rule

John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

With respect...

So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule? OK. I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. No accident has occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20 years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). And if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point. Its just a matter of time before it does. And this thing could prevent that from happening.

Is this the message that we want to send all pilots (students, etc) within the soaring community? Contest pilots do not use AH's (actually have a rule that you must take it out of the aircraft or disable the function on your Vario, Watch, Computer, etc) because it makes you push the edges and anyone who has one wants to cheat? They reason that contest pilots are safer knowing that if you break cloud-base or get trapped on top (whatever)...you'll probably will die? This way nobody needs them.

It should only about safety, not a contest or competition concern. The number of honest pilots greatly outweigh the very few who might attempt cheating with the instrument. Safety should trump the chance that someone may cheat by light years. This rule clearly is outdated, unenforced, unenforceable and should be a DEEP safety concern. Half the people who flew contest last year probably had AH's on board. Good for them! This rule has not been enforced at all.

This is fairly embarrassing for the contest aspect of our sport in my opinion. If anyone wishes to put an AH in their glider it should be ENCOURAGED and PRAISED. Not outlawed. This logic is completely backwards. Instead the prime concern is someone may cheat and in this thread we have posts focused on A) don't buy this GREAT VARIO because B) you only want it to cheat and C) I will throw you out of the next contest because you would be cheating by owning it. Instead the concern is D) how do we disable this vario's functionality so it can be legal when 100% of future electronics and 50% of anything designed within the past 4-5 years already has this functionality.

Wow! Is it just me? I have the space in my panel and would love to install one. I must be a cheater. How dare I consider it...?

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 5:36*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> With respect...
>
> So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule? *OK. *I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. *No accident has occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20 years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). *And if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point. *Its just a matter of time before it does. *And this thing could prevent that from happening.
>
> Is this the message that we want to send all pilots (students, etc) within the soaring community? *Contest pilots do not use AH's (actually have a rule that you must take it out of the aircraft or disable the function on your Vario, Watch, Computer, etc) because it makes you push the edges and anyone who has one wants to *cheat? *They reason that contest pilots are safer knowing that if you break cloud-base or get trapped on top (whatever)...you'll probably will die? *This way nobody needs them.
>
> It should only about safety, not a contest or competition concern. *The number of honest pilots greatly outweigh the very few who might attempt cheating with the instrument. *Safety should trump the chance that someone may cheat by light years. *This rule clearly is outdated, unenforced, unenforceable and should be a DEEP safety concern. *Half the people who flew contest last year probably had AH's on board. *Good for them! *This rule has not been enforced at all.
>
> This is fairly embarrassing for the contest aspect of our sport in my opinion. *If anyone wishes to put an AH in their glider it should be ENCOURAGED and PRAISED. *Not outlawed. *This logic is completely backwards. *Instead the prime concern is someone may cheat and in this thread we have posts focused on A) don't buy this GREAT VARIO because B) you only want it to cheat and C) I will throw you out of the next contest because you would be cheating by owning it. *Instead the concern is D) how do we disable this vario's functionality so it can be legal when 100% of future electronics and 50% of anything designed within the past 4-5 years already has this functionality.
>
> Wow! *Is it just me? *I have the space in my panel and would love to install one. *I must be a cheater. *How dare I consider it...?

This just made me realize I wasted 20 pages of paper, I printed out
the SSA 2012 Soaring guide to Competition, I was seriously considering
flying in my local sports class contest this summer, not anymore.
Sure, I could unscrew my panel and pull the fuse, but do I really want
to do that? Nope.............whatever fun I might have in a contest I
can have exponentially more of flying at my favorite XC locations.

I'll leave the mid-airs and wing separations to the big guys.

Brad

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/8/2012 5:36 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> With respect...
>
> So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are
> suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule
> setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule?
> OK. I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. No accident has
> occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in
> a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20
> years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). And
> if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point.
> Its just a matter of time before it does. And this thing could
> prevent that from happening.

Do you fly in contests?

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

[Sean Fidler]

What if I have flown contests? What if I havent? Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 3:07*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> What if I have flown contests? *What if I havent? *Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.

In looking back through the Pilot Opinion Poll comment responses and
minutes of the Rules Committee meetings back to 2007 (on the SSA
site), I cannot find any instance where the issue of forbidding the
use of artificial horizons or turn & banks has been raised.

The RC makes great effort to seek considered pilot opinion formally as
part of the poll and informally via email submission. All input is
reviewed and considered each fall, the minutes published, the proposed
rule changes published for comment, etc. etc.

This year we received exactly 2 comments on the rules changes.

The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.

I can only conclude that this is really a case of being surprised to
find the rule exists.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 9, 7:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
> The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
> instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
> new instrument came along is not a good idea.

Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.

The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.

Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
to consider implementing that provision?

What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.

As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
instrument training, or better an instrument rating. Flying in IMC on
instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
some might think.

Andy (GY, CFII)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 10:35*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
> > instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
> > new instrument came along is not a good idea.
>
> Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
> that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.
>
> The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
> that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.
>
> Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
> SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
> method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
> to consider implementing that provision?
>
> What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
> 496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
> not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.
>
> As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
> instrument training, or better an instrument rating. *Flying in IMC on
> instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
> some might think.
>
> Andy (GY, CFII)

What you describe is exactly what the RC is working on.
A related issue is how to reliably disable non approved functions
without having the scorer be required to monitor
this.
We have had constructive discussions with the Flarm folks about how to
do this outside the flight log and practical
solutions appear to be available. All of this related to Flarm is on
hold till we get some practical experience.
The RC determination on this topic will be forthcoming quite soon.
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 10:50*am, wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:35*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
>
> > > The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
> > > instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
> > > new instrument came along is not a good idea.
>
> > Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
> > that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.
>
> > The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
> > that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.
>
> > Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
> > SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
> > method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
> > to consider implementing that provision?
>
> > What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
> > 496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
> > not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.
>
> > As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
> > instrument training, or better an instrument rating. *Flying in IMC on
> > instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
> > some might think.
>
> > Andy (GY, CFII)
>
> What you describe is exactly what the RC is working on.
> A related issue is how to reliably disable non approved functions
> without having the scorer be required to monitor
> this.
> We have had constructive discussions with the Flarm folks about how to
> do this outside the flight log and practical
> solutions appear to be available. All of this related to Flarm is on
> hold till we get some practical experience.
> The RC determination on this topic will be forthcoming quite soon.
> UH

The Rules Committee has posted the policy on using instruments that
provide features enabling flight without reference to the horizon.

See http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf

[Richard[_9_]]

On Feb 9, 6:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 3:07*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > What if I have flown contests? *What if I havent? *Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.
>
> In looking back through the Pilot Opinion Poll comment responses and
> minutes of the Rules Committee meetings back to 2007 (on the SSA
> site), I cannot find any instance where the issue of forbidding the
> use of artificial horizons or turn & banks has been raised.
>
> The RC makes great effort to seek considered pilot opinion formally as
> part of the poll and informally via email submission. *All input is
> reviewed and considered each fall, the minutes published, the proposed
> rule changes published for comment, etc. etc.
>
> This year we received exactly 2 comments on the rules changes.
>
> The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
> instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
> new instrument came along is not a good idea.
>
> I can only conclude that this is really a case of being surprised to
> find the rule exists.

I think that in I the quest for fairness that the rules for
motorglider engine use should also be rewritten to allow for use if
disabled for a period of 14 days.

It absolutely not fair that a motorglider can eliminate a potentially
all night retreive. Maybe we can cancel the next day if anyone have a
more than 4 hour retreive.

This would save the scorers time and contest officials a lot of time.

Is this more ridiculous than it appears a simple program change as was
done for motorgliders can solve this issue.

Richard

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
> 496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
> not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.
>
> Andy (GY, CFII)


The rules committee position is the rules:

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

If a garmin 496 or LK8000 has a useable AH, then it is against the
rules to carry it in US competitions. Expect a complaint from your CD
if he notices, or a protest from a fellow competitor. If you want to
carry them without breaking the rules, follow the new procedures John
Godfrey just posted.

A bit of explanation on this rule. I'm sure an individual pilot, who
knows he's never gong to cheat, might like to have an AH "just in
case." Alas, there have been lots of instances of cheating and
dangerous behavior in the past. If we allow AH, somebody is going to
be heading up in to clouds.

Now, you might say, so what? But when piltos get the idea that other
people are cheating it poisons the sport. Going to contests becomes
less fun, just if you suspect that some big shot made it over that
tough blue hole with a cloud climb.

Then, lots of pilots feel justified in cheating because "you know,
everyone is doing it." Next thing you know, we have fleets of gliders
all heading up in to the clouds, and the "safety" advantage of having
an AH "just in case" evaporate with a fleet of gliders out there doing
illegal cloud flying in a gaggle.

So far, I think the opinions of most pilots are that they would rather
forego the questionable individual advantage of having an AH to keep
this scenario from breaking out. You, who would never cloud fly
intentionally, give up having an AH, so that you know that those crazy
bozos around you won't cloud fly and beat you in the race by doing
something both illegal and dangerous.

This is really not a rule imposed from above. It's a gentleman's
agreement among pilots. If pilots would rather have it the other way,
so be it -- make a fuss at the next rules cycle, we'll put it on the
poll, and see if a large majority votes for artificial horizons.

I doubt this project is going very far. Pilots just strongly voted to
keep the ban on cockpit weather instruments intact, though the costs
of letting everyone else have them are a lot lower.

When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 9, 10:32*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
> > 496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
> > not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.
>
> > Andy (GY, CFII)
>
> The rules committee position is the rules:
>
> 6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
> • Permits flight without reference to the ground.
>
> If a garmin 496 or LK8000 has a useable AH, then it is against the
> rules to carry it in US competitions. Expect a complaint from your CD
> if he notices, or a protest from a fellow competitor. If you want to
> carry them without breaking the rules, follow the new procedures John
> Godfrey just posted.
>
> A bit of explanation on this rule. I'm sure an individual pilot, who
> knows he's never gong to cheat, might like to have an AH "just in
> case." Alas, there have been lots of instances of cheating and
> dangerous behavior in the past. If we allow AH, somebody is going to
> be heading up in to clouds.
>
> Now, you might say, so what? But when piltos get the idea that other
> people are cheating it poisons the sport. Going to contests becomes
> less fun, just if you suspect that some big shot made it over that
> tough blue hole with a cloud climb.
>
> Then, lots of pilots feel justified in cheating because "you know,
> everyone is doing it." Next thing you know, we have fleets of gliders
> all heading up in to the clouds, and the "safety" advantage of having
> an AH "just in case" evaporate with a fleet of gliders out there doing
> illegal cloud flying in a gaggle.
>
> So far, I think the opinions of most pilots are that they would rather
> forego the questionable individual advantage of having an AH to keep
> this scenario from breaking out. You, who would never cloud fly
> intentionally, give up having an AH, so that you know that those crazy
> bozos around you won't cloud fly and beat you in the race by doing
> something both illegal and dangerous.
>
> This is really not a rule imposed from above. It's a gentleman's
> agreement among pilots. If pilots would rather have it the other way,
> so be it -- make a fuss at the next rules cycle, we'll put it on the
> poll, and see if a large majority votes for artificial horizons.
>
> I doubt this project is going very far. *Pilots just strongly voted to
> keep the *ban on cockpit weather instruments intact, though the costs
> of letting everyone else have them are a lot lower.
>
> When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
> on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
> Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
> not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
> tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
> have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.
>
> John Cochrane

....and I thought economics was the dismal science! Do I have to add
Finance to that too?

I couldn't disagree with John more on this. Firstly, the problem in
contests is not deliberate flying through clouds, but the frequent
close approach and occasional infraction that occurs to all of us -
both recreational and contest pilots. Every pilot I know is going to
squeeze the last few hundred feet out of a thermal, too often going
very close to cloud base. Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
work to control this. I have been in and around enough contests to
see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
pilots will fess up! I have seen more than one of the names high on
the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!

The RC is going to have to face the reality that more and more
instruments are going to have weather data and many flight computers
are going to add some sort of horizon. Maintaining a rule that is out
of step with technology isn't going to work, in my opinion.

I can certainly agree that keeping contest pilots away from clouds is
a worthwhile safety goal, but I disagree that restricting the
capability of their instrumentation is the best way of achieving
this. If you want to keep pilots away from clouds, you have to come
up with a method of monitoring this. At least one instrument
manufacturer has an idea how to do this. Yep, more work for the
scorer!

Mike (a non-dismal physicist!)

[Bruno[_2_]]

Thank you Rules Committee for going through the effort to get this
done so quickly. I have a Butterfly Vario on order and am relieved
there is now a mechanism in place for it to remain in the glider
during contests. Fingers are crossed that Butterfly will be able to
make the software changes necessary to implement these rules for the
2012 season.

Thanks again,
Bruno - B4

[Bart[_4_]]

On Feb 9, 9:32*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
> on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
> Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
> not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
> tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
> have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John,

What is the policy regarding unidentified instruments? You see, I
happen to enjoy making my own gadgets.
Let's imagine that I entered a competition and you are the CD or a
fellow competitor. You glance at my panel and see this weird, LCD
screen. Out of curiosity, you ask "what is it?".

My answers:

(1) I would rather not answer.
(2) It's an intelligent vario. I made it myself!
(3) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself!
(4) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself! In theory, it could even act as an AH, I just haven't written
the firmware yet.
(5) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself! It could even act as an AH, but I have a vario-only version of
firmware loaded right now.
(6) It's an intelligent vario and AH. I made it myself! I promise I
will not use it as an AH.

What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.

Bart

[Bart[_4_]]

On Feb 8, 3:06*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > your logger detects it
> > and it counts as a land out.
> > I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
> > of cloud flying equipment.
>
> This means the scorer has to get every log every day, so you can't
> turn in your primary log and forget to turn in the butterfly log. It
> means Guy has to reprogram winscore for every new instrument that
> comes out.

Well, Butterfly is supposed to be a logger right? So, no need for two
logs. And I guess it could be made to record enabling AH as "engine
noise." From Winscore point of view it would mean "end of flight in
the competition", no software changes necessary.

Mind you, I am not trying to argue. I am not even a competition pilot.
I am just not sure if the technical problems you mention are nearly as
hard as they seem to be.

Bart

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 1:21*pm, Bruno > wrote:
> Thank you Rules Committee for going through the effort to get this
> done so quickly. I have a Butterfly Vario on order and am relieved
> there is now a mechanism in place for it to remain in the glider
> during contests. Fingers are crossed that Butterfly will be able to
> make the software changes necessary to implement these rules for the
> 2012 season.
>
> Thanks again,
> Bruno - B4

We worked with Butterfly in developing this process and they are on
board.
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 1:25*pm, Bart > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:32*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
> > on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
> > Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
> > not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
> > tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
> > have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.
>
> John,
>
> What is the policy regarding unidentified instruments? You see, I
> happen to enjoy making my own gadgets.
> Let's imagine that I entered a competition and you are the CD or a
> fellow competitor. You glance at my panel and see this weird, LCD
> screen. Out of curiosity, you ask "what is it?".
>
> My answers:
>
> (1) I would rather not answer.
> (2) It's an intelligent vario. I made it myself!
> (3) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
> myself!
> (4) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
> myself! In theory, it could even act as an AH, I just haven't written
> the firmware yet.
> (5) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
> myself! It could even act as an AH, but I have a vario-only version of
> firmware loaded right now.
> (6) It's an intelligent vario and AH. I made it myself! I promise I
> will not use it as an AH.
>
> What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
> way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.
>
> Bart

If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
follows:

1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.
Remember rule 6.1
2. Very nice! See 1
3. Even nicer! See 1
4. See 3
5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver

QT

[Frank Paynter[_2_]]

On Jan 27, 6:31*pm, Bruno > wrote:
> I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
> the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
> why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
> competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
> records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. *I
> would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
> instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
> disabled.
>
> How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
> available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
> of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
> that feature is used? *It would still be available if the crap hit the
> fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
> points for the day. *Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
> safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
> clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
> getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
> to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
> accommodate that.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. :)
> Bruno - B4

Just to add a bit more fuel to the fire, there is a large body of
evidence on the power side that even *with* an artificial horizon and
turn indicator, the average lifetime for a non-instrument-rated pilot
in clouds is about 3 minutes, and the accident sequences on which this
evidence is based almost invariably start with straight and level
entry into IMC. Anyone who thinks that just installing an artificial
horizon in their glider is a 'get out of jail free' card is fooling
themselves. I urge anyone considering this to get a copy of Condor
(which has a turn indicator installed in most panels) and try their
luck at maintaining any sort of reasonable attitude/airspeed solely by
reference to instruments.

When I owned a Cirrus SR22 power plane some years back, I carried a
GPS-196 (with a GPS-generated artificial horizon and turn coordinator)
with me as a last-ditch backup if all the electrics died. This
worked, but it took quite a bit of practice to be able to stay
reasonably upright using just that instrument.

Just my $0.02

TA

[Cliff Hilty[_2_]]

At 19:15 09 February 2012, Frank Paynter wrote:
>On Jan 27, 6:31=A0pm, Bruno wrote:
>> I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
>> the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
>> why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
>> competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
>> records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good.
=A0I
>> would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
>> instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
>> disabled.
>>
>> How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
>> available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
>> of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
>> that feature is used? =A0It would still be available if the crap hit
the
>> fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
>> points for the day. =A0Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
>> safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
>> clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
>> getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
>> to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
>> accommodate that.
>>
>> Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. :)
>> Bruno - B4
>
>Just to add a bit more fuel to the fire, there is a large body of
>evidence on the power side that even *with* an artificial horizon and
>turn indicator, the average lifetime for a non-instrument-rated pilot
>in clouds is about 3 minutes, and the accident sequences on which this
>evidence is based almost invariably start with straight and level
>entry into IMC. Anyone who thinks that just installing an artificial
>horizon in their glider is a 'get out of jail free' card is fooling
>themselves. I urge anyone considering this to get a copy of Condor
>(which has a turn indicator installed in most panels) and try their
>luck at maintaining any sort of reasonable attitude/airspeed solely by
>reference to instruments.
>
>When I owned a Cirrus SR22 power plane some years back, I carried a
>GPS-196 (with a GPS-generated artificial horizon and turn coordinator)
>with me as a last-ditch backup if all the electrics died. This
>worked, but it took quite a bit of practice to be able to stay
>reasonably upright using just that instrument.
>
>Just my $0.02
>
>TA
>
CH Ventus B

"If we are all "just dust in the wind", then I want to be at the top of a Huge Dust Devil!"

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 9, 11:48*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
> follows:
>
> 1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.

That can't possibly be a valid test. The first season I had my
ASW-28 I had a convincing win on Day 1 on R9. The reason was that I
found a thermal climb in severe VMC to an altitude several thousand
feet above the best anyone else saw for the day. Similary in a local
club contest, on a day that everyone was struggling to even stay in
the air, one competitor found a huge thermal that enabled a glide to
the first turnpoint and a day win.

There is currently no practical way to ensure a competitor does not
enter cloud. There is currently no practical way to ensure a
competitor does not violate cloud clearance regulations. As long as
that it true competitive pilots will push as close to cloud base are
they think will give a competitive advantage. Some pilots are more
competitive than others but I doubt there is a single pilot on the
West coast that would break off a 10kt climb at 12,000ft because they
estimated that the cloudbase was 13,000ft

Andy (GY)

[Cliff Hilty[_2_]]

John and All, Just for a moment put all the other rule-software-hardware
changes aside, how do you think contest pilots would react to the CD
setting a Max flying height for the day! Just say the weather man forcasts
cloudbase to be 10K msl for the day and the CD announces max flying height
of 9.5k and all logs for that day are checked for max height just as they
are now for 17.5k. Now no advantage to cloud flying, no need to worry about
what instruments we have or don't have.

Sure that weather man may not have it right but we still have a max height
limit regardless. If his estimate is low and cloud base is 2k higher it is
still fair as no one can go higher. If he is too high and cloudbase is
lower we are right where we are now but with todays forcasting abilities he
would not be off that far and it is movable right up until the start gate
opens.

Just sayin---


CH Ventus B

"If we are all "just dust in the wind", then I want to be at the top of a Huge Dust Devil!"

[Cliff Hilty[_2_]]

John and All, Just for a moment put all the other rule-software-hardware
changes aside, how do you think contest pilots would react to the CD
setting a Max flying height for the day! Just say the weather man forcasts
cloudbase to be 10K msl for the day and the CD announces max flying height
of 9.5k and all logs for that day are checked for max height just as they
are now for 17.5k. Now no advantage to cloud flying, no need to worry about
what instruments we have or don't have.

Sure that weather man may not have it right but we still have a max height
limit regardless. If his estimate is low and cloud base is 2k higher it is
still fair as no one can go higher. If he is too high and cloudbase is
lower we are right where we are now but with todays forcasting abilities he
would not be off that far and it is movable right up until the start gate
opens.

Just sayin---


CH Ventus B

"If we are all "just dust in the wind", then I want to be at the top of a Huge Dust Devil!"

[T8]

On Feb 9, 3:28*pm, Cliff Hilty
> wrote:
> John and All, Just for a moment put all the other rule-software-hardware
> changes aside, how do you think contest pilots would react to the CD
> setting a Max flying height for the day! Just say the weather man forcasts
> cloudbase to be 10K msl for the day and the CD announces max flying height
> of 9.5k and all logs for that day are checked for max height just as they
> are now for 17.5k. Now no advantage to cloud flying, no need to worry about
> what instruments we have or don't have.
>
> Sure that weather man may not have it right but we still have a max height
> limit regardless. If his estimate is low and cloud base is 2k higher it is
> still fair as no one can go higher. If he is too high and cloudbase is
> lower we are right where we are now but with todays forcasting abilities he
> would not be off that far and it is movable right up until the start gate
> opens.
>
> Just sayin---
>
> CH Ventus B
>
> "If we are all "just dust in the wind", then I want to be at the top of a Huge Dust Devil!"

Not practical in the East, for sure. As well, it doesn't necessarily
solve the problem.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[T8]

On Feb 9, 1:17*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>*Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
> work to control this. *I have been in and around enough contests to
> see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
> pilots will fess up! *I have seen more than one of the names high on
> the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!


Then you have a problem. Your options would appear to be peer
pressure or the safety box.

I'm not really a safety monkey (I'd go back to zero height finish
lines in a heartbeat), but I chafe badly when confronted with
borderline suicidal behavior. This is one such instance. I'd be
absolutely ripped if I had a really good day, stayed legal, got beat
by some jackass cloud flying.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 9, 2:04*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:17*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> >*Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
> > work to control this. *I have been in and around enough contests to
> > see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
> > pilots will fess up! *I have seen more than one of the names high on
> > the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!
>
> Then you have a problem. *Your options would appear to be peer
> pressure or the safety box.
>
> I'm not really a safety monkey (I'd go back to zero height finish
> lines in a heartbeat), but I chafe badly when confronted with
> borderline suicidal behavior. *This is one such instance. *I'd be
> absolutely ripped if I had a really good day, stayed legal, got beat
> by some jackass cloud flying.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

I'll repeat what I said earlier and Andy pointed out a few posts ago -
it's very hard to know when to pull out of a strong thermal as you
approach cloudbase, particularly out west. Most competitive pilots
will go as high as they can, since there is no practical way to
maintain the mandated clearance and no penalty if they do bust it.
Most will go into cloud as an unintended consequence at the top of a
fast climb they held for just one turn too many. This will happen
regardless of whether or not there are cloud-flying instruments.

Many competitors are already breaking the rules on mandated clearance
from clouds and there is no way to monitor this or penalize the
behavior. If you want to prevent it, you are going to have to come up
with a way to monitor it.

As a fellow contest pilot said to me "I'll start worrying when clouds
are shown on igc files"

Mike

[T8]

On Feb 9, 4:50*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:04*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 1:17*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > >*Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
> > > work to control this. *I have been in and around enough contests to
> > > see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
> > > pilots will fess up! *I have seen more than one of the names high on
> > > the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!
>
> > Then you have a problem. *Your options would appear to be peer
> > pressure or the safety box.
>
> > I'm not really a safety monkey (I'd go back to zero height finish
> > lines in a heartbeat), but I chafe badly when confronted with
> > borderline suicidal behavior. *This is one such instance. *I'd be
> > absolutely ripped if I had a really good day, stayed legal, got beat
> > by some jackass cloud flying.
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> I'll repeat what I said earlier and Andy pointed out a few posts ago -
> it's very hard to know when to pull out of a strong thermal as you
> approach cloudbase, particularly out west. *Most competitive pilots
> will go as high as they can, since there is no practical way to
> maintain the mandated clearance and no penalty if they do bust it.
> Most will go into cloud as an unintended consequence at the top of a
> fast climb they held for just one turn too many. *This will happen
> regardless of whether or not there are cloud-flying instruments.
>
> Many competitors are already breaking the rules on mandated clearance
> from clouds and there is no way to monitor this or penalize the
> behavior. *If you want to prevent it, you are going to have to come up
> with a way to monitor it.
>
> As a fellow contest pilot said to me "I'll start worrying when clouds
> are shown on igc files"
>
> Mike

Ah, okay. I misread your comments earlier as something much less
"incidental".

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andrzej Kobus]

I would only like to make you guys think about the following. With
current GPS moving map devices and sampling rates of <= 1 sec as well
as very high zoom selection you already pretty much know if you are
turning or not. If you add bank indicator (still allowed) you have all
you need for T&B.

I don't have an opinion on allowing AH type of instruments in our
cockpits. I am against cloud flying period. I realize though enforcing
this is next to impossible unless we all have cameras to record our
flights for inspection.

No more devices in my cockpit. I am already scratching my head where
to put the PowerFlarm (ghost). I also need a small nuclear power plant
in my glider to power all of these "must have" devices.

[Sean Fidler]

Exactly. So the chance of being proficient and climbing up into the cloud using a turn and bank is slim to none. Right. So why not let pilots have a turn and bank so that there is at least a chance for them if they do one day get into the cloud.

A hear post after post and frankly am losing respect fast.

This is so wrong...sad. The RC craps on safety out of fear that someone might cheat with an instrument that even the RC says is unusable for what is feared, thermal-ling into clouds with it.

You guys would be great witnesses in my trial...keep it coming.

Really think about what you are saying here.

1) assuming anyone with a safety instrument onboard at a contest has installed it to cheat
2) assuming that a) its impossible to use safely if IMC is encountered AND AT THE SAME TIME b) that everyone with one intends to cheat and will benefit from it.
3) totally disregarding the safety aspect of the instrument.

More observations:
Why does any glider have one?
Why does any light airplane have one?
Why do these companies build AH's into their instruments?

Are these people all idiots? Because that's what you are saying. Why do these instruments exist for gliders? In any form? Hmmmm?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/9/2012 12:07 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> What if I have flown contests? What if I havent? Please define for
> us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.

I'm hoping that knowing your experience will let me discuss the
situation with you more usefully, rather than just guessing at it and
telling you things you already know, or omitting things that would be
useful to you.

You know my experience in contests from my comments here, but I still
don't know yours.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/9/2012 7:49 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Exactly. So the chance of being proficient and climbing up into the
> cloud using a turn and bank is slim to none. Right. So why not let
> pilots have a turn and bank so that there is at least a chance for
> them if they do one day get into the cloud.
>
> A hear post after post and frankly am losing respect fast.
>
> This is so wrong...sad. The RC craps on safety out of fear that
> someone might cheat with an instrument that even the RC says is
> unusable for what is feared, thermal-ling into clouds with it.
>
> You guys would be great witnesses in my trial...keep it coming.
>
> Really think about what you are saying here.
>
> 1) assuming anyone with a safety instrument onboard at a contest has
> installed it to cheat 2) assuming that a) its impossible to use
> safely if IMC is encountered AND AT THE SAME TIME b) that everyone
> with one intends to cheat and will benefit from it. 3) totally
> disregarding the safety aspect of the instrument.
>
> More observations: Why does any glider have one? Why does any light
> airplane have one? Why do these companies build AH's into their
> instruments?
>
> Are these people all idiots? Because that's what you are saying.
> Why do these instruments exist for gliders? In any form? Hmmmm?

My guess is you have not flown in contests, do not have experience
flying in clouds in a glider, and do not have very much glider
experience. I flew contests for 30 years, and never needed a
cloud-flying instrument, nor did anyone report needing one, and no one
has lobbied for them to be allowed. 30 years! Plus, I've flown 5000
hours in gliders outside of contests, and never needed one even then.

You are making way too big a deal out this. The risks in contests do not
come from flying without a cloud-flying instrument, but from many other
sources. It is not just at the bottom of the list; it's not even on the
list.

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

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 9, 5:55*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>If you add bank indicator (still allowed) you have all
> you need for T&B.

To the best of my knowledge the only bank indicator allowed by SSA
contest rules is the pilot's view of the world outside the cockpit.
What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?

Andy

[T8]

On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:

> What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?

That's his checkbook register. After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. The fear
of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-).

-T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>
> That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
> pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
> of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-).
>
> -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)

Eric - the issue is not whether or not you need a particular
instrument but whether, since they are going to be included in an
increasing number of multi-use instruments, these should be
prohibited. In nearly 2,000 hours of glider flying, I have only found
the need for a horizon on two occasions, but I was glad to have one!

Your argument could be used for parachutes too - I have never needed
or used mine.

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

So I received this email today. Who else received this email?


12:49 PM (2 minutes ago)

to me

This message may not have been sent by: Learn more Report phishing
The Rules Committee (RC) has become aware of glider instruments that are available, or will soon be available, which will have built-in artificial horizon capabilities. The RC reaffirms the longstanding rule that instruments which can be used to enable flight without reference to the ground are prohibited in competition. The RC policy addressing this issue is posted on the SSA website: www.ssa.org > sailplane racing > rules & process > important reading -- Instruments with Artificial Horizon or T&B Features http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf

SSA Contest Committee Chair

--------------------------------------------

And what of my watch, my 396, etc?? I think the rules committee might want to consider another path. I would hate for someone to get tossed at the end of the competition because they flew with an instrument that might save their life someday / or an instrument which has AH capability that they were unaware of... I just find this rule silly, but perhaps I underestimate the lengths that some might go to cheat. Wow is this a dark side of contest soaring. What a shame that this is a policy that some want to stand behind. Safety should be the priority. Here...ANTI SAFETY is the goal.

[Sean Fidler]

I do fly contests, have many, many hours, am a commercial pilot, instrument rated. So I guess your incorrect. Hmmm.

Any more lessons for me?

[Sean Fidler]

From the SSA Rules Committee:

US Competition Rules Committee Policy on Instruments Incorporating
the Capability for Flight Without Reference To the Ground
February 8, 2012
The US Rules Committee ("RC") reaffirms the longstanding rule that instruments which can be used to
enable flight without reference to the ground are prohibited in competition.. The following policy
relating to multi-function instruments that provide such functionality as a feature has been adopted
based on consideration of the implications and side effects on contest procedures, scoring software and
the imminent start of the US contest season; and discussions with manufacturers and pilots:
1. Rule 6.6 will remain as is.
6.6
6.6.1
Restricted Equipment
Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.
• Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a
distance greater than one wingspan.
2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if the RC determines that the
“artificial horizon” or “turn and bank” capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the
period of the competition.
3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted to the RC for
inspection well before the intended use (at least one month). This must also include a
statement of compliance from the manufacturer.
b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a specific device is eligible for
waiver:
a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden capabilities are disabled or
entirely absent when the device powers up and when the disablement will expire.
b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities during the period of
competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios would include:
i. Reloading firmware
ii. Changing device settings
iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup battery)
5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the beginning of the contest
b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official (e.g. CD, scorer) that the
disabling has been done.
c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC logs is not an acceptable
process)
<end>

[noel.wade]

I received it as well.

I am concerned because a good number of us use PDA software that may
include new features we cannot easily disable. So we all are suddenly
not legal to fly in contests this year, or we're open to being
protested because we use free software that we don't control?

You're telling me that I have to buy a whole new Flight Computer,
because *that's* the best way to deal with the issue of cloud-flying?
Make competitors spend more money (and arguably have less "safety
equipment") onboard?

What about Smartphones, many of which have gyros and can be used as a
(really bad) AH device? You mean we have to fly without cell-phones
now, or buy a cheap crappy cell-phone for use in our glider?

I've resisted weighing in on this so far, but I'm really galled by
it. Cloud-flying has happened in the distant past, but I've been
involved in competition for the last few years and its been POUNDED
into me that you absolutely don't do it, either in competition or in
casual flying. Its a stupid risk to take and the potential gains are
minimal (i.e. your National Trophy isn't stuffed with a million
dollars and doesn't come with a titanic sponsorship deal; it isn't
worth dying for).

Surely there's a better way to deal with the cloud-flying temptation
than by cutting off a bunch of people at the knees and hobbling their
ability to use tools and equipment that are perfectly legal and
adequate in every other way...

--Noel


On Feb 10, 9:59*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> So I received this email today. *Who else received this email?
>
> The Rules Committee (RC) has become aware of glider instruments that are available, or will soon be available, which will have built-in artificial horizon capabilities. The RC reaffirms the longstanding rule that instruments which can be used to enable flight without reference to the ground are prohibited in competition. The RC policy addressing this issue is posted on the SSA website:www.ssa.org> sailplane racing > rules & process > important reading -- Instruments with Artificial Horizon or T&B Features *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf
>
> SSA Contest Committee Chair

[T8]

On Feb 10, 12:59*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> So I received this email today. *Who else received this email?

Read it again. The answer is on the very next line of that email.

Answers to your other questions have already been answered and the
rationale explained.

-T8

[Sean Fidler]

To sum all of this up, as I am bored of the subject and know where old political power plays will go (as we sit today)...

The SSA has made the decision to outlaw T&B because they are more concerned with the chance that someone would be able to cheat with instrument than the chance that some might die without it.

I am estimating that very few would try to cheat, and that very few (but many more than would try cheating) might benefit from the T&B in the next few years. The SSA rule says we hope that person comes out of the bottom of that cloud in pieces, and screw you...cheater! ;-)

A policy that allows the T&B for everyone (especially now that it can and will be easily included in modern instruments) would be a win for safety and logic (IMO). It is time to change this rule.

If people want to cheat, fine. Its a game, for fun...right?

But why limit a major safety option for a sport in which most pilots are flying near clouds all the time?

This unenforced (and unenforcable) rule is going to become more and more of a challenge to enforce.

I do race contests...and have never needed a T&B yet. But I am sure the day will come... So I am installing one. Its that simple for me.

[Ron Gleason]

On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>
> That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
> pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
> of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-).
>
> -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)

I have read the position released by the RC,
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf ,
and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
keeper (I have scored contests the last couple of years and have
plans to do so in 2012).


The document reads:

2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if
the RC determines that the “artificial horizon” or “turn and bank”
capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the period
of the competition.
3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted
to the RC for inspection well before the intended use (at least one
month). This must also include a statement of compliance from the
manufacturer.
b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a
specific device is eligible for waiver:
a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden
capabilities are disabled or entirely absent when the device powers up
and when the disablement will expire.
b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities
during the period of competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios
would include:
i. Reloading firmware
ii. Changing device settings
iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup
battery)
5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the
beginning of the contest
b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official
(e.g. CD, scorer) that the disabling has been done.
c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC
logs is not an acceptable process)

<??> Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
their plane to the RC for inspection?
<??> Not sure how 4a is to followed. Will each instrument that
receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
all SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
<??> How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
<??> Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
updated so that contest organizers and other personnel know to check
for waivers, similar to insurance forms?

I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. I am concerned
and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
contest organizers and rules committee members.

Ron Gleason

[S. Murry]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:05:24 -0600, Sean Fidler > wrote:

> I do fly contests, have many, many hours, am a commercial pilot,
> instrument rated. So I guess your incorrect. Hmmm.
>
> Any more lessons for me?

Does anyone here track the longest thread ever on RAS? This one's on its
third week. I think if we can keep Eric and Sean baiting each other for a
few more days, we'll probably have a record.

Whoever makes the Butterfly vario owes you guys a free sample...every day
I get about 10 pop-ups on my computer with "New Butterfly Vario" as the
subject. Personally, after all these pop-ups, I have a weird compulsion
to buy one of these things. I don't even know what it does, and I'm happy
with my current vario, but I just feel compelled to give Paul Remde my
credit card number...very strange.

Of course, if you do get a freebie, remember not to use it in a contest...

--
Stefan Murry

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 1:49*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>
> > That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
> > pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
> > of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-).
>
> > -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)
>
> I have read the position released by the RC,http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf,
> and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
> competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
> keeper (I have scored contests *the last couple of years and have
> plans to do so in 2012).
>
> The document reads:
>
> 2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if
> the RC determines that the “artificial horizon” or “turn and bank”
> capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the period
> of the competition.
> 3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
> a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted
> to the RC for inspection well before the intended use (at least one
> month). This must also include a statement of compliance from the
> manufacturer.
> b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
> 4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a
> specific device is eligible for waiver:
> a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden
> capabilities are disabled or entirely absent when the device powers up
> and when the disablement will expire.
> b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities
> during the period of competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios
> would include:
> i. Reloading firmware
> ii. Changing device settings
> iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup
> battery)
> 5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
> a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the
> beginning of the contest
> b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official
> (e.g. CD, scorer) that the disabling has been done.
> c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC
> logs is not an acceptable process)
>
> <??> *Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
> their plane to the RC for inspection?
> <??> *Not sure how 4a is to followed. *Will each instrument that
> receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
> all *SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
> <??> *How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
> works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
> <??> *Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
> updated so that contest organizers and other personnel *know to check
> for waivers, similar to insurance forms?
>
> I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
> will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. *I am concerned
> and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
> contest organizers and rules committee members.
>
> Ron Gleason

Hi Ron
It is expected that manufacturer's will submit representative units so
that the RC can determine that they comply.
We fully expect a list of compliant devices to result. No we don't
know where that list will live.
A complying instrument will display the information required to
veriify on start up. A contest official observes once and it's done.
Much of how this is being handled is targeted toward not increasing
the score's workload. This is why saving compliance information on the
flight log was determined to not be acceptable.
No forms will need to change. It is up to the pilot, if he has one of
these, to demonstate compliance. The other option is a screw driver.
We understand that new stuff is coming and this is why this policy was
created to get ahead of it and give pilots and manufacturers some
reasonable way to comply with a long standing rule.
UH
RC Chair

[Ron Gleason]

On Feb 10, 12:13*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:49*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>
> > > That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
> > > pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
> > > of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-)..
>
> > > -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)
>
> > I have read the position released by the RC,http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf,
> > and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
> > competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
> > keeper (I have scored contests *the last couple of years and have
> > plans to do so in 2012).
>
> > The document reads:
>
> > 2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if
> > the RC determines that the “artificial horizon” or “turn and bank”
> > capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the period
> > of the competition.
> > 3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
> > a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted
> > to the RC for inspection well before the intended use (at least one
> > month). This must also include a statement of compliance from the
> > manufacturer.
> > b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
> > 4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a
> > specific device is eligible for waiver:
> > a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden
> > capabilities are disabled or entirely absent when the device powers up
> > and when the disablement will expire.
> > b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities
> > during the period of competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios
> > would include:
> > i. Reloading firmware
> > ii. Changing device settings
> > iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup
> > battery)
> > 5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
> > a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the
> > beginning of the contest
> > b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official
> > (e.g. CD, scorer) that the disabling has been done.
> > c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC
> > logs is not an acceptable process)
>
> > <??> *Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
> > their plane to the RC for inspection?
> > <??> *Not sure how 4a is to followed. *Will each instrument that
> > receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
> > all *SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
> > <??> *How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
> > works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
> > <??> *Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
> > updated so that contest organizers and other personnel *know to check
> > for waivers, similar to insurance forms?
>
> > I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
> > will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. *I am concerned
> > and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
> > contest organizers and rules committee members.
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
> Hi Ron
> It is expected that manufacturer's will submit representative units so
> that the RC can determine that they comply.
> We fully expect a list of compliant devices to result. No we don't
> know where that list will live.
> A complying instrument will display the information required to
> veriify on start up. A contest official observes once and it's done.
> Much of how this is being handled is targeted toward not increasing
> the score's workload. This is why saving compliance information on the
> flight log was determined to not be acceptable.
> No forms will need to change. It is up to the pilot, if he has one of
> these, to demonstate compliance. The other option is a screw driver.
> We understand that new stuff is coming and this is why this policy was
> created to get ahead of it and give pilots and manufacturers some
> reasonable way to comply with a long standing rule.
> UH
> RC Chair

Thanks for the quick reply Hank.

I see the process and want to believe it to be simple.

I am envisioning the RC producing a document that shows the start up
screens, etc, of the instrument for visual reference for use by the CD
and/or scorer.

This process is analogous to the ENL verification for a motor
glider. yes it is up to the pilot but beating by the scorer and other
techniques are required for many folks to have it down prior to the
first day of competition.

Nice job and solution for getting in front of the wave!

Ron

[T8]

On Feb 10, 1:18*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:

> I am concerned because a good number of us use PDA software that may
> include new features we cannot easily disable. *So we all are suddenly
> not legal to fly in contests this year, or we're open to being
> protested because we use free software that we don't control?

[...] other good points snipped.

Phones, watches and PDA software cannot be policed, full stop. LK8000
is designed to run off an SD card.

So, practically speaking, they won't be. I don't think anyone would
actually be stupid enough to try flying blind on these "instruments"
intentionally and if you'd like to try having blundered into cloud
unintentionally, well, good luck, you'll need it.

Gyros in the panel are a different story. I can think immediately of
three guys that would have, at one time, jumped at the chance to cloud
fly in a contest if they thought they could get away with it and it
would give an advantage. I think they have mellowed a bit with age
(but in one case -- not so sure!).

Sean -- in my view -- is spinning an army of straw men. Unlike Eric,
I've flown contests for *only* 20 years and I'd echo -- "it's not just
at the bottom of the safety list, it isn't even on the list." It's
easy to stay the f--- out of clouds if you even give a nod to the
FARs. Would I like a turn gyro or AH in my panel -- sure! -- but I
absolutely do not need it for contest flying (we get a lot of wet wave
in the Fall in NH, that's another issue altogether).

If the rules change w.r.t. instruments, I won't complain. But I will
rat you out if I see you flying into or out of a cloud. That's a
promise.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 11:13*am, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:49*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>
> > > That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
> > > pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
> > > of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-)..
>
> > > -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)
>
> > I have read the position released by the RC,http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf,
> > and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
> > competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
> > keeper (I have scored contests *the last couple of years and have
> > plans to do so in 2012).
>
> > The document reads:
>
> > 2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if
> > the RC determines that the “artificial horizon” or “turn and bank”
> > capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the period
> > of the competition.
> > 3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
> > a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted
> > to the RC for inspection well before the intended use (at least one
> > month). This must also include a statement of compliance from the
> > manufacturer.
> > b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
> > 4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a
> > specific device is eligible for waiver:
> > a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden
> > capabilities are disabled or entirely absent when the device powers up
> > and when the disablement will expire.
> > b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities
> > during the period of competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios
> > would include:
> > i. Reloading firmware
> > ii. Changing device settings
> > iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup
> > battery)
> > 5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
> > a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the
> > beginning of the contest
> > b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official
> > (e.g. CD, scorer) that the disabling has been done.
> > c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC
> > logs is not an acceptable process)
>
> > <??> *Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
> > their plane to the RC for inspection?
> > <??> *Not sure how 4a is to followed. *Will each instrument that
> > receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
> > all *SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
> > <??> *How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
> > works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
> > <??> *Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
> > updated so that contest organizers and other personnel *know to check
> > for waivers, similar to insurance forms?
>
> > I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
> > will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. *I am concerned
> > and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
> > contest organizers and rules committee members.
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
> Hi Ron
> It is expected that manufacturer's will submit representative units so
> that the RC can determine that they comply.
> We fully expect a list of compliant devices to result. No we don't
> know where that list will live.
> A complying instrument will display the information required to
> veriify on start up. A contest official observes once and it's done.
> Much of how this is being handled is targeted toward not increasing
> the score's workload. This is why saving compliance information on the
> flight log was determined to not be acceptable.
> No forms will need to change. It is up to the pilot, if he has one of
> these, to demonstate compliance. The other option is a screw driver.
> We understand that new stuff is coming and this is why this policy was
> created to get ahead of it and give pilots and manufacturers some
> reasonable way to comply with a long standing rule.
> UH
> RC Chair

From what I read and understand in the rules if I obtain a waiver, and
have my Tru-Trak inspected, and the on-off switch is "off" and perhaps
safetied with witness wire then perhaps I'm ok to fly a contest. Or
maybe I pull 2 screws and place a cat food lid in front of the
display.

I'm more than happy to demonstrate compliance by wiring my switch with
a disabling mechanism, but don't make me unscrew my panel, pull wires
and remove an instrument. It's sad that by default I would be
considered a potential cheater because I consider an AH a basic safety
need.

The other issue that Noel brings up is the LK8000 and that AH page. I
would like to think that on top of everything else, I would not need
to buy and learn another piece of soaring software just because there
is a AH page on my flight computer. I've made a few comparisons with
the Tru-Trak and the LK8000 AH, I would not rely on the LK8000, but if
I had nothing else and it meant giving that a try or ripping my wings
off I would at least try it. Maybe Paolo could add a button to "dis-
able" the page?

Here's a great way to stifle pilots who might be tempted to fly
competition................remove your turn and bank, or don't fly in
our competition.

Brad

[Marc]

On Feb 10, 11:13*am, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:49*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>
> > > That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
> > > pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
> > > of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-)..
>
> > > -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)
>
> > I have read the position released by the RC,http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf,
> > and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
> > competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
> > keeper (I have scored contests *the last couple of years and have
> > plans to do so in 2012).
>
> > The document reads:
>
> > 2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if
> > the RC determines that the “artificial horizon” or “turn and bank”
> > capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the period
> > of the competition.
> > 3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
> > a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted
> > to the RC for inspection well before the intended use (at least one
> > month). This must also include a statement of compliance from the
> > manufacturer.
> > b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
> > 4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a
> > specific device is eligible for waiver:
> > a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden
> > capabilities are disabled or entirely absent when the device powers up
> > and when the disablement will expire.
> > b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities
> > during the period of competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios
> > would include:
> > i. Reloading firmware
> > ii. Changing device settings
> > iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup
> > battery)
> > 5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
> > a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the
> > beginning of the contest
> > b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official
> > (e.g. CD, scorer) that the disabling has been done.
> > c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC
> > logs is not an acceptable process)
>
> > <??> *Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
> > their plane to the RC for inspection?
> > <??> *Not sure how 4a is to followed. *Will each instrument that
> > receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
> > all *SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
> > <??> *How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
> > works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
> > <??> *Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
> > updated so that contest organizers and other personnel *know to check
> > for waivers, similar to insurance forms?
>
> > I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
> > will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. *I am concerned
> > and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
> > contest organizers and rules committee members.
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
> Hi Ron
> It is expected that manufacturer's will submit representative units so
> that the RC can determine that they comply.
> We fully expect a list of compliant devices to result. No we don't
> know where that list will live.
> A complying instrument will display the information required to
> veriify on start up. A contest official observes once and it's done.
> Much of how this is being handled is targeted toward not increasing
> the score's workload. This is why saving compliance information on the
> flight log was determined to not be acceptable.
> No forms will need to change. It is up to the pilot, if he has one of
> these, to demonstate compliance. The other option is a screw driver.
> We understand that new stuff is coming and this is why this policy was
> created to get ahead of it and give pilots and manufacturers some
> reasonable way to comply with a long standing rule.

The iPhone 4 and 4S (along with the newest Android and Windows phones)
contain 3-axis gyroscope and accelerometer sensors, and that there are
already at least two "artificial horizon" applications in the App
store. Both appear to be rather poorly implemented, but there is
nothing inherently preventing someone from creating an effective (and
accurate) implementation using known sensor fusion techniques. This
can't be disabled, and even if the iPhone is inspected and determined
to be free of offending apps, the phone can simply be synced with a
laptop to reinstall in a matter of moments. I suspect there will be
some resistance to banning these phones...

Marc

[Sean Fidler]

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?

Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.
>
> But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.
>
> To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?
>
> Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...
>
> Sean
> F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.
>
> > But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.
>
> > To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?
>
> > Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...
>
> > Sean
> > F2
>
> Sean,
>
> Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
> thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
> (6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
> (RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).
>
> That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
> longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
> tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
> you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
> case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
> the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
> cockpit did this past year).
>
> QT
> Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.
>
> > > But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.
>
> > > To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?
>
> > > Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...
>
> > > Sean
> > > F2
>
> > Sean,
>
> > Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
> > thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
> > (6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
> > (RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).
>
> > That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
> > longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
> > tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
> > you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
> > case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
> > the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
> > cockpit did this past year).
>
> > QT
> > Rules Committee
>
> Looks like meds a kicking in.
> All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
> There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
> can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
> the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
> clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
> illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
> If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
> What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
> solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
> to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
> they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
> that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
> together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
> on the pilot or the contest organizers.
> It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
> according to the published rules.
> There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
> easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
> become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
> devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
> the risk.
> The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
> of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
> increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
> Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
> have developed.
> CU
> UH
> RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

[Dan Marotta]

As long as hot chicks hang out at the finish line, and the prize money is so
bountiful, pilots will cheat to win! What, no chicks? Oh, never mind...
:-)


"Brad" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 4:34 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 6:15 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 6:07 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general
> > > everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to
> > > decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start
> > > area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule
> > > after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest
> > > (manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you
> > > do.
>
> > > But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not
> > > sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat.
> > > There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing
> > > T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.
>
> > > To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are
> > > supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would
> > > give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?
>
> > > Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think
> > > some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about
> > > that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...
>
> > > Sean
> > > F2
>
> > Sean,
>
> > Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
> > thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
> > (6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
> > (RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).
>
> > That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
> > longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
> > tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
> > you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
> > case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
> > the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
> > cockpit did this past year).
>
> > QT
> > Rules Committee
>
> Looks like meds a kicking in.
> All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
> There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
> can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
> the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
> clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
> illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
> If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
> What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
> solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
> to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
> they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
> that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
> together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
> on the pilot or the contest organizers.
> It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
> according to the published rules.
> There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
> easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
> become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
> devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
> the risk.
> The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
> of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
> increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
> Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
> have developed.
> CU
> UH
> RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

[Bart[_4_]]

On Feb 9, 10:48*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> > What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
> > way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.
> If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
> follows:
>
> 1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.
> Remember rule 6.1
> 2. Very nice! See 1
> 3. Even nicer! See 1
> 4. See 3
> 5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
> 6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver

Hmmmm. It seems that if I ever make such a device and write two
firmware versions (AH and no AH), then, in order to fly in a contest,
I will have to
- load the version without AH support, AND
- never mention the existence of the other one.

Safety considerations aside, I think that many contributors to this
thread are concerned about devices that COULD, at least in theory, act
as an AH. For example, XCsoar is open source and runs on Android
phones, some of which have gyros. Lousy rate gyros, but gyros
nevertheless. Anyone with the necessary skills can modify the
application to display some sort of AH.

I guess what I am getting to is that you either trust the pilot or you
don't. If the rules are tightened enough to prevent any sort of AH in
the cockpit, then there may be no pilots willing to compete. I am
certainly not flying, competition or not, without my Android phone.

Bart

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 8:02*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > > I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.
>
> > > > But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.
>
> > > > To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?
>
> > > > Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...
>
> > > > Sean
> > > > F2
>
> > > Sean,
>
> > > Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
> > > thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
> > > (6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
> > > (RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).
>
> > > That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
> > > longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
> > > tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
> > > you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
> > > case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
> > > the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
> > > cockpit did this past year).
>
> > > QT
> > > Rules Committee
>
> > Looks like meds a kicking in.
> > All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
> > There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
> > can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
> > the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
> > clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
> > illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
> > If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
> > What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
> > solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
> > to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
> > they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
> > that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
> > together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
> > on the pilot or the contest organizers.
> > It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
> > according to the published rules.
> > There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
> > easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
> > become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
> > devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
> > the risk.
> > The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
> > of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
> > increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
> > Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
> > have developed.
> > CU
> > UH
> > RC Chair
>
> Hank, Respectfully:
>
> How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
> an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
> switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
> solution the Butterfly folks come up with.
>
> I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
> not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
> it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
> clouds is absurd!
>
> I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
> their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.
>
> I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
> the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
> switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.
>
> Regards,
> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As I alluded privately, your solution for you situation could work.
Not sure how you deal with disabling a piece of equipment you put on
your MEL, but assume could.
I'm the CD. You come to me on practice day and give me a bit of a
whine and ask me to look at your disabling method. Lets say I agree to
cut you a break and I put a seal tape someplace so it is secured.
Everybody is happy.
Now- multiply that by 20, or 30 , or 50.
Now- nobody is happy.
Organizers and officials would never want to have to deal with that.
We spent quite a bit of time on the Butterfly application to lay the
ground work for it and other programmable devices so that they can be
checked very quickly and in a common manner.
We want everybody to come play, but we have to keep the workload for
organizers and officials in mind.
The truth is that if you showed up with your True Track covered and
with clear indication it was disabled, I doubt anybody would notice or
give a darn.
UH
The issues are not simple as you can imagine.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 6:41*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:02*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > > > I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders.. *Overall I commend you for what you do.
>
> > > > > But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.
>
> > > > > To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?
>
> > > > > Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...
>
> > > > > Sean
> > > > > F2
>
> > > > Sean,
>
> > > > Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
> > > > thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
> > > > (6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
> > > > (RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).
>
> > > > That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
> > > > longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
> > > > tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
> > > > you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
> > > > case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
> > > > the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
> > > > cockpit did this past year).
>
> > > > QT
> > > > Rules Committee
>
> > > Looks like meds a kicking in.
> > > All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
> > > There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
> > > can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
> > > the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
> > > clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
> > > illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
> > > If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
> > > What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
> > > solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
> > > to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
> > > they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
> > > that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
> > > together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
> > > on the pilot or the contest organizers.
> > > It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
> > > according to the published rules.
> > > There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
> > > easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
> > > become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
> > > devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
> > > the risk.
> > > The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
> > > of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
> > > increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
> > > Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
> > > have developed.
> > > CU
> > > UH
> > > RC Chair
>
> > Hank, Respectfully:
>
> > How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
> > an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
> > switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
> > solution the Butterfly folks come up with.
>
> > I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
> > not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
> > it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
> > clouds is absurd!
>
> > I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
> > their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.
>
> > I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
> > the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
> > switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.
>
> > Regards,
> > Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As I alluded privately, your solution for you situation could work.
> Not sure how you deal with disabling a piece of equipment you put on
> your MEL, but assume could.
> I'm the CD. You come to me on practice day and give me a bit of a
> whine and ask me to look at your disabling method. Lets say I agree to
> cut you a break and I put a seal tape someplace so it is secured.
> Everybody is happy.
> Now- multiply that by 20, or 30 , or 50.
> Now- nobody is happy.
> Organizers and officials would never want to have to deal with that.
> We spent quite a bit of time on the Butterfly application to lay the
> ground work for it and other programmable devices so that they can be
> checked very quickly and in a common manner.
> We want everybody to come play, but we have to keep the workload for
> organizers and officials in mind.
> The truth is that if you showed up with your True Track covered and
> with clear indication it was disabled, I doubt anybody would notice or
> give a darn.
> UH
> The issues are not simple as you can imagine.

Hank,

that works for me!

thanks,
Brad

[noel.wade]

To prove Bart's point, how about: http://www.hiltonsoftware.com/index.html

The iPad is thin enough to tuck behind your seatback until after
takeoff, then you lean forward and pop it out (hopefully after you
release from the towplane so you don't risk killing him if you lose
control of the sailplane).

Look, I appreciate a lot of the rules committee and for the most part
I think the guys involved are great people. It can be a tough job and
I'm not upset with them personally. I don't WANT people to cloud-fly,
and I'll certainly NEVER cloud-fly, and I DO think its easy to stay
clear of clouds (even if you're "pushing it"). But this is a total
"cut off our nose to spite our face" kind of deal. You can't possibly
cover every scenario and "strip search" every glider. You can't stop
everyday technology (that people use in their normal life) from
filtering into the sport (shall we try to return to the pre-GPS days,
anyone?).

As far as UH's comment: "There is no way that the RC could ever go to
the BOD and say that we can accept permitting equipment that permits
true cloud flying"
That's fine, but we're not _preventing_ "true cloud flying" right
now. People can still cloud-fly with or without the equipment
(they're just EVEN DUMBER if they do it without the equipment).

Why not tell the BoD that the rules still forbid cloud-flying, and
leave it at that? Or state that both flying IMC and the use of
artificial horizons are against the rules and violators are subject to
explusion and suspension from flying for a period of X years? You can
discourage behavior by instituting extreme penalties for anyone who
gets caught. Yes, their odds of being caught may not be great, but
stiff penalties (including a lengthy ban from contest-flying due to
"unsafe flying") changes the risk-reward equation in people's minds.

And frankly, if someone's determined to cheat they will find a way to
do so. My long experience in auto-racing proves that out! Why make
life hard on *everyone* in a futile attempt to stop a few bad apples?

Let's try a thought-experiment: We handicap gliders based on their
make/model, because we expect all gliders of a given model to perform
relatively similarly, right? How come we don't check to see if
someone's reprofiled the wings of their ship, to give them a better
airfoil? They could theoretically get better performance than the
handicap indicates. It would be hard to detect - especially with an
older glider in Sports Class that's been refinished once or twice in
its life. It would be even harder to prove. But under the same logic
being applied to the Artificial Horizon gear, we would have to measure
every airfoil of every glider, and BAN all gliders that have any signs
of being refinished. Hunting down and trying to eradicate all
potential sources of artificial horizons or instrument-flying seems as
equally-impractical as what I've just proposed.

The point is, as Bart says, there are some things that are just not
practical to try to control 100%. Why not just declare that the use
of such device functions illegal, and then rely on the protest process
to throw out the few bums who cloud-fly and (hopefully) get caught?
Why hurt everyone who's trying to buy a good piece of equipment or is
getting into competitions "on the cheap" with free PDA software, or
who owns a modern cell-phone?

I'm not mad, I'm just bewildered...

--Noel

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/10/2012 8:03 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Feb 10, 5:54 am, > wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 7:26 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?
>>
>> That's his checkbook register. After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
>> pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. The fear
>> of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-).
>>
>> -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)
>
> Eric - the issue is not whether or not you need a particular
> instrument but whether, since they are going to be included in an
> increasing number of multi-use instruments, these should be
> prohibited. In nearly 2,000 hours of glider flying, I have only found
> the need for a horizon on two occasions, but I was glad to have one!
>
> Your argument could be used for parachutes too - I have never needed
> or used mine.

I'm not which Eric you are answering, but parachutes have been used a
few times in contests, but I'm not aware of any accidents that would
have been avoided in contests if a horizon had been installed. So,
pragmatically, requiring parachutes seems like a good idea.

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 8:39*pm, Bart > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:48*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
> > > What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
> > > way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.
> > If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
> > follows:
>
> > 1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.
> > Remember rule 6.1
> > 2. Very nice! See 1
> > 3. Even nicer! See 1
> > 4. See 3
> > 5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
> > 6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
>
> Hmmmm. It seems that if I ever make such a device and write two
> firmware versions (AH and no AH), then, in order to fly in a contest,
> I will have to
> - load the version without AH support, AND
> - never mention the existence of the other one.
>
> Safety considerations aside, I think that many contributors to this
> thread are concerned about devices that COULD, at least in theory, act
> as an AH. For example, XCsoar is open source and runs on Android
> phones, some of which have gyros. Lousy rate gyros, but gyros
> nevertheless. Anyone with the necessary skills can modify the
> application to display some sort of AH.
>
> I guess what I am getting to is that you either trust the pilot or you
> don't. If the rules are tightened enough to prevent any sort of AH in
> the cockpit, then there may be no pilots willing to compete. I am
> certainly not flying, competition or not, without my Android phone.
>
> Bart

Just curious- what is so critical to your flying that you won't fly
without your phone?
UH

[[email protected]]

Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwinism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentioned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into these conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-)
Craig

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 11, 4:31*pm, wrote:
> Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwinism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentioned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into these conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-)
> Craig

Nice post Craig. Maybe some of the younger pilots who didn't grow up
in the bad old days of soaring and want to embrace modern technology
will rip their in-experienced wings off and die as their gliders lawn
darts into the ground. Just think how happy you'll be to not have to
read their trolling posts anymore.

Brilliant, simply brilliant.

Brad

[Alan[_6_]]

In article <26927612.551.1329006666807.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbmq9> writes:
>Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwin=
>ism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentio=
>ned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into thes=
>e conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart =
>material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-=
>)


If they are IFR pilots, they have had training, and some level of experience,
rather far more than a newly minted glider pilot without other ratings.

I seem to recall folks telling how strong gliders actually were.


Now this *is* part of a pretty good answer to the claims that new pilots
should learn to fly gliders before power. Clearly, it is not so, as the casual
attitude of the gliding community towards busting clearance minimums from
clouds, not knowing how to set their altimeters legally, etc., is a demonstration
that pilots should start with power with a good instructor, so by the "principle
of primacy" they would learn the proper habits first, and retain them.


Alan

[Marc]

On Feb 11, 7:52*pm, (Alan) wrote:
> In article <26927612.551.1329006666807.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbmq9> writes:
> >Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwin=
> >ism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentio=
> >ned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into thes=
> >e conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart =
> >material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-=
> >)
>
> * If they are IFR pilots, they have had training, and some level of experience,
> rather far more than a newly minted glider pilot without other ratings.
>
> * I seem to recall folks telling how strong gliders actually were.
>
> * Now this *is* part of a pretty good answer to the claims that new pilots
> should learn to fly gliders before power. *Clearly, it is not so, as the casual
> attitude of the gliding community towards busting clearance minimums from
> clouds, not knowing how to set their altimeters legally, etc., is a demonstration
> that pilots should start with power with a good instructor, so by the "principle
> of primacy" they would learn the proper habits first, and retain them.

Speaking of "trolling", I've seen no suggestion by anyone on this
thread that they want to have their high tech artificial horizon so
that they can go cloud flying when they feel like it, nor are they
suggesting that prohibition against cloud flying in US contests should
be eliminated. Some, rightly or not, want such a device in case they
find themselves in a cloud unintentionally. Others, like myself,
wonder whether requiring changes to one device before allowing its use
in contests make any sense in a world where just about every new phone
is or will soon be capable of implementing a fully functional
artificial horizon using a $5 off the shelf app. Meanwhile, people
find plenty of ways to kill themselves without entering IMC at all...

Marc

[[email protected]]

Back to being serious on a serious subject... the problem truly resides in the glider pilot's abilities. I'm a power pilot as well as glider pilot. One of the most dangerous power pilots around is an IFR rated pilot that flys under the hood once in a blue moon to keep current and then goes into nasty conditions thinking they have the skills to handle it. Now just imagine a glider pilot that isn't IFR rated entering zero visibility having read the instrument manual with little to no practical experience (Condor or flight sims don't count). Tragedy is just around the corner. The point is to not get into that situation. This is the safest course of action. Follow the rules and be safe.
Craig

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/11/2012 7:52 PM, Alan wrote:
> Now this *is* part of a pretty good answer to the claims that new pilots
> should learn to fly gliders before power. Clearly, it is not so, as the casual
> attitude of the gliding community towards busting clearance minimums from
> clouds, not knowing how to set their altimeters legally, etc., is a demonstration
> that pilots should start with power with a good instructor, so by the "principle
> of primacy" they would learn the proper habits first, and retain them.

Gliding instruction does not include a casual attitude to cloud
clearances, anymore than power instruction includes scud running. Both
of those usually happen after the pilot is licensed.

"Primacy" usually applies to reflexive reactions to aircraft attitude,
not conscious decisions over several minutes or longer, as climbing to
cloud base or scud running involve.

My observations as a glider instructor indicate it's easier to teach
people to fly a glider in this order, with the easiest first:

1) hang glider pilots
2) very low time power pilots (barely soloed)
3) people with no piloting experience
4) experienced GA power pilots (I'm excluding groups like aerobatic pilots)

The power pilots may eventually be very good glider pilots, but the "law
of primacy" was very obviously interfering with their glider airmanship.

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

[Sean Fidler]

Arrogant ass.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/11/2012 8:18 PM, Marc wrote:

> Speaking of "trolling", I've seen no suggestion by anyone on this
> thread that they want to have their high tech artificial horizon so
> that they can go cloud flying when they feel like it, nor are they
> suggesting that prohibition against cloud flying in US contests should
> be eliminated. Some, rightly or not, want such a device in case they
> find themselves in a cloud unintentionally. Others, like myself,
> wonder whether requiring changes to one device before allowing its use
> in contests make any sense in a world where just about every new phone
> is or will soon be capable of implementing a fully functional
> artificial horizon using a $5 off the shelf app. Meanwhile, people
> find plenty of ways to kill themselves without entering IMC at all...

Marc makes a good point about the "hard trends" for the communicators
(aka smartphones) a lot of us now carry, and most will carry in the near
future.

I can think of several ways to reduce or eliminate cloud flying, but I'm
not rating their practicality or likely acceptance.

1) The honor system: no panel mounted devices, and we trust the pilot
not to sneak any device on board with the intent to use it in-flight.

2) Peer pressure: allow or disallow devices, but encourage many pilots
to routinely inspect the IGC files of the top 10 or so competitors, and
anyone else they think might cheating. Noting a glider getting well
above other flights in the same area could lead to some private
discussions with the pilot about his "anomaly".

3) Committee assigned penalties: CD and some pilots chosen by the
entrants examines IGC files for the the discrepancies mentioned under
"Peer pressure". Anomalous height gains can be penalized by the committee.

4) CD sets maximum allowed altitude enforced like the 18K limit: simple,
and could allow a 30 second excursion for unintentional busting.

5) IGC logger with secure imaging: the logger saves images of the view
from the cockpit every 10 seconds, tagged with secure data to tie the
picture to the GPS trace. Any anomalous altitude readings lead to
examining the images of that period for cloud flying.

This video logger might also be a real asset in accident reconstruction,
especially fatal accidents. Video cameras with GPS logging are already
widely available at cheap prices, but none are secure that I know of.
The cheapest are generally the "car crash recorder" type, that also have
3 axis G sensors (search for SMARTY BX1000 on Amazon.com). There are
cheaper video/GPS units without G sensors, too.

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

[Sean Fidler]

What a classy one.

On Feb 10, 6:15 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
- show quoted text -
Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

[Sean Fidler]

Who all thinks our rules chair might need some meds to help sedate his ego a little bit. Wow the arrogance.

I think it might be a good start.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/12/2012 8:30 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Who all thinks our rules chair might need some meds to help sedate his ego a little bit. Wow the arrogance.
>
> I think it might be a good start.

He's told you how we make changes to the rules, and it's the same
process we all get to use. It's worked well for many years. Now it's up
to you to win supporters for your ideas, and make it happen for next
year per the procedure. How is that offensive?

And here's a hint: a lot of us think Hank is a sensible, pragmatic guy
trying to make the sport work for as many people as possible. Dissing
him will lose you many more supporters than it wins.

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

[Sean Fidler]

I simply do not appreciate insults and complete disregard and dismissive tone to an important topic to many within the SSA.

Being the rules chair is an important responsibility (much bigger than oneself), not a ticket to insult people who disagree. I continue to question the logic the rules chair & committee on this particular rule. I just sat thru a couple big safety presentations in Reno. Its as if the rules committee is on a different planet when it comes to evaluating the sanity of this rule.

Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to make our sport safer, especially in contests? In this case we, in the name of pure competitive insanity, remove the only instrument that can help an innocent pilot maintain control (not thermaling, but level flight) if IMC occurs.

We do fly contests for fun, do we not? Think about that for a second everyone.

As an SSA member and a new contest pilot, many like me think this is a very valid argument for safety. It is frankly shocking the see how the rules committee justifies its logic and deals out personal insults. Its would be equally shocking if a rule for no parachutes in contests was adopted to reduce the chance of dangerous flying.

Many have read but avoided posting on this message board because of the way those who have argued for the safety aspect of a AH are being attacked. I have received numerous emails in support of the AH being allowed from folks all over the country. I think we should get this up for a vote to the SSA membership or contest ranked pilots. I plan on pushing for that.

An equal number a little upset about how our rules chair called the safety argument "crap" and refereed to my response as "meds are kicking in." This would be funny in grade school, but not in a board discussion that has to do with honest peoples lives. I do not appreciate it.

To review, I am not concerned about people who choose to cheat and cloud fly. They are not a part of this discussion in my opinion. Just as people who would try to falsify their ICG files are not a concern. I am concerned about honest nice people who are flying competitions and might one day make a mistake. These guys and gals would like to have an instrument to refer too, if they so choose.

I would not have come back to the thread if not for emails pointing out the insulting response to me. I would think that a respectful, professional approach would be better. A little late for that unfortunately.

Here is a hint: Try being professional, respectful and open to new opinions and "the chance" that you might be wrong. I know this may be very, very hard for some of us...but I am confident you can still learn new tricks.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 13, 3:15*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> I simply do not appreciate insults and complete disregard and dismissive tone to an important topic to many within the SSA.
>
> Being the rules chair is an important responsibility (much bigger than oneself), not a ticket to insult people who disagree. *I continue to question the logic the rules chair & committee on this particular rule. *I just sat thru a couple big safety presentations in Reno. *Its as if the rules committee is on a different planet when it comes to evaluating the sanity of this rule.
>
> Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to make our sport safer, especially in contests? *In this case we, in the name of pure competitive insanity, remove the only instrument that can help an innocent pilot maintain control (not thermaling, but level flight) if IMC occurs.
>
> We do fly contests for fun, do we not? *Think about that for a second everyone.
>
> As an SSA member and a new contest pilot, many like me think this is a very valid argument for safety. *It is frankly shocking the see how the rules committee justifies its logic and deals out personal insults. *Its would be equally shocking if a rule for no parachutes in contests was adopted to reduce the chance of dangerous flying.
>
> Many have read but avoided posting on this message board because of the way those who have argued for the safety aspect of a AH are being attacked. *I have received numerous emails in support of the AH being allowed from folks all over the country. *I think we should get this up for a vote to the SSA membership or contest ranked pilots. *I plan on pushing for that.
>
> An equal number a little upset about how our rules chair called the safety argument "crap" and refereed to my response as "meds are kicking in." *This would be funny in grade school, but not in a board discussion that has to do with honest peoples lives. *I do not appreciate it.
>
> To review, I am not concerned about people who choose to cheat and cloud fly. *They are not a part of this discussion in my opinion. *Just as people who would try to falsify their ICG files are not a concern. *I am concerned about honest nice people who are flying competitions and might one day make a mistake. *These guys and gals would like to have an instrument to refer too, if they so choose.
>
> I would not have come back to the thread if not for emails pointing out the insulting response to me. *I would think that a respectful, professional approach would be better. *A little late for that unfortunately.
>
> Here is a hint: *Try being professional, respectful and open to new opinions and "the chance" that you might be wrong. *I know this may be very, very hard for some of us...but I am confident you can still learn new tricks.

I sincerly appologize for the meds comment. I was a repeat of a
comment to me and I never should have included it.
That said, the rationale for continuing the long standing policy
against permitting equipment that can allow cloud flying
has been explained quite clearly and the reasons why changing this
position have also been explained.
UH

[T8]

Can anyone name a single pilot who has an accident, or even a bad
scare due to entering IMC in competition?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 13, 12:32*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 13, 3:15*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I simply do not appreciate insults and complete disregard and dismissive tone to an important topic to many within the SSA.
>
> > Being the rules chair is an important responsibility (much bigger than oneself), not a ticket to insult people who disagree. *I continue to question the logic the rules chair & committee on this particular rule. *I just sat thru a couple big safety presentations in Reno. *Its as if the rules committee is on a different planet when it comes to evaluating the sanity of this rule.
>
> > Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to make our sport safer, especially in contests? *In this case we, in the name of pure competitive insanity, remove the only instrument that can help an innocent pilot maintain control (not thermaling, but level flight) if IMC occurs.
>
> > We do fly contests for fun, do we not? *Think about that for a second everyone.
>
> > As an SSA member and a new contest pilot, many like me think this is a very valid argument for safety. *It is frankly shocking the see how the rules committee justifies its logic and deals out personal insults. *Its would be equally shocking if a rule for no parachutes in contests was adopted to reduce the chance of dangerous flying.
>
> > Many have read but avoided posting on this message board because of the way those who have argued for the safety aspect of a AH are being attacked.. *I have received numerous emails in support of the AH being allowed from folks all over the country. *I think we should get this up for a vote to the SSA membership or contest ranked pilots. *I plan on pushing for that.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 13, 2:45*pm, Brad > wrote:
> I would also hope that my fellow competitors would
> approve of my action and not protest.


Brad,

Your proposal is incomplete. To be complete you would need to define
the penalty that would be applied if your disabling means was found to
have been broken at any time during the contest.

Such penalty could reasonably include loss off all contest points up
to and including the day on which the disabling device was found to be
ineffective. Restricting the points loss to a single day may require
your glider to inspected every day, something you could perhaps
arrange with the CD, scorer, or an other designated competitor.

Andy

[noel.wade]

Brad -

Here's the catch though: You'd still be illegal to fly because you
use LK8000 or XCSoar. Since they have AH functions that you cannot
"safety-wire" in the off position, you can't use them. Sorry! No
contest-flying for you! Not until you buy a dedicated flight computer
for a couple-thousand-dollars! Oh, and if you buy a nice cell-phone,
you cannot fly with it. Sorry, gotta hike to a farmer's house in the
middle of nowhere to make a call and get retrieved!

How do these things improve safety or help increase participation?
They don't - THAT'S the insanity of this rule. Its much, much larger
than the half-dozen idiots in the country who'd kill themselves trying
to cloud-fly simply because they have an AH in the cockpit.

The sport and its rule-makers _must_ adjust to modern realities or the
sport is going to continue to die. In some ways they're doing great
things; but in others they're falling flat on their face. Adjusting
to modern society _doesn't_ mean you have to support million-dollar
thermal-detectors; but it _does_ mean the application of common-
sense!! Skew the rules towards the greater common good; _don't_ skew
the rules and everyone's equipment out of fear that a teeny fraction
of individuals will cheat.

Anyone willing to cheat to cloud-fly is also willing to be a big dick
at their next contest and protest everyone who flies with a smart-
phone. I'd LOVE to see the fallout from *that* event!

--Noel

[Bart[_4_]]

On Feb 11, 5:58*am, wrote:
> > the cockpit, then there may be no pilots willing to compete. I am
> > certainly not flying, competition or not, without my Android phone.
> Just curious- what is so critical to your flying that you won't fly
> without your phone?

Mainly the possibility of a landout. Of course, I am aware that two
decades ago everyone flew without a cell phone. Still, it is a
convenience I am not willing to give up.

Bart

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 13, 4:17*pm, T8 > wrote:
> Can anyone name a single pilot who has an accident, or even a bad
> scare due to entering IMC in competition?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Yes, Evan, I had a bad scare in a contest environment (Elmira 2009
Sports Class Nationals) I found myself in heavy down pour (IMC). I am
talking about the kind of down pour that makes you stop on the highway
because you don't see anything. I was not able to see anything neither
ahead nor down for what seemed like eternity. In reality the IMC
lasted 20 seconds or maybe a bit more before I barely saw the ground.
For all that time I did not touch controls and that saved the day.
After I started seeing bits and pieces of the ground I turned away
from the cloud. If I had a gyro I would have executed 180 deg right
away and I would have avoided much of the stress.

Saying all that, it was my bad judgement that got me there, although I
could swear the cloud did not look bad up to the moment I got poured
on. I learned from that experience. I am still worried more about
people flying in clouds than me entering IMC again. I am thinking that
if someone is going to fly in clouds they better do it with the right
equipment rather than a cell phone gyro especially if I am under the
cloud they are flying in. I am slowly thinking that maybe allowing
gyros is not that bad of an idea. I can't make up my mind on which
side of this argument I am on.

Andrzej

[noel.wade]

One more comment and then I promise I'll shut up on this topic for a
few days:

-----
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for,
and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
-----

SSA rules do not trump FARs, nor do the SSA rules take precedence over
the responsibility of the PIC. Even if the SSA permits AH devices,
its still the PIC who's at-fault if he dies while trying to cloud-fly.

(And if he's that eager to cheat and cares that little about his own
safety, do we really think a rule will discourage him? Especially
when things like iPhones and PDAs and mini-EFIS systems are so
portable and readily available?)

--Noel

[Dave Nadler]

Sure, a number of them, but I won't.
The rules recommendation to set start cylinder top
WELL BELOW CLOUDBASE has helped (when CDs have
followed the recommendation)...

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 13, 2:15*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:45*pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> > I would also hope that my fellow competitors would
> > approve of my action and not protest.
>
> Brad,
>
> Your proposal is incomplete. *To be complete you would need to define
> the penalty that would be applied if your disabling means was found to
> have been broken at any time during the contest.
>
> Such penalty could reasonably include loss off all contest points up
> to and including the day on which the disabling device was found to be
> ineffective. *Restricting the points loss to a single day may require
> your glider to inspected every day, something you could perhaps
> arrange with the CD, scorer, or an other designated competitor.
>
> Andy

Andy,

That all sounds reasonable to me. It's much easier for me to do what
we've talked about rather than pull my instrument pod, unscrew the
panel, un-hook the wires and un-screw and remove my Tru_trak.

If I am willing to take several days off of work and spend a bunch of
money for a contest I am sure not going to cheat and risk everything.
That being said......IF I needed my Tru-Trak, then I would accept the
agreed upon penalty.............but if the AH saved me from pulling my
wings off and being a lawn dart (as some have suggested) then at least
I would be alive to take my beating for cheating!

thanks,
Brad

[T8]

On Feb 13, 6:17*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> Sure, a number of them, but I won't.
> The rules recommendation to set start cylinder top
> WELL BELOW CLOUDBASE has helped (when CDs have
> followed the recommendation)...

If we're talking about pilots willfully flying into the edges of
clouds, then it doesn't seem like adding AHs is going to contribute to
safety. Maybe you see it differently?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dave Nadler]

I am just passing along observations.
Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
FWIW, Best Regards, Dave

[noel.wade]

On Feb 13, 4:08*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> I am just passing along observations.
> Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation....
> FWIW, Best Regards, Dave

Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
the gate?

Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
concerns go away.

--Noel
(OK, really this time, I'll be quiet for a bit!)

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 13, 3:22*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Brad -
>
> Here's the catch though: *You'd still be illegal to fly because you
> use LK8000 or XCSoar. *Since they have AH functions that you cannot
> "safety-wire" in the off position, you can't use them. *Sorry! No
> contest-flying for you! *Not until you buy a dedicated flight computer
> for a couple-thousand-dollars! *Oh, and if you buy a nice cell-phone,
> you cannot fly with it. *Sorry, gotta hike to a farmer's house in the
> middle of nowhere to make a call and get retrieved!
>
> How do these things improve safety or help increase participation?
> They don't - THAT'S the insanity of this rule. *Its much, much larger
> than the half-dozen idiots in the country who'd kill themselves trying
> to cloud-fly simply because they have an AH in the cockpit.
>
> The sport and its rule-makers _must_ adjust to modern realities or the
> sport is going to continue to die. *In some ways they're doing great
> things; but in others they're falling flat on their face. *Adjusting
> to modern society _doesn't_ mean you have to support million-dollar
> thermal-detectors; but it _does_ mean the application of common-
> sense!! *Skew the rules towards the greater common good; _don't_ skew
> the rules and everyone's equipment out of fear that a teeny fraction
> of individuals will cheat.
>
> Anyone willing to cheat to cloud-fly is also willing to be a big dick
> at their next contest and protest everyone who flies with a smart-
> phone. *I'd LOVE to see the fallout from *that* event!
>
> --Noel

XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 13, 4:51*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:08*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
>
> > I am just passing along observations.
> > Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
> > FWIW, Best Regards, Dave
>
> Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
> rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
> be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
> the gate?
>
> Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
> concerns go away.
>
> --Noel
> (OK, really this time, I'll be quiet for a bit!)

it's easier if you just say "I won't post anymore" to yourself rather
than post it, how do I know this......:)
besides, this is a good thread with a lot of information........if the
internet was around in it's current form during the early day's of GPS
I bet things would have sounded very similar.

Brad

[T8]

On Feb 13, 7:51*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:08*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
>
> > I am just passing along observations.
> > Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
> > FWIW, Best Regards, Dave
>
> Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
> rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
> be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
> the gate?
>
> Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
> concerns go away.
>
> --Noel
> (OK, really this time, I'll be quiet for a bit!)

2 minute rule has been with us since the beginning of GPS start.

Problems arise when top of lift is 5500 and top of gate is 6000 and
guys poke up into the murk.

CDs don't always follow recommended practice....

Nav devices without gyros probably are never going to constitute
instruments that "permit flight without reference to ground". GPS
plus ipaq or similar probably okay no matter what software. I don't
speak for the RC, but I think this is a pretty defensible position.
I'm planning on using XCSoar in comps in April & May.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dave Nadler]

Sure the rule was created way back, so ?
IFF the start cylinder top is set above cloudbase,
what do you think happens ?
Hope that makes sense !

[T8]

On Feb 13, 5:22*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:

> Here's the catch though: *You'd still be illegal to fly because you
> use LK8000 or XCSoar. *Since they have AH functions that you cannot
> "safety-wire" in the off position, you can't use them.

Nav devices without gyros probably are never going to constitute
instruments that "permit flight without reference to ground". GPS
plus ipaq or similar probably okay no matter what software. I don't
speak for the RC, but I think this is a pretty defensible position.
I'm planning on using XCSoar in comps in April & May.


-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:01:01 -0800, Mike wrote:

> On Feb 13, 3:22Â*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>> Brad -
>>
>> Here's the catch though: Â*You'd still be illegal to fly because you use
>> LK8000 or XCSoar. Â*Since they have AH functions that you cannot
>> "safety-wire" in the off position, you can't use them. Â*Sorry! No
>> contest-flying for you! Â*Not until you buy a dedicated flight computer
>> for a couple-thousand-dollars! Â*Oh, and if you buy a nice cell-phone,
>> you cannot fly with it. Â*Sorry, gotta hike to a farmer's house in the
>> middle of nowhere to make a call and get retrieved!
>>
>> How do these things improve safety or help increase participation? They
>> don't - THAT'S the insanity of this rule. Â*Its much, much larger than
>> the half-dozen idiots in the country who'd kill themselves trying to
>> cloud-fly simply because they have an AH in the cockpit.
>>
>> The sport and its rule-makers _must_ adjust to modern realities or the
>> sport is going to continue to die. Â*In some ways they're doing great
>> things; but in others they're falling flat on their face. Â*Adjusting to
>> modern society _doesn't_ mean you have to support million-dollar
>> thermal-detectors; but it _does_ mean the application of common-
>> sense!! Â*Skew the rules towards the greater common good; _don't_ skew
>> the rules and everyone's equipment out of fear that a teeny fraction of
>> individuals will cheat.
>>
>> Anyone willing to cheat to cloud-fly is also willing to be a big dick
>> at their next contest and protest everyone who flies with a smart-
>> phone. Â*I'd LOVE to see the fallout from *that* event!
>>
>> --Noel
>
> XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
Same comment from me re LK8000.

From a cloud flying POV it does nothing that's not duplicated by a
compass.


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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/13/2012 4:51 PM, noel.wade wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:08 pm, Dave > wrote:
>> I am just passing along observations.
>> Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
>> FWIW, Best Regards, Dave
>
> Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
> rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
> be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
> the gate?
>
> Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
> concerns go away.

The rule against cloud-flying instruments has been in force for decades.

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

[Bill D]

On Feb 13, 3:45*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:17*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > Can anyone name a single pilot who has an accident, or even a bad
> > scare due to entering IMC in competition?
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Yes, Evan, I had a bad scare in a contest environment (Elmira 2009
> Sports Class Nationals) I found myself in heavy down pour (IMC). I am
> talking about the kind of down pour that makes you stop on the highway
> because you don't see anything. I was not able to see anything neither
> ahead nor down for what seemed like eternity. In reality the IMC
> lasted 20 seconds or maybe a bit more before I barely saw the ground.
> For all that time I did not touch controls and that saved the day.
> After I started seeing bits and pieces of the ground I turned away
> from the cloud. If I had a gyro I would have executed 180 deg right
> away and I would have avoided much of the stress.
>
> Saying all that, it was my bad judgement that got me there, although I
> could swear the cloud did not look bad up to the moment I got poured
> on. I learned from that experience. I am still worried more about
> people flying in clouds than me entering IMC again. I am thinking that
> if someone is going to fly in clouds they better do it with the right
> equipment rather than a cell phone gyro especially if I am under the
> cloud they are flying in. I am slowly thinking that maybe allowing
> gyros is not that bad of an idea. I can't make up my mind on which
> side of this argument I am on.
>
> Andrzej

I often have airplane pilot friends look into the cockpit of a glider
and demand to know, "Where is the artificial horizon?

I tell them, "we use the big one in the sky". If they look puzzled, I
say, "Well, it's blue up there and brown down here and there's this
line in between we call the horizon.....

[Max Kellermann]

Mike > wrote:
> XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.

Yes:

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/HorizonRenderer.cpp#n35

The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
on technology used by XCSoar)

This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.

Max

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 14, 2:08*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Mike > wrote:
> > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> Yes:
>
> *http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo....
>
> The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> says why. *(Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> real AHRS. *The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
> Max

I want to point out that the rule against artificial horizons et al is
not just a USA rule. From the FAI Sporting Code which governs most non-
US contests (and the upcoming WGC in Uvalde):
"No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference
to the ground may be carried on board,
even if made unserviceable."

As Eric pointed out, this rule has been in force for decades and it
did not just appear at random. It was found over time that it was more
of a benefit to safety than a detriment. Make your own conclusion
about the willingness of competitors to cloud-fly.

QT

[rk]

On 14 helmi, 09:08, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Mike > wrote:
> > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> Yes:
>
> *http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo....
>
> The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> says why. *(Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> real AHRS. *The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
> Max

GPS derived "artificial horizon" is not enough to keep your wings
level when IMC. GPS system is very good for checking your bearing when
flying straight and level, better than compass, but to control glider
in choppy IMC requires either gyro (T&B or horizon) or AHRS system. I
do cloudflying with my glider all the time, and believe me it's
something you don't wan't to try out without proper training and
instruments. It's a lot of fun, if sometimes a bit too exciting, BTW.

I'm actually one of those who will get Butterfly vario because of the
AH feature. I believe that cloud flying in contests was last tried at
Vrsac WGC in 1972. It was very bad idea then, as it's now. There was
two pilots who parachuted to safety after IMC collision.

[Tony V]

> I often have airplane pilot friends look into the cockpit of a glider
> and demand to know, "Where is the artificial horizon?
>
> I tell them, "we use the big one in the sky". If they look puzzled, I
> say, "Well, it's blue up there and brown down here and there's this
> line in between we call the horizon.....


LOL! A friend did a demo ride for a heavy iron driver. He asked "where's
the flight director?". The response was "behind my eyes".

Tony

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 14, 12:08*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Mike > wrote:
> > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> Yes:
>
> *http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo....
>
> The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> says why. *(Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> real AHRS. *The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
Max

Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

The LX8000 and LX9000 use an AHRS sensor box with built in g-meters, etc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-AHRS

Paul Remde

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 12:08 am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Mike > wrote:
> > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> Yes:
>
> http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo...
>
> The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
Max

Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?

[Max Kellermann]

Mike > wrote:
> Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?

Not quite:

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/mirror/LK8000.git/tree/Common/Source/Draw/DrawTRI.cpp#n18

The rendering code was rewritten to make it look more fancy (LK8000
uses only the calculated bank angle, but not the pitch angle). The
formula has never been changed in LK8000, it's still the old XCSoar 5
formula, which means it's still pretty unreliable, lacking real AHRS
input:

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/mirror/LK8000.git/tree/Common/Source/Calc/Calculations.cpp#n513

The XCSoar 6 formula has been improved to consider acceleration sensor
input (if available):

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Computer/BasicComputer.cpp#n324

Not so much better, though. I'd say neither one is usable.

Max

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 14, 2:28*pm, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Mike > wrote:
> > Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?
>
> Not quite:
>
> *http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/mirror/LK8000.git/tree/Common/Source/Draw/....
>
> The rendering code was rewritten to make it look more fancy (LK8000
> uses only the calculated bank angle, but not the pitch angle). *The
> formula has never been changed in LK8000, it's still the old XCSoar 5
> formula, which means it's still pretty unreliable, lacking real AHRS
> input:
>
> *http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/mirror/LK8000.git/tree/Common/Source/Calc/....
>
> The XCSoar 6 formula has been improved to consider acceleration sensor
> input (if available):
>
> *http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Computer/BasicC....
>
> Not so much better, though. *I'd say neither one is usable.
>
> Max

Thanks Max

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 14, 2:15*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The LX8000 and LX9000 use an AHRS sensor box with built in g-meters, etc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-AHRS
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 14, 12:08 am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike > wrote:
> > > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> > Yes:
>
> >http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo...
>
> > The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> > says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> > on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> > This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> > OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> > real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> > announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> > soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
> *Max
>
> Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?

Thanks for the explanation Paul. I meant LK8000. Pesky laptop
keyboards and poor detail to editing...

[Sean Fidler]

So does the new LX Zues...so will just about every instument, watch, smartphone that is built in the future. Any phone onboard during a contest that, once the cockpit door is closed, can download an app (yes i know this is crazy) is illegal. So it must be assumed that any contest pilot with a smattphone onboard of any fashion is cheating.

Its all just so silly...

[Sean Fidler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE0aOQtwkIw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

2:20 into the video.

This is going to turn into a massive challenge to enforce...silly.

[Sean Fidler]

On the Android platform: https://market.android.com/details?id=com.auraquest.flightdeck.ahorizon&hl=en

On the iPhone platform: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airplane-gyroscope-attitude/id385491648?mt=8

Any questions? How many US Contest Pilots cheated last year? I did! Yes, I am a cheater. Fess up everyone. Cheaters! ;-)

Any of us could EASILY download these apps once the canopy is closed and delete it before we open the door when we land.

This speaks nothing of the wealth of weather data we can all get from mobile phones.

Check.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>
> This is going to turn into a massive challenge to enforce...silly.

My view on enforcement, etc.

We don't have detailed scrutineering now. We rely a lot on pilot
honesty.

Honesty is helped a lot by a feeling that everybody else isn't doing
it. Right now, US contest pilots don't cloud fly.

With that in mind, the rules really can't let you have a big honking
artificial horizon in the middle of the panel. And you can't have an
installed insturment that uses gyros and provides similar, serious,
cloud-flying ability. Not just might it tempt you, but its presence
might lead others to suspect that they have to cloud fly to keep up
with you.

Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. It's also possible to sneak
off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.

If you're thinking about cheating, think about the glory of winning
one contest vs. the lifelong shame of being caught cheating.


I think some of us need to get out and go flying before cabin fever
gets any worse. I know I do! Three "currency" flights in an ASK21
last weekend were the most fun I've had in months.

John Cochrane

[mike]

On Feb 15, 12:56*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > This is going to turn into a massive challenge to enforce...silly.
>
> My view on enforcement, etc.
>
> We don't have detailed scrutineering now. We rely a lot on pilot
> honesty.
>
> Honesty is helped a lot by a feeling that everybody else isn't doing
> it. Right now, US contest pilots don't cloud fly.
>
> With that in mind, the rules really can't let you have a big honking
> artificial horizon in the middle of the panel. And you can't have an
> installed insturment that uses gyros and provides similar, serious,
> cloud-flying ability. Not just might it tempt you, but its presence
> might lead others to suspect that they have to cloud fly to keep up
> with you.
>
> Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
> or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. *It's also possible to sneak
> off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
> at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
> If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
> prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
> scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
> unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
> costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.
>
> If you're thinking about cheating, think about the glory of winning
> one contest vs. the lifelong shame of being caught cheating.
>
> I think some of us need to get out and go flying before cabin fever
> gets any worse. I know I do! *Three "currency" flights in an ASK21
> last weekend were the most fun I've had in months.
>
> John Cochrane

Thanks for the common sense point of view John.

[Sean Fidler]

John,

I will be the first to admit that you are an extremely smart guy. I would not raise my hand to go up against you in Jeopardy any time soon. I greatly enjoy reading your outstanding soaring articles and have tremendous respect for your many insights within our sport.

I 100% agree that the honor system is the right way to proceed forward. Essentially that has been the case even with this rule historically in place and the recent reminder to the contest pilot community from the SSA Rules Committee. I believe that it would be much easier (and safer) for everyone, at this point, to simply allow everyone to install or keep any existing AH or T&B enabled instrument they currently fly (about 15 people I know flew with AH or T&B in various regional contests last year and were entirely unaware of the specifics of this rule). Let the honor system work.

I believe the vast majority of our soaring colleagues are extremely honest, would never willingly cheat for any reason and are primarily concerned with safe flight for themselves and their fellow pilots. As of right now we have butterfly (vario) removing their AH capability for the SSA rules committee, but 4-5 other instruments from various manufacturers (LK8000, XC Soar, Iphone, Andriod, LX8000, LX 9000, etc, etc) are going to need the same oversight. Its going to go on and on and on.

I think I have already proven that this rule is entirely unenforced, unenforceable and noneffective in general. Technology is going to move faster than our rules committee can follow. This is what is happening now and why there is so much debate today. If you really think about it (by definition of the current rule) almost every SSA competition pilot cheated for the past 2-3 years by having their GPS and accelerometer/gyro equipped iPhone or Android phone on board (http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Gyroscope-Teardown/3156/1).

If somebody really wants to cheat and cloud fly this season it could be done with more and more ease each season as new and improved electronics are released. It would not be hard to do now if someone really wanted to do it. The manufactures own customers are asking for the AH capability for safety reasons (very efficient and slick to integrate into the multi function displays of modern instruments) and the manufacturers want to deliver this value. The current AH/T&B ban rule creates are real conflict with innovation.. To spend all this effort disarming all and any upcoming instrument is going to be extremely difficult for pilots and committee members (all to prevent one yahoo from cheating whom the rule wont stop from doing so as it is currently enforced and written). It could also invite some extremely ugly protests, etc.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 4:15*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The LX8000 and LX9000 use an AHRS sensor box with built in g-meters, etc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-AHRS
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 14, 12:08 am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike > wrote:
> > > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> > Yes:
>
> >http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo...
>
> > The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> > says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> > on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> > This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> > OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> > real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> > announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> > soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
> *Max
>
> Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Paul:
As in my warning about Butterfly, you and other vendors should ensure
that the pilots buying the devices from you that are represented to
have A/H functionality, know that these devices are not permitted
under current and future SSA competition rules.
Notwithstanding the disagreement by a vocal few, this policy is not
going to change any time soon.
It would be a big service to your customers to ensure that they are
informed and an even bigger service if you make a point of ensuring
that your suppliers know that there is a clarification of policy in
effect and a methodology for compliance.
There is adequate time before the majority of the contest season to
get this accomplished.
If there is a question about whether a product falls into this
catagory, the RC will work hard to give you a determination.
I guess Richard, Rex?,and Tim and I don't know who else would also be
well to heed this suggestion.
I don't think you want to be getting the angry call from your customer
on contest practice day that you sold him an instrument he can't use.
Thanks for you cooperation and service to the contest community.
UH
RC Chair

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > writes:

>Paul:
>As in my warning about Butterfly, you and other vendors should ensure
>that the pilots buying the devices from you that are represented to
>have A/H functionality, know that these devices are not permitted
>under current and future SSA competition rules.
>Notwithstanding the disagreement by a vocal few, this policy is not
>going to change any time soon.
>It would be a big service to your customers to ensure that they are
>informed and an even bigger service if you make a point of ensuring
>that your suppliers know that there is a clarification of policy in
>effect and a methodology for compliance.
>There is adequate time before the majority of the contest season to
>get this accomplished.
>If there is a question about whether a product falls into this
>catagory, the RC will work hard to give you a determination.
>I guess Richard, Rex?,and Tim and I don't know who else would also be
>well to heed this suggestion.
>I don't think you want to be getting the angry call from your customer
>on contest practice day that you sold him an instrument he can't use.
>Thanks for you cooperation and service to the contest community.
>UH
>RC Chair


As an alternative, hopefully pilots will refuse to particiapte in
activities that prohibit devices that enhance safety.


Alan

[Tony[_5_]]

> * As an alternative, hopefully pilots will refuse to particiapte in
> activities that prohibit devices that enhance safety.
>
> * * * * Alan

Or pilots will refuse to participate in activities which are enhance
safety, like leaving that 10 knot thermal with some margin below
cloudbase.

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 15, 12:56*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > This is going to turn into a massive challenge to enforce...silly.
>
> My view on enforcement, etc.
>
> We don't have detailed scrutineering now. We rely a lot on pilot
> honesty.
>
> Honesty is helped a lot by a feeling that everybody else isn't doing
> it. Right now, US contest pilots don't cloud fly.

>
> John Cochrane

John, you, as my friend, will allow me to ad this to your post.

Sportmanship is the word that has been missing on some of these
posts.

Sportsmanship typically is regarded as a component of morality in
sport, composed of three related and perhaps overlapping concepts:
fair play, sportsmanship and character. Fair play refers to all
participants having an equitable chance to pursue victory and acting
toward others in an honest, straightforward, and firm and dignified
manner even when others do not play fairly. It includes respect for
others, including team members, opponents, and officials. Character
refers to dispositions, values, and habits that determine the way that
person normally responds to desires, fears, challenges, opportunities,
failures, and successes, and is typically seen in polite behaviors
toward others, such as helping an opponent up or shaking hands after a
match. An individual is believed to have a “good character” when those
dispositions and habits reflect core ethical values.


Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will
be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness,
ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors.

We stand alone on our acts yet the respect and camaraderie we have
towards each other comes from the sportsmanship we display during
events inwhich we enjoy being envolved in. Thier can be no sport
without sportmanship.

Thomas Kelley #711.

[RAS56]

15 pages and 146 messages...interesting.

It makes me wonder about other times when technological advancement has reared its head in the soaring world...was the outcry this loud?

Was there this much noise when GPS replaced map and compass? Data loggers vs. TP pix? Radios? Varios? Carbon fiber vs. Glass vs. Wood vs. Fabric? Ballasting vs. Dry? And on and on....technology marches on, and you can only delay its implementation, not prevent it.

There will come a day when ALL soaring computers will have this technology installed and available. What then? Outlaw them all and we go back to charts and cameras?

To me, this is an opportunity for policy-makers to get in front of this technology wave by acknowledging change is coming AND trying to direct that fact in a way that grows the sport and enhances safety.

As a high-time power pilot and 25 year airline guy, I understand as well as anyone that inadvertent IFR or getting caught over a solid cloud deck can happen in this sport (as it can in any type of GA) and a strong consideration for me had been to find a system that wouldn't make something like that kill me.

It blows my mind that an attitude exists in competition soaring that because a small minority of competition pilots will cheat, the other 99% will have to carry the burden of their lack of integrity by disabling an obvious safety feature. May I respectfully submit that the small minority, by their actions, will make themselves stand out in short order? Allowing the RC or other enforcement agencies to then concentrate their energies on correcting the behavior of the miscreants? Why do the folks who follow the rules and now find themselves in a tight spot have to pay the freight for the ne'er-do-wells?

I have to admit, as a yet-to-fly-a-contest-but-strongly-considering-it newbie, this entire approach towards this technology troubles me, especially as someone who has had more than my fair share of hard IFR, planned and unplanned. If that's the final iteration of this rule, then I have to say I'm not pulling out a gauge or disabling a feature just so I can fly in the contest-world...there are other areas of soaring that hold my interest as well where I can fully participate and not have to do so....Which is a shame, because I'd heard they needed guys like me to keep soaring comps from becoming even more endangered or less frequented than they already are. Sean, I think you're on the right track to promote this technology, and I support your position.

My 2 cents...

Rob S.

ZAP

[Tony[_5_]]

> Or pilots will refuse to participate in activities which are enhance
> safety, like leaving that 10 knot thermal with some margin below
> cloudbase.

wow i goobered that one up. how about:

Or pilots will refuse to participate in activities which degrade
safety, like staying in that 10 knot thermal all the way to cloudbase
instead of leaving with some margin.

[Sean Fidler]

Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.

http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwind/2005_12_WestWind.pdf

Into the Bowels of Darkness
© Kempton Izuno 2005 . All images by author.
Writing about soaring is easy with an achievement to share or a flight you are proud of. Enthusiasm and pride
are in great supply. But the flight(s) will come of which you are less than proud or downright embarrassed about.
Or worse, a flight from which you don’t return...
Since you are reading this article, you may presume I’ve not had one of the latter flights, but a few have been
close. Coming to the edge of disaster and living to learn from it is an incredible gift. In my case, a SOARING
Safety Corner article (see sidebar) read 30 years ago, is what saved my bacon after I was sucked into a cloud.
A Major Thank You to Bruce Carmichael for writing “The Spiral Dive”. May you, dear reader, never have this
experience.
Prelude
The forecast looked good for the central Nevada Great Basin area, so I planned for several days based out of
Tonopah, Nevada. Launching out of Hollister, California on June 17, 2003 in my ASH-26E, I slid across the
Central Valley and Sierra Nevada mountains, arriving at Tonopah in the late afternoon.
Part of the normal summer soaring routine in the Great Basin is working cumulonimbus clouds (CB). Now CB in
most parts of the world are BIG (>50 miles or more across) and should be avoided. In Nevada, with the dry land,
dry air and high ground, there often can be small (3-4 miles across) CB cells with strong lift which do not block
your path. These “small” cells really speed up your flight and are the smallest CBs, but still hold significant risk.
13
Warning Signs
The forecast for June 18 showed scattered CB cells with bases around 17,000 ft, strong heating and a very light SW
wind. The first leg along the Monitor range is great, with strong lift and a light tailwind. Turning near Elko, I head
northwest following a line between towering cu to my north and overdevelopment (OD) to the south. Rain shafts are
becoming more widespread under the cu to the south, but this does not overly concern me. There’s a ways to go
before turning south and I expect that by that time, I’ll be west of the high ground and clear of the OD. Averaging
16,000 ft or so, the path ahead looks good.
FLASH! Lightning appears around the rain shafts to the south of me while the sky ahead is 40% cu, and to the far
north, along the Oregon border, it is dark with more overdevelopment. Confident I can make McDermitt, I press on. By
2pm however, it’s clear bases are dropping on track, so 20 miles short of McDermitt I turn south along the Santa Rosa
range. Lift continues to weaken producing a stair step descent as I aim to get back to the strong lift on the edge of the
OD area to the south.
By 3pm I’m down to 9,200 ft just north of Winnemucca having averaged only 50mph for the last hour. Frustrated at the
slow speed, I’m really hungry for the BIG lift to get going again. Now under the first of a number of dark based clouds,
I make three more climbs, each better than the last, reinforcing my decision to move back to the OD area. The lift is
good (15,000 ft bases with 6 knot climbs), but I think, there MUST be better lift nearby. Cloud cover is now 70+% with
rain shafts. Anxiously, I scan the sky for a “young” cloud to get my expected 12+ knot climb. The stage is now set. I’m
in high risk weather with a very impatient attitude.
Trouble…..BIG Trouble
Threading my way between rain shafts 25 miles ESE of Winnemucca, I spy “the” cloud. With a very dark and clearly
much higher base than the neighboring clouds, plus no rain shaft, I think, “YES!, this is the boomer I KNEW was
around here! Now it’s going to be easy!”. As with investing, right before things go bad, there is often overconfidence.
Let us now watch our hapless pilot moment by moment. This is the only inadvertent cloud flight with a GPS flight
recording of which I’m aware, so for the first time we have a numeric history along with the emotionally charged
recollection. All numeric data is “as is” from the SeeYou program.
3:33:50 PST 8 kt. CLIMB The edge of the cloud is coming overhead. This is good lift!
3:34:02 12 kt. CLIMB A few seconds later I hit the start of the strong lift and instinctively slow up.
3:34:50 17 kt. CLIMB The black cloudbase is coming up fast, better push over and head for the edge. I start perhaps
a 30 degree bank to the right.
3:35:32 28.6 kt. CLIMB “Oh, s**t, THIS is the core!” Faster than I can comprehend, I’m in the cloud. Unaware, I almost
immediately relax the controls which allowed a LEFT turn. I mistakenly believe I have the controls neutral in hopes of
coming out the side of the cloud. But….in a few seconds I realize I’m not coming out the side; it’s still dark grey and
worse, the wind noise along with the G force is building from the spiral dive. I know that if I pull back on the stick it will
only tighten the radius of the dive and the G forces. The little voice of JJ’s whispers in my ear “You’re going to die”.
3:36:02 9 kt. CLIMB Trying to ignore a fast rising panic, I recall a SOARING article describing a spiral dive recovery.
When in a spiral dive, do not pull back on the stick. Rather, neutralize the stick in pitch, then push to one side and see
if the G force lessens. If it does, then you guessed correctly and are leveling the wings. I push to the right and feel
reduced G. I then pulled back to slow the ship down.
3:36:38 15 kt. CLIMB The wind noise rapidly drops off to a moment of silence. Quick!, throw out the landing flaps, dive
brakes and gear to (hopefully) give me enough drag to get out the bottom of the cloud. I momentarily consider a spin,
but having never tried one in the 26E (intentional spins are not permitted), I pass. Unbeknownst to me, I’m pitched up
at 80° vertical. Without a horizon reference I had let the nose come up almost to the vertical. Suddenly, I’m falling
backwards, which only heightens the panic. “OK, I know, I shouldn’t be here in the first place, pulezzzzzeee can I
leave now?!!!!”. A loud “CLUNK” aft further spooks me, then a sudden negative G force pushes me towards the
canopy. “What the…..?!”
Now remember, I have no outside reference as it’s all dark grey. The clunk was the rudder shoved to one side during
the momentary tailslide, and the negative G force was from the sudden pitching over from nose high to nose down. An
already terrifying experience becomes worse.
14
3:36:44 6 kt. CLIMB The second spiral dive starts but at least all drag devices are deployed.
3:37:44 9 kt. DESCENT Airspeed is 110 knots and increasing. The landing flaps are red lined at 76 knots so I’m now
a test pilot. Seconds seem like hours. Reviewing the trace shows I only lost 360 feet in the past minute! Add to this an
irrational claustrophobic feeling that I need to unbuckle and get out of the cockpit.
3:38:08 38.9 kt. DESCENT
It’s getting lighter…I’m coming out the bottom! Now drop a bit more to make sure………
15
3:38:14 36 kt. DESCENT
Ok, gently pull out…….
3:38:38 5 kt. DESCENT
Back to level flight. thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! The feeling of relief is overwhelming.
The 2.5 minutes in cloud seemed like an entire day.
At that one moment, I am the luckiest guy on earth. Almost four hours of soaring lie ahead to get back to Tonopah, but
that does not matter. I cannot believe I’m alive and intact. Later inspections showed no damage to the flaps. Had the
flaps failed I likely would not be here.
Since Then
Now you have the story, but why did it go this way?
-Poor situational awareness. I can clearly recall how distinctly higher and darker the cloudbase was compared to
surrounding clouds. Did that worry me? Of course not! Like the moth to the flame, it only served to push me closer.
Hey, and I knew that lift rates can be 15 knots or more near cloud base but I had not seen that kind of climb all day.
So when the vario passed through 12 knots, I stuck with it not seriously considering that it could DOUBLE in a few
seconds. I was complacent. The unusually fast RATE of increase should have alarmed me a few seconds earlier than
it did. Gavin Wills comments further:
“Climbing at 10 knots beneath the cloud, it will take 60 secs to gain the last 1000 feet to cloud base and climbing at 20
knots it will only 30 secs which will be a little more than a single turn to do 1000 feet! Therefore be cautious and if the
lift increases towards cloud base consider action 1000 feet below cloud and carry it out by 500 feet. Action well below
cloud is essential in strong lift as one does not always have a sense of rushing up to the cloud.”
Keep your eyes out of the cockpit. Situational awareness means actively looking for and analyzing details such as the
speed & direction of the cloud shadows, the vertical rate of cloudbase tendrils, other aircraft location, or the growth
rate & state of the overdevelopment. What is the situation ahead? What is the situation behind in case I have to
retreat? What is the safety margin I need at this moment? In one minute? How do I keep it? In a “Sudden Loss of
Margin”, you think you have enough speed/altitude/clearance until *poof*….it’s gone in a few seconds. And, if you
survive, you’ll look back and say, ”Well, I’ve done this for years and that’s never happened before! How rude!”
-Remain calm, be fair to yourself and keep thinking. Poor situational awareness got me into this, but luck and recalling
the article improved my chances. An extreme emotional state will bias your judgment. During the flight, don’t beat
yourself up over a slow speed and don’t get too confident when you hit super lift.
What about Next Time?
First, make sure there is no “next time”!
-Avoidance is the first line of defense. Keep a wider safety margin. Bob Semans shared his personal rule that as you
climb, keep a 45° angle between the horizon and the cloud edge. Thus, as you climb you move yourself closer to the
edge of the cloud. I now follow this rule.
-FAR 91.155. Between 10,000'and 18,000’ cloud clearance of 1,000’ below 1,000'above and 1 statute mile
horizontally. Not only does this help avoid “cloud suck” but in today's GPS world, IFR flights are direct with clearance
approval, staying clear of clouds is more important than ever. An IFR flight could pop out of a cloud and there is a
glider, up at cloudbase not realizing he is suppose to be 1,000'lower. This 1,000'clearance allows the margin to take
evasive action.
-Install a turn & bank. Low current drain instruments from PC Flight Systems, TruTrak Flight Systems, MGL Avionics,
etc. indicate turn direction. Some units are “instant on”, others require a warm up time. Turning the device on because
you’re worried about getting sucked into the cloud probably means that you are already in a very high risk position in
the first place. Some Garmin units have an EFIS display but GPS jamming can happen out in the Nevada area.
16
-Practice true blind flight in a glider. The instrument is virtually useless without practice. Practice what? Maintain your
instrument scan. Ignore your senses and act only on what you read. Sustained concentration for what may be a
seemingly long time. Know the lag of the instrument relative to your stick and rudder actions. Keep a constant
airspeed. And that’s only if you enter under ideal conditions like wings level and flying the instruments BEFORE you
enter the cloud. One instructor points out that it’s not just practicing steady blind flight, but handling upsets, unusual
attitude recovery and doing so on a monthly basis as this skill goes stale quickly. A two seat glider (not power plane)
with a safety pilot, preferably instructor, with the student’s canopy covered would be ideal. The only US pilot I know
with current instrument-only soaring experience is doing so on top of Navy training and weekly instrument flying.
17
-Benign Spiral. This is an option only if you know how to set it up AND have practiced this in your ship beforehand.
Some gliders may hold a benign spiral in calm air, but an upset may tip the glider into a spiral dive. Practice with an
instructor, then on your own on a calm blue day. The benign spiral is also appropriate for wave flying if you get caught
above a layer of cloud.
In conclusion, my hope is that this story fosters further discussion on flying overdevelopments, risk management and
emergency recovery. With more flights in the central Nevada and Great Basin area, those of us who choose to fly
there need to actively work on reducing the chances of another similar incident. I was lucky, but I used up most, if not
all, my lifetime supply of luck on this flight. I continue to fly the Great Basin with a greater respect for CB and a wider
safety margin than ever.
Beauty and the beast. Somewhere over central Nevada, July 2003
Further Reading
Little is written about inadvertent cloud flights of which I’m aware, so I can only offer the Carmichael article and the
sobering “Dunderhead’s Thunderhead” SOARING article of January, 1974. The reference to JJ’s little voice is from
John Sinclair’s excellent article “My Ph.D. in Fear” at: http://www.valleysoaring.net//story/jj/jj-fear.html
The British Sailplane & Gliding magazine has more material as cloud flying is permitted there.
Many thanks to my reviewers John Sinclair, Gordon Boettger, Kenny Price, Gavin Wills, Marc Ramsay, Cindy
Brickner, Bruce Tuncks, Eric Greenwell, Toodie Marshall and my wife Genese.
From the August 1973 SOARING Safety Corner:
"I am enclosing an account of a foolish early soaring experience," writes SSA Aerodynamics Chairman Bruce
Carmichael, "which I am willing to bet will be repeated by novices for years to come. This one includes a recipe on
how to save oneself from one's stupidity, so I offer it for what it is worth."
THE SPIRAL DIVE Outside it is gray. I am in cloud-and without blind flight instruments! No way to tell which direction
is up. The wind noise around the canopy has risen to a shriek. My 1-26 is in the dreaded spiral dive! The load factor
crushes me into the seat. I open my mouth to shout in fear, my jaw sagging under the acceleration. I taste the copper
18
of adrenalin pumped into my blood stream. I am not frightened-I am terrified! My scalp tingles as my hair stands on
end. Then, on the brink of stark unreasoning panic, suddenly, across the years. I hear the calm voice of my old flight
instructor. Ray Parker, speaking as clearly as if he were in the cockpit of the 1-26 sailplane with me...
Several years earlier a group of us were in a shop at Mississippi State College watching Ray, the world’s most
meticulous aircraft woodworker, building the sleek fuselage for his famous sailplane, the T-Bird. He had been warning
us to stay out of clouds unless we were qualified instrument pilots.
"If you should be foolish enough to get drawn into a cloud," he said. "there is a way to extract yourself. You will find
that in spite of knowing better, you will, in your fear, instinctively pull back on the stick to slow down as you would in
level flight. In the spiral dive, this tightens the turn and could increase the load factor until you pull the wings off. The
first thing to do is to neutralize the control stick and block it there with your other hand so that even in panic you will
not pull back....
I popped the stick forward and immediately the load factor diminished. The wind noise was still high. His voice came
again... "Now move the stick to one side. If you guess right, you will slow down, if you don't, push it to the other side."
I moved the stick to the right. The wind noise increased in pitch. Hastily I pushed it to the other side and the wind
noise diminished. "Now the excess kinetic energy from the spiral dive will throw you into an accelerated stall unless
you lower the nose."
I pushed forward on the stick as the wind noise went to zero until I was flying again, then back to neutral. Ray's next
instruction was to pull back and, as the speed slowly fell off, to put full stick and rudder into a spin entry. I had never
spun the 1-26 and was afraid it might not enter a good spin, in which case I would be completely disoriented. I was
hoping to fly out the side of the cloud but after a lengthy wait, with the altimeter winding up at a frightening rate, I once
more unwittingly slipped into a spiral dive. I was as frightened as before, but at least I was not in panic this time. I
went through the same recovery procedure, guessing right this time on the roll out, and once more tried to fly out the
side of the cloud.
How did I get into the cumulonimbus cloud? I had climbed up under the base of the cloud and found, to my delight, a
hollow inverted bowl caused by the huge central updraft. I circled up inside this bowl. It was a scene of immense
grandeur, with the earth clearly visible directly below my steeply banked turn and the vaporous cloud skirt hanging
down in all directions. Sounds were curiously muffled and resonant. I failed to notice how my rate of climb was
increasing until I was sucked into the cloud and visibility went to zero. What a difference between the clear white
boiling walls outside of the cloud and its dark damp interior! Many times I had cruised up the windward side of a cloud
and marveled at the beauty of a sun dog or the sailplane's shadow on the cloud ringed with a perfectly circular
rainbow. Now the light and spectacle were replaced with darkness and fear.
Before long I was in the third spiral dive. I promised myself that if I recovered from this one I would try to spin out. The
method worked again, and I gradually slowed down on recovery then kicked full left rudder and full back stick, locking
the 1-26 into a tight spin. After a few seconds I glanced at my altimeter. Again my hair stood on end and my heart
pounded: instead of rapidly descending, I was barely moving down! The updraft was so powerful that it was carrying
my 1-26 up almost as fast as it was spinning down. I had on summer clothes and no oxygen supply. Now I
remembered the stories of German sailplane pilots who were carried up in cloud after bailing out with parachutes.
They froze or died of hypoxia. I spun for what seemed an eternity. Later, fellow pilots asked me how fast I climbed in
the cloud, what speed I reached in the spiral dive, and what altitude I reached in the cloud. I have no idea. I felt I was
fighting for my life and have only impressions, not readings. It would probably be safe to say the rate of climb far
exceeded any I had encountered in clear air, and that the speed in the spiral far exceeded redline. Lord knows what
altitude I reached, but at least I did not pass out with hypoxia.
Finally I saw a road rotating below me and spun out of the bottom of the cloud. I held the spin for another 200 feet and
then recovered. Life seemed very sweet as I charged joyously out into the bright sunlight. I have not flown in cloud
since that day in the mid 50's. As so many pilots have done, I learned a lesson the hard way. Thanks to Ray Parker I
survived. Bless you, Ray.
Bruce Carmichael appended a warning to his story: "While Ray's recipe worked for me in a 1-26, it might not in a highperformance
ship. It is possible that in this case a pilot might accelerate to too high a speed in the initial spiral and
tear off the wings on reversing the bank during the resulting pull-up. The point is that a novice should not go into

[Sean Fidler]

True. But what of iPhones, Andriod phones. They have the same electronic gyro sensors as the Butterfly?

[noel.wade]

1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
start rules were put in place. I *know* when they were put in place.
I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. The 2-minute-
below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
below the day's cloudbase. It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
cloudbase.

2) Tom, UH, and John: If we're going to talk about the honor system
and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?

Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:

The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
*possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
purposes). But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. If they want to be contest-
legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).

-----
QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
cell phones?
-----

....If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
what people here have said). They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. XCSoar
and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
last 3 years. It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. The ironclad AH rules cut off all
current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
easier. Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
for 2+ weeks.

We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
(witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Yet
here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!

-----
QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
expensive to participate in contests?
-----

....If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
then you imply that we won't enforce them.

-----
QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
hell have them in the first place? If people know they're not going
to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
-----

....If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
up with a better rule!

-----
QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
and then just walk out with the trophy?
-----

....That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
smarter!

Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
takeoff. And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?


In Summary: I just don't understand. I simply don't. Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. Yes, its a danger. Yes, it should be
prevented. But you're telling me that the best solution is an
outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
enforced? And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
time to fly?

There has to be a better way.

--Noel
(who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
software on a PDA)

[Sean Fidler]

Amen Noel.

[Tom Claffey]

c
>
>
> As an alternative, hopefully pilots will refuse to particiapte in
>activities that prohibit devices that enhance safety.
>
>
> Alan
>

Flying in cloud enhances safety????

Flarm good, artificial horizon bad - pretty simple, have one without the
other.

Tom

[mike]

On Feb 15, 4:30*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.
>
> http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwind/2005_12_WestWind.pdf
>
> Into the Bowels of Darkness
> © Kempton Izuno 2005 . All images by author.
> Writing about soaring is easy with an achievement to share or a flight you are proud of. Enthusiasm and pride
> are in great supply. But the flight(s) will come of which you are less than proud or downright embarrassed about.
> Or worse, a flight from which you don’t return...
> Since you are reading this article, you may presume I’ve not had one of the latter flights, but a few have been
> close. Coming to the edge of disaster and living to learn from it is an incredible gift. In my case, a SOARING
> Safety Corner article (see sidebar) read 30 years ago, is what saved my bacon after I was sucked into a cloud.
> A Major Thank You to Bruce Carmichael for writing “The Spiral Dive”. May you, dear reader, never have this
> experience.
> Prelude
> The forecast looked good for the central Nevada Great Basin area, so I planned for several days based out of
> Tonopah, Nevada. Launching out of Hollister, California on June 17, 2003 in my ASH-26E, I slid across the
> Central Valley and Sierra Nevada mountains, arriving at Tonopah in the late afternoon.
> Part of the normal summer soaring routine in the Great Basin is working cumulonimbus clouds (CB). Now CB in
> most parts of the world are BIG (>50 miles or more across) and should be avoided. In Nevada, with the dry land,
> dry air and high ground, there often can be small (3-4 miles across) CB cells with strong lift which do not block
> your path. These “small” cells really speed up your flight and are the smallest CBs, but still hold significant risk.
> 13
> Warning Signs
> The forecast for June 18 showed scattered CB cells with bases around 17,000 ft, strong heating and a very light SW
> wind. The first leg along the Monitor range is great, with strong lift and a light tailwind. Turning near Elko, I head
> northwest following a line between towering cu to my north and overdevelopment (OD) to the south. Rain shafts are
> becoming more widespread under the cu to the south, but this does not overly concern me. There’s a ways to go
> before turning south and I expect that by that time, I’ll be west of the high ground and clear of the OD. Averaging
> 16,000 ft or so, the path ahead looks good.
> FLASH! Lightning appears around the rain shafts to the south of me while the sky ahead is 40% cu, and to the far
> north, along the Oregon border, it is dark with more overdevelopment. Confident I can make McDermitt, I press on. By
> 2pm however, it’s clear bases are dropping on track, so 20 miles short of McDermitt I turn south along the Santa Rosa
> range. Lift continues to weaken producing a stair step descent as I aim to get back to the strong lift on the edge of the
> OD area to the south.
> By 3pm I’m down to 9,200 ft just north of Winnemucca having averaged only 50mph for the last hour. Frustrated at the
> slow speed, I’m really hungry for the BIG lift to get going again. Now under the first of a number of dark based clouds,
> I make three more climbs, each better than the last, reinforcing my decision to move back to the OD area. The lift is
> good (15,000 ft bases with 6 knot climbs), but I think, there MUST be better lift nearby. Cloud cover is now 70+% with
> rain shafts. Anxiously, I scan the sky for a “young” cloud to get my expected 12+ knot climb. The stage is now set. I’m
> in high risk weather with a very impatient attitude.
> Trouble…..BIG Trouble
> Threading my way between rain shafts 25 miles ESE of Winnemucca, I spy “the” cloud. With a very dark and clearly
> much higher base than the neighboring clouds, plus no rain shaft, I think, “YES!, this is the boomer I KNEW was
> around here! Now it’s going to be easy!”. As with investing, right before things go bad, there is often overconfidence.
> Let us now watch our hapless pilot moment by moment. This is the only inadvertent cloud flight with a GPS flight
> recording of which I’m aware, so for the first time we have a numeric history along with the emotionally charged
> recollection. All numeric data is “as is” from the SeeYou program.
> 3:33:50 PST 8 kt. CLIMB The edge of the cloud is coming overhead. This is good lift!
> 3:34:02 12 kt. CLIMB A few seconds later I hit the start of the strong lift and instinctively slow up.
> 3:34:50 17 kt. CLIMB The black cloudbase is coming up fast, better push over and head for the edge. I start perhaps
> a 30 degree bank to the right.
> 3:35:32 28.6 kt. CLIMB “Oh, s**t, THIS is the core!” Faster than I can comprehend, I’m in the cloud. Unaware, I almost
> immediately relax the controls which allowed a LEFT turn. I mistakenly believe I have the controls neutral in hopes of
> coming out the side of the cloud. But….in a few seconds I realize I’m not coming out the side; it’s still dark grey and
> worse, the wind noise along with the G force is building from the spiral dive. I know that if I pull back on the stick it will
> only tighten the radius of the dive and the G forces. The little voice of JJ’s whispers in my ear “You’re going to die”.
> 3:36:02 9 kt. CLIMB Trying to ignore a fast rising panic, I recall a SOARING article describing a spiral dive recovery.
> When in a spiral dive, do not pull back on the stick. Rather, neutralize the stick in pitch, then push to one side and see
> if the G force lessens. If it does, then you guessed correctly and are leveling the wings. I push to the right and feel
> reduced G. I then pulled back to slow the ship down.
> 3:36:38 15 kt. CLIMB The wind noise rapidly drops off to a moment of silence. Quick!, throw out the landing flaps, dive
> brakes and gear to (hopefully) give me enough drag to get out the bottom of the cloud. I momentarily consider a spin,
> but having never tried one in the 26E (intentional spins are not permitted), I pass. Unbeknownst to me, I’m pitched up
> at 80° vertical. Without a horizon reference I had let the nose come up almost to the vertical. Suddenly, I’m falling
> backwards, which only heightens the panic. “OK, I know, I shouldn’t be here in the first place, pulezzzzzeee can I
> leave now?!!!!”. A loud “CLUNK” aft further spooks me, then a sudden negative G force pushes me towards the
> canopy. “What the…..?!”
> Now remember, I have no outside reference as it’s all dark grey. The clunk was the rudder shoved to one side during
> the momentary tailslide, and the negative G force was from the sudden pitching over from nose high to nose down. An
> already terrifying experience becomes worse.
> 14
> 3:36:44 6 kt. CLIMB The second spiral dive starts but at least all drag devices are deployed.
> 3:37:44 9 kt. DESCENT Airspeed is 110 knots and increasing. The landing flaps are red lined at 76 knots so I’m now
> a test pilot. Seconds seem like hours. Reviewing the trace shows I only lost 360 feet in the past minute! Add to this an
> irrational claustrophobic feeling that I need to unbuckle and get out of the cockpit.
> 3:38:08 38.9 kt. DESCENT
> It’s getting lighter…I’m coming out the bottom! Now drop a bit more to make sure………
> 15
> 3:38:14 36 kt. DESCENT
> Ok, gently pull out…….
> 3:38:38 5 kt. DESCENT
> Back to level flight. thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! The feeling of relief is overwhelming.
> The 2.5 minutes in cloud seemed like an entire day.
> At that one moment, I am the luckiest guy on earth. Almost four hours of soaring lie ahead to get back to Tonopah, but
> that does not matter. I cannot believe I’m alive and intact. Later inspections showed no damage to the flaps. Had the
> flaps failed I likely would not be here.
> Since Then
> Now you have the story, but why did it go this way?
> -Poor situational awareness. I can clearly recall how distinctly higher and darker the cloudbase was compared to
> surrounding clouds. Did that worry me? Of course not! Like the moth to the flame, it only served to push me closer.
> Hey, and I knew that lift rates can be 15 knots or more near cloud base but I had not seen that kind of climb all day.
> So when the vario passed through 12 knots, I stuck with it not seriously considering that it could DOUBLE in a few
> seconds. I was complacent. The unusually fast RATE of increase should have alarmed me a few seconds earlier than
> it did. Gavin Wills comments further:
> “Climbing at 10 knots beneath the cloud, it will take 60 secs to gain the last 1000 feet to cloud base and climbing at 20
> knots it will only 30 secs which will be a little more than a single turn to do 1000 feet! Therefore be cautious and if the
> lift increases towards cloud base consider action 1000 feet below cloud and carry it out by 500 feet. Action well below
> cloud is essential in strong lift as one does not always have a sense of rushing up to the cloud.”
> Keep your eyes out of the cockpit. Situational awareness means actively looking for and analyzing details such as the
> speed & direction of the cloud shadows, the vertical rate of cloudbase tendrils, other aircraft location, or the growth
> rate & state of the overdevelopment. What is the situation ahead? What is the situation behind in case I have to
> retreat? What is the safety margin I need at this moment? In one minute? How do I keep it? In a “Sudden Loss of
> Margin”, you think you have enough speed/altitude/clearance until *poof*….it’s gone in a few seconds. And, if you
> survive, you’ll look back and say, ”Well, I’ve done this for years and that’s never happened before! How rude!”
> -Remain calm, be fair to yourself and keep thinking. Poor situational awareness got me into this, but luck and recalling
> the article improved my chances. An extreme emotional state will bias your judgment. During the flight, don’t beat
> yourself up over a slow speed and don’t get too confident when you hit super lift.
> What about Next Time?
> First, ...
>
> read more »

Excellent stories with counter measures and morals Sean. Thank you.

[Dan Marotta]

As so many before me have already said in one form or another: "It's
extremely unlikely to be sucked into a cloud if you maintain legal
separation." Likewise, if you cheat you'll know you did it and will feel
crappy about it forever - that is if you're an honest person to start with.


"Sean Fidler" > wrote in message
news:24861166.122.1329338510874.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd8...
John,

I will be the first to admit that you are an extremely smart guy. I would
not raise my hand to go up against you in Jeopardy any time soon. I
greatly enjoy reading your outstanding soaring articles and have tremendous
respect for your many insights within our sport.

I 100% agree that the honor system is the right way to proceed forward.
Essentially that has been the case even with this rule historically in place
and the recent reminder to the contest pilot community from the SSA Rules
Committee. I believe that it would be much easier (and safer) for everyone,
at this point, to simply allow everyone to install or keep any existing AH
or T&B enabled instrument they currently fly (about 15 people I know flew
with AH or T&B in various regional contests last year and were entirely
unaware of the specifics of this rule). Let the honor system work.

I believe the vast majority of our soaring colleagues are extremely honest,
would never willingly cheat for any reason and are primarily concerned with
safe flight for themselves and their fellow pilots. As of right now we have
butterfly (vario) removing their AH capability for the SSA rules committee,
but 4-5 other instruments from various manufacturers (LK8000, XC Soar,
Iphone, Andriod, LX8000, LX 9000, etc, etc) are going to need the same
oversight. Its going to go on and on and on.

I think I have already proven that this rule is entirely unenforced,
unenforceable and noneffective in general. Technology is going to move
faster than our rules committee can follow. This is what is happening now
and why there is so much debate today. If you really think about it (by
definition of the current rule) almost every SSA competition pilot cheated
for the past 2-3 years by having their GPS and accelerometer/gyro equipped
iPhone or Android phone on board
(http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Gyroscope-Teardown/3156/1).

If somebody really wants to cheat and cloud fly this season it could be done
with more and more ease each season as new and improved electronics are
released. It would not be hard to do now if someone really wanted to do it.
The manufactures own customers are asking for the AH capability for safety
reasons (very efficient and slick to integrate into the multi function
displays of modern instruments) and the manufacturers want to deliver this
value. The current AH/T&B ban rule creates are real conflict with
innovation. To spend all this effort disarming all and any upcoming
instrument is going to be extremely difficult for pilots and committee
members (all to prevent one yahoo from cheating whom the rule wont stop from
doing so as it is currently enforced and written). It could also invite
some extremely ugly protests, etc.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 15, 4:48*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: *Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
> and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
> start rules were put in place. *I *know* when they were put in place.
> I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
> people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. *The 2-minute-
> below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
> cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
> below the day's cloudbase. *It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
> start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
> cloudbase.
>
> 2) Tom, UH, and John: *If we're going to talk about the honor system
> and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
> on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
> so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?
>
> Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:
>
> The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
> *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
> purposes). * *But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
> them already. *The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
> pilots to fly with these smartphones. *If they want to be contest-
> legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
> phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).
>
> -----
> QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
> cell phones?
> -----
>
> ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
> to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
> what people here have said). *They say if it *could* be used, then its
> forbidden... period. *Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
> cockpit. *This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
> software. *This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
> - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. *XCSoar
> and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
> in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
> last 3 years. *It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
> flight computer! *If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
> have become a contest pilot. *The ironclad AH rules cut off all
> current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
> software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
> easier. *Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
> physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
> for 2+ weeks.
>
> We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
> (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... *Yet
> here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!
>
> -----
> QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
> expensive to participate in contests?
> -----
>
> ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
> then you imply that we won't enforce them.
>
> -----
> QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
> hell have them in the first place? *If people know they're not going
> to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
> -----
>
> ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
> up with a better rule!
>
> -----
> QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
> everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
> and then just walk out with the trophy?
> -----
>
> ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
> smarter!
>
> Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
> number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
> mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
> takeoff. *And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
> doing to stop them?
>
> In Summary: *I just don't understand. *I simply don't. *Yes, cloud-
> flying used to happen. *Yes, its a danger. *Yes, it should be
> prevented. *But you're telling me that the best solution is an
> outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
> enforced? *And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
> time to fly?
>
> There has to be a better way.
>
> --Noel
> (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
> software on a PDA)


Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
definition of "Sportsmanship".

The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
during a SSA contest.

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.

The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.

Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.

Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.

Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
much thought to these topics.

Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.

Thomas Kelley #711.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:48*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: *Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
> > and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
> > start rules were put in place. *I *know* when they were put in place.
> > I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
> > people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. *The 2-minute-
> > below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
> > cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
> > below the day's cloudbase. *It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
> > start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
> > cloudbase.
>
> > 2) Tom, UH, and John: *If we're going to talk about the honor system
> > and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
> > on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
> > so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?
>
> > Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:
>
> > The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
> > *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
> > purposes). * *But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
> > them already. *The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
> > pilots to fly with these smartphones. *If they want to be contest-
> > legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
> > phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
> > cell phones?
> > -----
>
> > ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> > Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
> > to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
> > what people here have said). *They say if it *could* be used, then its
> > forbidden... period. *Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
> > cockpit. *This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
> > software. *This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
> > - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. *XCSoar
> > and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
> > in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
> > last 3 years. *It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
> > flight computer! *If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
> > have become a contest pilot. *The ironclad AH rules cut off all
> > current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
> > software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
> > easier. *Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
> > physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
> > for 2+ weeks.
>
> > We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
> > (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... *Yet
> > here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
> > expensive to participate in contests?
> > -----
>
> > ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> > Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
> > then you imply that we won't enforce them.
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
> > hell have them in the first place? *If people know they're not going
> > to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
> > -----
>
> > ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
> > up with a better rule!
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
> > everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
> > and then just walk out with the trophy?
> > -----
>
> > ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
> > smarter!
>
> > Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
> > number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
> > mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
> > takeoff. *And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
> > doing to stop them?
>
> > In Summary: *I just don't understand. *I simply don't. *Yes, cloud-
> > flying used to happen. *Yes, its a danger. *Yes, it should be
> > prevented. *But you're telling me that the best solution is an
> > outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
> > enforced? *And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
> > time to fly?
>
> > There has to be a better way.
>
> > --Noel
> > (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
> > software on a PDA)
>
> Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
> simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
> definition of "Sportsmanship".
>
> The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
> issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
> during a SSA contest.
>
> Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
> AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.
>
> The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
> display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.
>
> Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
> charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
> and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.
>
> Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
> several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
> BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
> of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
> guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
> sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
> devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
> those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
> Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.
>
> Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
> actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
> a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
> much thought to these topics.
>
> Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
> at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.
>
> Thomas Kelley #711.

What are you going to do once the only phones available are smart
phones?
If I have to leave my current phone behind to go to a contest I am
done with contests.

While I have no strong opinion on AH in a cockpit please keep your
hands away from my phone!

[T8]

On Feb 15, 10:17*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:48*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > > 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: *Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
> > > and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
> > > start rules were put in place. *I *know* when they were put in place.
> > > I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
> > > people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. *The 2-minute-
> > > below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
> > > cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
> > > below the day's cloudbase. *It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
> > > start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
> > > cloudbase.
>
> > > 2) Tom, UH, and John: *If we're going to talk about the honor system
> > > and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
> > > on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
> > > so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?
>
> > > Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:
>
> > > The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
> > > *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
> > > purposes). * *But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
> > > them already. *The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
> > > pilots to fly with these smartphones. *If they want to be contest-
> > > legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
> > > phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).
>
> > > -----
> > > QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
> > > cell phones?
> > > -----
>
> > > ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> > > Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
> > > to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
> > > what people here have said). *They say if it *could* be used, then its
> > > forbidden... period. *Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
> > > cockpit. *This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
> > > software. *This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
> > > - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. *XCSoar
> > > and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
> > > in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
> > > last 3 years. *It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
> > > flight computer! *If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
> > > have become a contest pilot. *The ironclad AH rules cut off all
> > > current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
> > > software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
> > > easier. *Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
> > > physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
> > > for 2+ weeks.
>
> > > We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
> > > (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... *Yet
> > > here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!
>
> > > -----
> > > QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
> > > expensive to participate in contests?
> > > -----
>
> > > ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> > > Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
> > > then you imply that we won't enforce them.
>
> > > -----
> > > QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
> > > hell have them in the first place? *If people know they're not going
> > > to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
> > > -----
>
> > > ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
> > > up with a better rule!
>
> > > -----
> > > QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
> > > everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
> > > and then just walk out with the trophy?
> > > -----
>
> > > ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
> > > smarter!
>
> > > Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
> > > number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
> > > mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
> > > takeoff. *And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
> > > doing to stop them?
>
> > > In Summary: *I just don't understand. *I simply don't. *Yes, cloud-
> > > flying used to happen. *Yes, its a danger. *Yes, it should be
> > > prevented. *But you're telling me that the best solution is an
> > > outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
> > > enforced? *And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
> > > time to fly?
>
> > > There has to be a better way.
>
> > > --Noel
> > > (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
> > > software on a PDA)
>
> > Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
> > simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
> > definition of "Sportsmanship".
>
> > The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
> > issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
> > during a SSA contest.
>
> > Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
> > AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.
>
> > The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
> > display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.
>
> > Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
> > charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
> > and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.
>
> > Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
> > several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
> > BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
> > of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
> > guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
> > sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
> > devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
> > those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
> > Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.
>
> > Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
> > actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
> > a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
> > much thought to these topics.
>
> > Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
> > at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.
>
> > Thomas Kelley #711.
>
> What are you going to do once the only phones available are smart
> phones?
> If I have to leave my current phone behind to go to a contest I am
> done with contests.
>
> While I have no strong opinion on AH in a cockpit please keep your
> hands away from my phone!

Tom does have a point. Buy a cheap phone, put it on your existing
service. Charge it, test it, turn it off, put it in the glider and
leave it there. I'd do that.

Looks like you can still get them. Perhaps $30 on Amazon. Big
deal... not.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/15/2012 2:33 PM, RAS56 wrote:
> It blows my mind that an attitude exists in competition soaring that
> because a small minority of competition pilots will cheat, the other 99%
> will have to carry the burden of their lack of integrity by disabling an
> obvious safety feature.

We've had this rule for at least 35 years, and this is the first time I
can remember a discussion over it. Really, in USA contests, it is NOT
"an obvious safety feature". Obviously, some people wish to have it, and
people with a lot of power time seem feel naked without it, but it would
not have prevented a single fatality in the 35+ years I've been in the
sport.

We seem to be down to "I want it because I want it", not because there
are any cases to point to where it would have helped. That's not
inherently a bad reason, so maybe we should talk about how to allow the
"emergency" use of all these devices, while still discouraging it by
some inspection and by culture.

Walmart phones with prepaid service hours - about $25 when I bought one
last year. That's a throwaway price compared to contest costs and
sailplane expenses; of course, you could save it for the next contest.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/15/2012 3:30 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.

Everybody knows this can happen and has happened, but not in USA
contests. Contests are the issue here.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/15/2012 2:19 PM, Alan wrote:
> As an alternative, hopefully pilots will refuse to particiapte in
> activities that prohibit devices that enhance safety.

If you consider flying in a contest without an AH or similar too
dangerous, you should not be considering contests at all. Having a AH in
your panel will decrease the dangers from contest flying by an
immeasurable amount.

I am serious about this: getting sucked into a cloud is not what will
kill you in a contest, and if you believe it is a real risk, you
_really_ need to learn a lot more about contests.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/15/2012 3:34 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> True. But what of iPhones, Andriod phones. They have the same electronic gyro sensors as the Butterfly?

Many of us do not see what message you are responding to, because of the
specific way we read RAS. It would be very helpful if you included the
name of the person and at least a partial quote in your reply, as I have
here. That's usually very easy to do, regardless of the newsreader or
web ready you are using.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/15/2012 7:43 PM, T8 wrote:
> Tom does have a point. Buy a cheap phone, put it on your existing
> service. Charge it, test it, turn it off, put it in the glider and
> leave it there. I'd do that.
>
> Looks like you can still get them. Perhaps $30 on Amazon. Big
> deal... not.

Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are
available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be
adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a
SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work
some places, especially in the West.

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

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 9:34Â*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:48Â*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Â*Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
> > and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
> > start rules were put in place. Â*I *know* when they were put in place.
> > I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
> > people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. Â*The 2-minute-
> > below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
> > cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
> > below the day's cloudbase. Â*It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
> > start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
> > cloudbase.
>
> > 2) Tom, UH, and John: Â*If we're going to talk about the honor system
> > and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
> > on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
> > so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?
>
> > Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:
>
> > The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
> > *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
> > purposes). Â* Â*But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
> > them already. Â*The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
> > pilots to fly with these smartphones. Â*If they want to be contest-
> > legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
> > phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
> > cell phones?
> > -----
>
> > ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> > Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
> > to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
> > what people here have said). Â*They say if it *could* be used, then its
> > forbidden... period. Â*Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
> > cockpit. Â*This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
> > software. Â*This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
> > - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. Â*XCSoar
> > and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
> > in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
> > last 3 years. Â*It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
> > flight computer! Â*If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
> > have become a contest pilot. Â*The ironclad AH rules cut off all
> > current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
> > software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
> > easier. Â*Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
> > physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
> > for 2+ weeks.
>
> > We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
> > (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Â*Yet
> > here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
> > expensive to participate in contests?
> > -----
>
> > ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>
> > Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
> > then you imply that we won't enforce them.
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
> > hell have them in the first place? Â*If people know they're not going
> > to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
> > -----
>
> > ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
> > up with a better rule!
>
> > -----
> > QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
> > everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
> > and then just walk out with the trophy?
> > -----
>
> > ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
> > smarter!
>
> > Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
> > number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
> > mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
> > takeoff. Â*And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
> > doing to stop them?
>
> > In Summary: Â*I just don't understand. Â*I simply don't. Â*Yes, cloud-
> > flying used to happen. Â*Yes, its a danger. Â*Yes, it should be
> > prevented. Â*But you're telling me that the best solution is an
> > outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
> > enforced? Â*And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
> > time to fly?
>
> > There has to be a better way.
>
> > --Noel
> > (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
> > software on a PDA)
>
> Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
> simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
> definition of "Sportsmanship".
>
> The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
> issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
> during a SSA contest.
>
> Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
> AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.
>
> The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
> display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.
>
> Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
> charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
> and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.
>
> Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
> several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
> BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
> of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
> guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
> sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
> devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
> those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
> Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.
>
> Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
> actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
> a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
> much thought to these topics.
>
> Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
> at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.
>
> Thomas Kelley #711.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tom - thanks for reminding all of our friends of the associated rules
shown immediately below which have also been in place for quite some
time. I guess I missed that meeting.
UH

6.6 >> Restricted Equipment

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

• Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance
greater than one wingspan.

6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts
designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight. In
certain

classes (Rule 6.12), the use of such devices is prohibited.

6.6.3 ‡ Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with
the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,

commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight
capabilities beyond those referenced below:

6.6.3.1 ‡ An aircraft-band VHF radio

6.6.3.2 ‡ An aircraft transponder

6.6.3.3 ‡ A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)

6.6.3.4 ‡ A air-to-ground position reporting device

6.6.3.5 ‡ anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of
a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by

the device.

6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-
flight access to weather data is prohibited.

6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered
Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

[Sean Fidler]

Tom C-

So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in case? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were screwed? Ever just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced one? A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men.

What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?

What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here new contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud....be damned! You careless *******! It’s your fault for making that mistake. Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost to safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat.

I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer ;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the standings.
Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe this should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair compromise? Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional? Please say no.

Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. Not sure if that would be a positive result. “Any pilot attending a regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. Yeah sure those cheap crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the country somewhere. But I digress.

Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you’re going to be able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if someone really wants to with today’s technology? Are we going to randomly ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball’s steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of the top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPhone. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb phone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best.

I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely killed. That would not be fun to watch.

[Sean Fidler]

Eric responds, "We seem to be down to "I want it because I want it."

Eric, you have got to be kidding me. We want it because it can save someones life and the chance of someone cheating effectively (almost zero) is MEANINGLESS when compared to safety.

Wow, we are miles apart here Eric.

[Mike I Green]

On 2/15/2012 6:34 PM, Tom Kelley wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:48 pm, > wrote:
>> 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
>> and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
>> start rules were put in place. I *know* when they were put in place.
>> I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
>> people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. The 2-minute-
>> below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
>> cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
>> below the day's cloudbase. It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
>> start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
>> cloudbase.
>>
>> 2) Tom, UH, and John: If we're going to talk about the honor system
>> and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
>> on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
>> so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?
>>
>> Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:
>>
>> The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
>> *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
>> purposes). But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
>> them already. The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
>> pilots to fly with these smartphones. If they want to be contest-
>> legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
>> phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).
>>
>> -----
>> QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
>> cell phones?
>> -----
>>
>> ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>>
>> Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
>> to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
>> what people here have said). They say if it *could* be used, then its
>> forbidden... period. Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
>> cockpit. This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
>> software. This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
>> - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. XCSoar
>> and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
>> in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
>> last 3 years. It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
>> flight computer! If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
>> have become a contest pilot. The ironclad AH rules cut off all
>> current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
>> software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
>> easier. Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
>> physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
>> for 2+ weeks.
>>
>> We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
>> (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Yet
>> here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!
>>
>> -----
>> QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
>> expensive to participate in contests?
>> -----
>>
>> ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!
>>
>> Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
>> then you imply that we won't enforce them.
>>
>> -----
>> QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
>> hell have them in the first place? If people know they're not going
>> to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
>> -----
>>
>> ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
>> up with a better rule!
>>
>> -----
>> QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
>> everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
>> and then just walk out with the trophy?
>> -----
>>
>> ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
>> smarter!
>>
>> Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
>> number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
>> mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
>> takeoff. And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
>> doing to stop them?
>>
>> In Summary: I just don't understand. I simply don't. Yes, cloud-
>> flying used to happen. Yes, its a danger. Yes, it should be
>> prevented. But you're telling me that the best solution is an
>> outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
>> enforced? And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
>> time to fly?
>>
>> There has to be a better way.
>>
>> --Noel
>> (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
>> software on a PDA)
>
>
> Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
> simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
> definition of "Sportsmanship".
>
> The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
> issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
> during a SSA contest.
>
> Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
> AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.
>
> The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
> display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.
>
> Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
> charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
> and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.
>
> Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
> several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
> BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
> of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
> guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
> sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
> devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
> those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
> Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.
>
> Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
> actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
> a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
> much thought to these topics.
>
> Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
> at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.
>
> Thomas Kelley #711.

Tom, now I am really scared. I don't know what to do. I really enjoy
contest flying and have done a lot of it. I'm not going to win a Nat's,
but really enjoy ending up in the middle third.

I have a Blackberry 8830. I don't want an A/H. Got enough to do in the
cockpit. Never been sucked up in a cloud and never want to. I trust my
8830 for phone calls in the boonies and email in the boonies. If I have
to give it up for an untrusted, untested $20 phone without email, I
ain't going to fly any more contests.

Maybe my smart phone is a dumb phone. Couldn't find an A/H for it
anyway. If I can't put it in a pocket easily reachable, I won't be
flying either.

Who's going to be responsible for designating those cell phones that
have or could have A/H's?

I sure hope this is resolved by the end of March.
--
Mike I Green
MG - Mighty Gorilla

[Marc]

On Feb 15, 8:07*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are
> available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be
> adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a
> SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work
> some places, especially in the West.

Banning just smart phones would do very little:

http://tech.yostengineering.com/3-space-sensor/product-family/bluetooth
http://www.x-io.co.uk/node/9

These are just two examples of several such devices on the market. In
essence, to prevent use of devices like this, it woud be necessary to
ban all programmable Bluetooth-capable PDA, PNA, smart phone, and
tablet devices, or search the gliders and frisk the pilots on a daily
basis. I am 100% in favor of the cloud-flying ban in US contests, but
this technology is advancing faster than the RC will be able to keep
up with. Given that I flew (and occasionally won) in regionals for
several years using homebrew software running on various odd PDA-like
devices, I have reason to be concerned with the direction this
discussion seems to be heading. Deal with cloud-flying harshly as
unsportsmanlike behavior when detected, but don't pretend the problem
can be solved by banning entire categories of equipment...

Marc

[Tom Claffey]

Sean,
The rules against artificial horizons have been around for years.
Although I believe we are an honest bunch it does not hurt to help things
stay that way, we weigh sailplanes at contests too!
I have 22000hrs, 3800 in sailplanes and I have only once inadvertently been
"sucked" into cloud In
that case I pushed hard and came out of cloud - I then cruised at almost
VNE with the wheel down and airbrakes open for 60 kms!!]

I am sure the butterfly people can build a vario without the AH.

I reckon if the capability to cloud fly is there then some will try,
without training this is unsafe [let alone illegal]

I have cloud flown legally in the UK and NZ and do not believe it enhances
safety.

Tom

At 04:17 16 February 2012, Sean Fidler wrote:[i]
>Tom C-=20
>
>So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please
>a=
>llow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be
>ba=
>d for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much
>accidental=
>ly flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in
>c=
>ase? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a benign
>spi=
>ral because, essentially, you=92ve made a mistake and you were screwed?
>Ev=
>er just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced one? A
rule
>=
>leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to
chance,
>=
>at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be
>fun=
>, enjoyable and of honest men.
>
>What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the
>o=
>pportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the
>r=
>est of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may,
>howe=
>ver slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon
>instrument=
> if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not
have
>=
>to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?
>
>What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands
>at=
> this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that
>so=
>meone is going to be able to cheat =93past=94 them that safety for any
>fair=
> pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here
>n=
>ew contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a
>cloud.=
>...be damned! You careless *******! It=92s your fault for making that
>mist=
>ake. Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if
>someo=
>ne really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost
to
>=
>safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a
>f=
>ew of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant
>liv=
>e with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat. =20
>
>I won=92t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I
>kno=
>w) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last
>su=
>mmer ;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the
>s=
>tandings. =20
>Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a
>throw=
> away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that
you
>=
>recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and
>i=
>ncreasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe
>this=
> should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair
>compromis=
>e? Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little
>regiona=
>l? Please say no.
>
>Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide
>e=
>mail from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today
-
>=
>any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA,
most
>=
>Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your
>d=
>oors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down
tight.
>=
> Not sure if that would be a positive result. =93Any pilot attending a
>reg=
>ional should go and get a throw away phone,=94 etc. Yeah sure those
cheap
>=
>crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in
>the=
> country somewhere. But I digress.
>
>Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you=92re going to
be
>=
>able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if
>some=
>one really wants to with today=92s technology? Are we going to randomly
>ra=
>nsack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found
>is=
> a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a
smartphone
>=
>in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball=92s
>s=
>teroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone
>recor=
>ds to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of
>th=
>e top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just
>goi=
>ng to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available?

>=
> Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an
>iPh=
>one. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb
>p=
>hone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best.
>
>I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC
>fata=
>l accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread
>w=
>hile suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely
>kil=
>led. That would not be fun to watch.
>

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 15, 11:17*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Tom C-
>
> So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? *Please allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. *How exactly would it be bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in case? *Did you read this article? *Have you ever had to perform a benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were screwed? *Ever just had to ride it out and hope? *Have you ever practiced one? *A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men.
>
> What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? *Please weigh that with the rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?
>
> What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. *If you, (insert your name here new contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud...be damned! *You careless *******! *It’s your fault for making that mistake. *Tough taffy. *But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone really wanted to? *Can all the instruments be policed? *At what cost to safety? *At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? *All because a few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat.
>
> I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer ;-0! *See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the standings.
> Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. *Maybe this should be for National contests only guys? *Would that be a fair compromise? *Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional? *Please say no.
>
> Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. *Then perhaps consider locking your doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. *Not sure if that would be a positive result. *“Any pilot attending a regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. *Yeah sure those cheap crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the country somewhere. *But I digress.
>
> Think about this carefully. *Do you really think that you’re going to be able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if someone really wants to with today’s technology? *Are we going to randomly ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is a DSQ? *Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone in his pocket? *If yes, then what of the last 3 years? *Like baseball’s steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? *Subpoena phone records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of the top pilots? *Confirm the device model of these calls? *Or are we just going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? * Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPhone. *Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb phone, program in some numbers, etc. *Seems paranoid to me at best.
>
> I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. *Absolutely killed. * That would not be fun to watch.

Sean,

The real issue is not the cheating. The real issue is that the
behavior (cloud flying) has in the past resulted in IMC mid-airs. As
Eric pointed out there have been no AH-preventable fatalities in his
memory, but there have been mid-airs as the result of cloud flying.
It's a matter of basing the rules on known facts rather than
speculation about situations that have not caused one contest
accident.

It is a real concern that technology advances are making this rule
extremely hard to enforce, and human nature being what it is we will
unfortunately likely see a repeat of IMC mid-airs as a result.

QT

[T8]

On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:

> Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
> AVOIDABLE.

> Thomas Kelley #711.

Yes, it is. Who doesn't get that?

Show of hands please. Then we can work on the real problem.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tim Mara]

I have already made the below notes on all of my flight computer, data
logger pages to hopefully make competition pilots aware of the position the
US contest rules committee has made prohibiting the use of AHRS and other
blind flying instruments and devices
please see my page
http://wingsandwheels.com/lx_nav_lx8000_lx9000_nano_flight.htm
and other pages as well

"Instruments or devices equipped with any form or AHRS system (Artificial
Horizon) or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying" that cannot be
completely disabled or removed are not permitted in any
SSA sanctioned competition!"
More details are available on link above or may be found on Contest Rules
and Rules Committee Documents

regards
Tim Mara
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com



> wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 4:15 pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The LX8000 and LX9000 use an AHRS sensor box with built in g-meters,
> etc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-AHRS
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 14, 12:08 am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike > wrote:
> > > XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.
>
> > Yes:
>
> >http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/Horizo...
>
> > The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
> > says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
> > on technology used by XCSoar)
>
> > This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
> > OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
> > real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
> > announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
> > soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.
>
> Max
>
> Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Paul:
As in my warning about Butterfly, you and other vendors should ensure
that the pilots buying the devices from you that are represented to
have A/H functionality, know that these devices are not permitted
under current and future SSA competition rules.
Notwithstanding the disagreement by a vocal few, this policy is not
going to change any time soon.
It would be a big service to your customers to ensure that they are
informed and an even bigger service if you make a point of ensuring
that your suppliers know that there is a clarification of policy in
effect and a methodology for compliance.
There is adequate time before the majority of the contest season to
get this accomplished.
If there is a question about whether a product falls into this
catagory, the RC will work hard to give you a determination.
I guess Richard, Rex?,and Tim and I don't know who else would also be
well to heed this suggestion.
I don't think you want to be getting the angry call from your customer
on contest practice day that you sold him an instrument he can't use.
Thanks for you cooperation and service to the contest community.
UH
RC Chair

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6889 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6889 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Dan Marotta]

Oh, come on, Sean. To quote: "very much accidentally flew into IMC"

What's accidental about intentionally flying under a CB, seeking out the
strongest lift, rejoicing in the rate of climb, and then bemoaning getting
sucked into the cloud?

Don't you see the links forming in the accident chain? He just got lucky.
I very much appreciate that he wrote about the incident as a warning to
others about these risks, but I didn't take his story as a call to have
cloud flying instruments in the cockpit as you seem to.

He didn't accidently get sucked into a cloud - he knocked at the door. An
intelligent and safety couscious pilot wouldn't have knocked.


"Sean Fidler" > wrote in message
news:15111222.691.1329365870544.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndy9...
Tom C-

So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please
allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be
bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much
accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument
just in case? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a
benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were
screwed? Ever just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced
one? A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc)
to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant
to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men.

What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the
opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the
rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may,
however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon
instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and
not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?

What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at
this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that
someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair
pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here new
contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud...be
damned! You careless *******! It’s your fault for making that mistake.
Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone
really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost to
safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a
few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant
live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat.

I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know)
have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer
;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the
standings.
Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw
away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you
recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and
increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe this
should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair compromise?
Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional?
Please say no.

Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide
email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today -
any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most
Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your
doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight.
Not sure if that would be a positive result. “Any pilot attending a
regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. Yeah sure those cheap
crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the
country somewhere. But I digress.

Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you’re going to be
able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if
someone really wants to with today’s technology? Are we going to randomly
ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found
is a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone
in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball’s
steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone
records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights
of the top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just
going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available?
Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an
iPhone. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb
phone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best.

I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal
accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread
while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely
killed. That would not be fun to watch.

[Sean Fidler]

Your thought process is the problem Dan. You are plain wrong about this. Kempton did not intend to fly into the cloud. He looked at his panel a second too long. Are you saying he is a schmuck? That he was cheating? That he was trying to get an extra 200 feet for his OLC distance? That is so ridiculous that I have a hard time restraining myself here...

The relevant facts are that this example (Kempton) is very much how contest pilots fly (like it or not). This will happen again and again until one day a pilot panics and dies. That is very poor decision making in my opinion.

1)People makes mistakes.
2)Pilots make mistakes.
3)Contest pilots make mistakes.
4)Gliders are dangerous enough.
5)People, pilots and contest pilots are honest sportsman in general.
6)If someone makes this mistake they might just die. It is a mistake that we are concerned about. It does happen...read the article again.
7)We should allow any & all instruments which aid this situation WAY before outlawing it because one idiot somewhere, someday might cheat. In fact, cheating should not even be a consideration.
8)Safety should have ALL the weighting.
9)This rule in unenforced.
10)This rule is unenforceable.

[Sean Fidler]

John,

I respect your concerns. I really, really do.

But leveraging this rule against a couple yahoo's that might get killed via a midair collision while cloud-flying in an SSA sanctioned contest VS. the vast majority of glider pilots which might honestly benefit from this instrumentation if they accidentally needed to maintain straight and level flight in a cloud one day seems foolish at best. I again sight Kemptons experience. I ask you why do these instruments exists? Why do so many glider pilots use them? To Cheat?

It is illegal to be in the clouds in a glider, PERIOD. No pilot, contest or not, should be in a cloud (technically within 500 ft. of base) ever. Should the rules committee start encouraging protests when pilots witness other pilots within 500 ft. of cloud base? I have a great video camera...and while i am not the best pilot in the world I could leech these illegal cheaters really, really well ;-). Video evidence is stunning. Do we really want to go here?

Consider this... Does the FAA mandate removal of the the Artificial Horizon & turn and bank instruments from power aircraft when a non instrument rated pilot flies the aircraft? Would it be wise (for the same reasons you sight) to remove the gyro based instrumentation every time a non instrument rated pilot gets into the cockpit. Would this be an equally ironclad deterrent which ensures that non instrument rated pilots never get into a IMC? Hmmm?

Doesn't the occasional private pilot or even student accidentally fly into IMC accidentally? Is this how the FAA deals with this problem? Has a private pilot ever saved themselves after inadvertently entering IMC?

Honest pilots make mistakes. The dishonest illegal pilots who goes into the clouds intentionally are not a concern of this discussion. They are on their own. Just as a pilot who flies inverted thru the open hangar should not be a concern of our contest rules committee. Those acts are completely illegal and outside of the area with which we can control.

So lets PLEASE stop worrying about 2 idiots who might cheat and the honest guy who might die in a potentially preventable accident.

[Andy Gough[_2_]]

The use of blind flying instruments used to be an easy rule to police
in times gone by. There were only a few choices AH, T&B and the Bohli
compass come to mind.

As I understand it, the objective of the no blind flying instruments
rule is to prevent contestants making high climbs in cloud that would
allow them to fly around or through large areas of less or non
soarable conditions affording those pilots an advantage over those who
do not have the skills and or the instrumentation. It has been
mentioned a number of times that it is possible to cloud climb without
an AH or T&B using the information one receives from a GPS display. So
if you have the mind to cheat you just need to perfect the skills and
go ahead and do it. There are other cloud flying situations that we
would maybe deem to be ok rules wise, e.g. penetrating a cloud layer
that we have risen above in wave and have flown over to reach a
turnpoint but must now descend through because we have left the source
of lift that got us to this point and have no other option. So going
up in cloud is not sanctioned but maybe going down or through is ok in
some situations.


The posts citing sportsmanship and current trends in technology when
considered together suggest to me we should accept the inevitable
advances of technology and work on our code of conduct. It seems that
it would be reasonably easy to spot a cheater if all we are concerned
with is an unfair advantage gained from a cloud climb. If a particular
competitor hands in logs that show heights that are inconsistent with
everyone else's then that competitor could be asked to explain how he
achieved this miracle to a jury of his peers. How you deal with a jury
decision that does not accept the pilot's explanation depends on the
severity of the infraction and the desire to prevent this behaviour.
Policing this activity need add no extra burden on contest organizers.
Logs are readily available to all contestants, you can't get a better
police force than the interested parties. They fly in the same air as
the potential cheater and can best assess the validity of that pilot's
story.

If the objective is to disuade cloud climbs, banning instruments won't
stop that, I personally know pilots who have achieved cloud climbs
using only ASI and vario, it's possible. How many pilots do you
believe would be willing to look their fellow competitors in the eye
and bare faced lie about their miserable attempt at gaining
recognition. Hardly seems worth all the fuss and bother to even make a
rule to cover the situation.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 16, 8:52*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:

>"Instruments or devices equipped with any form or AHRS system (Artificial
>Horizon) or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying" that cannot be
>completely disabled or removed are not permitted in any
>SSA sanctioned competition!"


Tim,

You may need to edit that note. Your note as written implies that
AHRS means Artifical Horizon and that's not accurate.

AHRS means Attitude and Heading Reference System. An AHRS is a much
more capable system than an AH since it provides (at a minimum) pitch
attitude, roll attitude and heading.

Wouldn't it be better to just quote the rule?

To go off on a tangent - I wonder how many CDs would recognize a Bohli
compass and know what to say about it.

Andy

[S. Murry]

The moral of the story is he should have had a butterfly vario?

--Stefan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:45:49 -0600, mike > wrote:

> On Feb 15, 4:30 pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>> Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of
>> Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.

[Sean Fidler]

No. I guess it is that he should not have one. Brilliant.

Nor a smart phone. That dirty cheater...

[T8]

On Feb 16, 3:38*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> No. *I guess it is that he should not have one. *Brilliant.
>
> Nor a smart phone. *That dirty cheater...

You think instrumentation is the solution to IMC in a CB? Or not?
Pick one. No evasions. Pick one.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[S. Murry]

OK, I've made a couple of smart-assed remarks on this thread. But clearly
it is not going to die (ever!) and I suppose at this point I might point
out my "real" opinion on this.

First off, I am an instrument-rated airplane pilot, glider CFI, and
(beginning) competition glider pilot. I have been a licensed glider pilot
for 26 years, and power pilot for 24 year. I only bring this up so that
everyone here will know where I am coming from when I ask the following
question:

Question: "Has anyone actually tried cloud-flying with their smartphone?"

The reason why I ask is my reading of the rule, which I quote below (from
another post, so I hope it is accurate):

"6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

"
does not seem to prohibit carrying a smartphone, as some have asserted in
this thread.

John C. posits that it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS
moving map. I disagree about this point. Or I suppose I can't argue with
the "theoretically" part, since the definition of "cloud flying" itself is
not 100% clear (I mean, if you shoot through a vapor tendril under a CU
are you "cloud flying"? Inertia is enough to cloud fly for a least a
couple of seconds...). But, as a practical matter (as opposed to
"theoretical") I disagree that your smart phone enables cloud flying.
Here is why.

I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

If you are in a less stable machine (like a glider), and trying to use one
of these devices to gain competitive advantage by thermalling (i.e.
turning) into a cloud, I would argue that these devices are useless. Yes,
you might live, but I know the story of a guy who jumped out of a B-17 in
WW-II without a parachute, fell 14,000 feet and lived. This does NOT mean
that flapping your arms when in freefall "permits flight without the use
of a parachute." You might get lucky, but most of the time jumping
without a parachute will be fatal.

Similarly, trying to use a smartphone to cloud fly is highly likely to
have a bad outcome.

The rule does not appear to prohibit any device that any person on RAS
believes might possibly be used to somehow "cloud fly." It prohibits
instruments that "permit flight without reference to the ground." My
smart phone does not do that and therefore if anyone challenges me in a
contest, I will maintain that this is not an instrument that permits
flight without reference to the ground and therefore is not prohibited by
the rules. If anyone disagrees with me, I'll ask them to go up and use my
phone to demonstrate "flight without reference to the ground" while
circling in a thermal (in their glider, of course, not mine because I'd
like mine to come back in one piece).

I do think that dedicated glider instruments that have greater
capabilities may exist, and probably are under development. Some of these
may actually "permit flight without reference to the ground." The rules
committee it seems to me has done a great job in clarifying how these
devices may be disabled such that they can be used (without the cloud
flying enabling features operating), or at least mentioning that the
possiblity of disabling certain features may allow one to use the
instrument sans cloud flying features in a contest. It seems to me that
this is eminently forward-looking and an attempt to accommodate these new
devices without making contest flying more dangerous by giving contestants
a little voice in the back of their head telling them that it's OK to gain
just another hundred feet in this booming thermal since I've got a "cloud
flying" instrument on board "just in case." All very sensible to me.

I just don't see that being alarmed about being called a "cheater" at a
contest because you have a smart phone with you is a realistic scenario.
I note also (and perhaps this is a suggestion for the rules committee),
that the rule bans any device that "permits flight without reference to
the ground." It does not ban anything that "permits flight without
reference to the horizon." Imagine a situation where you are in VMC above
a solid cloud layer. You can see the horizon (thus an AH is not needed),
but not the ground. In this case, a GPS or other navigation system is what
"permits flight without reference to the ground," since it enables you to
compensate for the normally visually-derived navigational information that
you lack due to your inability to see the ground. Thus, GPS devices
should be banned in contests, because they "permit flight without
reference to the ground." Clearly, a literal reading of this rule will
not have the intended effect. Thus, arguments that attempt to postulate
some imaginary scenario under which a contest pilot could innocently run
afoul of this rule and be penalized seem to me to be missing the point.
CDs and other competitors need to have some common sense, in conjunction
with the clarification provided recently by the rules committee, and I
think usually is enough to prevent the kind of dire outcomes that have
been mentioned in this thread.

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan





On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:56:42 -0600, John Cochrane
> wrote:


> Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
> or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. It's also possible to sneak
> off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
> at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
> If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
> prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
> scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
> unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
> costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.

>
>




--
Stefan Murry

[T8]

On Feb 16, 4:04*pm, "S. Murry" > wrote:
[snipped]
> Sorry for the very long post...
>
> --Stefan

That was worth reading. Thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 16, 1:17*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:04*pm, "S. Murry" > wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> > Sorry for the very long post...
>
> > --Stefan
>
> That was worth reading. *Thanks.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

ditto.

The last time I believe a thread got much over 100 was a few years ago
and it was titled "the future of soaring"
I think this thread follows along those same lines. I have been very
entertained and informed and feel quite pleased to be able to
participate with such a group of smart people.

Brad

[Tim Mara]

I already did say "or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying"
I'd hope that was clear enough that anyone would then go to the actual SRA
rules page.
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 8:52 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:

>"Instruments or devices equipped with any form or AHRS system (Artificial
>Horizon) or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying" that cannot
>be
>completely disabled or removed are not permitted in any
>SSA sanctioned competition!"


Tim,

You may need to edit that note. Your note as written implies that
AHRS means Artifical Horizon and that's not accurate.

AHRS means Attitude and Heading Reference System. An AHRS is a much
more capable system than an AH since it provides (at a minimum) pitch
attitude, roll attitude and heading.

Wouldn't it be better to just quote the rule?

To go off on a tangent - I wonder how many CDs would recognize a Bohli
compass and know what to say about it.

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6890 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6890 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Cliff Hilty[_2_]]

Im 100% with Marc on this one. You only create division with this type of
Rule. I guess I have been in violation for the past 2 contests by carrying
my Droid. And frankly I don't think I would fly in contests if required to
buy another phone dedicated to contests. I really thought that the RC was
heading in the right direction and trying to make the rules simpler, but
alas-- this.

I appreciate all the work that they do and bless them for taking on the
responsibility but you can't write everything out and expect people to
come and enjoy contest flying. I thought the goal was simplify and to get
more people into contest flying. You are making it difficult for me to
convince the newbies to get involved.

And while we are at it lets bring up the instant change to insurance rules
which is going to prevent me from flying at least the first half of the
year as I am insured with Avemco. That change sure smacks of nepotism and a
monopoly.

Don't worry guys Ill still try and fly into the contest sites and visit,
but guess I won't be competing with you Ill just settle for OLC and fly
home for points :)

CH Ventus B



>These are just two examples of several such devices on the market. In
>essence, to prevent use of devices like this, it woud be necessary to
>ban all programmable Bluetooth-capable PDA, PNA, smart phone, and
>tablet devices, or search the gliders and frisk the pilots on a daily
>basis. I am 100% in favor of the cloud-flying ban in US contests, but
>this technology is advancing faster than the RC will be able to keep
>up with. Given that I flew (and occasionally won) in regionals for
>several years using homebrew software running on various odd PDA-like
>devices, I have reason to be concerned with the direction this
>discussion seems to be heading. Deal with cloud-flying harshly as
>unsportsmanlike behavior when detected, but don't pretend the problem
>can be solved by banning entire categories of equipment...
>
>Marc
>

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Cliff Hilty
> wrote:
> Im 100% with Marc on this one. You only create division with this type of
> Rule. I guess I have been in violation for the past 2 contests by carrying
> my Droid. And frankly I don't think I would fly in contests if required to
> buy another phone dedicated to contests. I really thought that the RC was
> heading in the right direction and trying to make the rules simpler, but
> alas-- this.
>
> I appreciate all the work that they do and bless them for taking on the
> responsibility but *you can't write everything out and expect people to
> come and enjoy contest flying. I thought the goal was *simplify and to get
> more people into contest flying. You are making it difficult for me to
> convince the newbies to get involved.
>
> And while we are at it lets bring up the instant change to insurance rules
> which is going to prevent me from flying at least the first half of the
> year as I am insured with Avemco. That change sure smacks of nepotism and a
> monopoly.
>
> Don't worry guys Ill still try and fly into the contest sites and visit,
> but guess I won't be competing with you Ill just settle for OLC and fly
> home for points :)
>
> CH Ventus B


Cliff,

I'm sure someone with official knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong,
but I'm pretty sure there has been no change to the insurance
requirements for contests. However it does seem that in the past
people have not understood the requirements or their coverage and it
hasn't been checked closely, resulting in some people flying contests
with less than the required coverage. This was not an "instant change
to insurance rules"

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 16, 4:53*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Cliff Hilty
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Im 100% with Marc on this one. You only create division with this type of
> > Rule. I guess I have been in violation for the past 2 contests by carrying
> > my Droid. And frankly I don't think I would fly in contests if required to
> > buy another phone dedicated to contests. I really thought that the RC was
> > heading in the right direction and trying to make the rules simpler, but
> > alas-- this.
>
> > I appreciate all the work that they do and bless them for taking on the
> > responsibility but *you can't write everything out and expect people to
> > come and enjoy contest flying. I thought the goal was *simplify and to get
> > more people into contest flying. You are making it difficult for me to
> > convince the newbies to get involved.
>
> > And while we are at it lets bring up the instant change to insurance rules
> > which is going to prevent me from flying at least the first half of the
> > year as I am insured with Avemco. That change sure smacks of nepotism and a
> > monopoly.
>
> > Don't worry guys Ill still try and fly into the contest sites and visit,
> > but guess I won't be competing with you Ill just settle for OLC and fly
> > home for points :)
>
> > CH Ventus B
>
> Cliff,
>
> I'm sure someone with official knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong,
> but I'm pretty sure there has been no change to the insurance
> requirements for contests. However it does seem that in the past
> people have not understood the requirements or their coverage and it
> hasn't been checked closely, resulting in some people flying contests
> with less than the required coverage. This was not an "instant change
> to insurance rules"

Cliff,

OK I take it back. "with no reduction in coverage for persons outside
the insured sailplane." is being added for 2012. I was under the
impression all the talk about insurance was a clarification of already
existing rules. Understand your frustration, I would be too if I was
not insured with Costello.

[Dan Marotta]

No, Sean, it's your thought process (and by the way, your grammar) that are
at fault. The point that you can't seem to understand is that there is a
chain of errors leading up to an accident. Break the chain and there's no
accident. I never said that the pilot in question intended to fly into the
cloud. I said that a series of bad decisions led him to that point.

Frankly, I don't care what instruments you have in your cockpit. Why can't
you simply accept that there's a rule in place and either abide by it,
attempt to change it by due process, or flaunt it (which you've already
stated that you will do).

Your hysteria is becoming tedious, so I'm going to bow out now. Flail away
at me; I won't respond to you on this thread again.


"Sean Fidler" > wrote in message
news:13397322.587.1329413342124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynii32...
Your thought process is the problem Dan. You are plain wrong about this.
Kempton did not intend to fly into the cloud. He looked at his panel a
second too long. Are you saying he is a schmuck? That he was cheating?
That he was trying to get an extra 200 feet for his OLC distance? That is
so ridiculous that I have a hard time restraining myself here...

The relevant facts are that this example (Kempton) is very much how contest
pilots fly (like it or not). This will happen again and again until one day
a pilot panics and dies. That is very poor decision making in my opinion.

1)People makes mistakes.
2)Pilots make mistakes.
3)Contest pilots make mistakes.
4)Gliders are dangerous enough.
5)People, pilots and contest pilots are honest sportsman in general.
6)If someone makes this mistake they might just die. It is a mistake that
we are concerned about. It does happen...read the article again.
7)We should allow any & all instruments which aid this situation WAY before
outlawing it because one idiot somewhere, someday might cheat. In fact,
cheating should not even be a consideration.
8)Safety should have ALL the weighting.
9)This rule in unenforced.
10)This rule is unenforceable.

[RAS56]

I have a (err...only partially facetious) solution:

A new class at contests "Open IFR".

Coordinate with ATC, get them to grant you a piece of airspace with an altitude block. Keeps the IFR/VFR traffic away. Hopefully, it will be sparsely populated enough under the airspace to permit a light shower of carbon fiber or fiberglass to occur without much complaint from the populace residing there.

Let all the yahoo's who desire to cloud-fly have at it. Heck, you could count on the "Big Sky" theory and even make FLARM optional for these folks. Darwinism should make the problem smaller and smaller each year...until extinction occurs.

Seriously, this debate simply reminds me of the old saw about closing the gate after the cow has left the barn.

The technology is already here and not going away. It will be installed in more and more hardware, not less. Going to Luddite phones and dumbing down our panels will not stop the technological advance. The rules are not enforced and are unenforceable, a situation which I understand, when it occurs elsewhere, promotes a public attitude of ignoring other rules and laws as well. Anyone ever lived in an area where few traffic laws are enforced? I rest my case.

To me, Andy Gough's post is spot on and exactly how this type of behavior should be handled. "By their behavior, ye shall know them"...and when you do "know them", you hammer 'em...DQ their day, kick 'em outta the contest, banning them from competition completely...throw the stinkin' book at 'em.

If you think the uproar about this is big on the internet now....wait till you get guys pulling a trailer a 1000 miles to compete and then get told their results are invalid because of the cell phone they forgot to leave on the ground, the PDA software version they didn't know they weren't allowed to fly with or that their vario was a no-no.

I can't wait for the debate to begin when we get cockpit mounted low-draw FLIR systems that can thermal-detect from 5 miles off integrated into our FLARMs, varios, PDA's and PNA's. Somehow, I get the feeling it will be a "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" of this topic with the rules-makers trying to capture or contain the technology rather than direct it's integration into soaring in a safe and positive way.

[Dan Marotta]

Well said, Stefan!


"S. Murry" > wrote in message
...
OK, I've made a couple of smart-assed remarks on this thread. But clearly
it is not going to die (ever!) and I suppose at this point I might point
out my "real" opinion on this.

First off, I am an instrument-rated airplane pilot, glider CFI, and
(beginning) competition glider pilot. I have been a licensed glider pilot
for 26 years, and power pilot for 24 year. I only bring this up so that
everyone here will know where I am coming from when I ask the following
question:

Question: "Has anyone actually tried cloud-flying with their smartphone?"

The reason why I ask is my reading of the rule, which I quote below (from
another post, so I hope it is accurate):

"6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

"
does not seem to prohibit carrying a smartphone, as some have asserted in
this thread.

John C. posits that it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS
moving map. I disagree about this point. Or I suppose I can't argue with
the "theoretically" part, since the definition of "cloud flying" itself is
not 100% clear (I mean, if you shoot through a vapor tendril under a CU
are you "cloud flying"? Inertia is enough to cloud fly for a least a
couple of seconds...). But, as a practical matter (as opposed to
"theoretical") I disagree that your smart phone enables cloud flying.
Here is why.

I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

If you are in a less stable machine (like a glider), and trying to use one
of these devices to gain competitive advantage by thermalling (i.e.
turning) into a cloud, I would argue that these devices are useless. Yes,
you might live, but I know the story of a guy who jumped out of a B-17 in
WW-II without a parachute, fell 14,000 feet and lived. This does NOT mean
that flapping your arms when in freefall "permits flight without the use
of a parachute." You might get lucky, but most of the time jumping
without a parachute will be fatal.

Similarly, trying to use a smartphone to cloud fly is highly likely to
have a bad outcome.

The rule does not appear to prohibit any device that any person on RAS
believes might possibly be used to somehow "cloud fly." It prohibits
instruments that "permit flight without reference to the ground." My
smart phone does not do that and therefore if anyone challenges me in a
contest, I will maintain that this is not an instrument that permits
flight without reference to the ground and therefore is not prohibited by
the rules. If anyone disagrees with me, I'll ask them to go up and use my
phone to demonstrate "flight without reference to the ground" while
circling in a thermal (in their glider, of course, not mine because I'd
like mine to come back in one piece).

I do think that dedicated glider instruments that have greater
capabilities may exist, and probably are under development. Some of these
may actually "permit flight without reference to the ground." The rules
committee it seems to me has done a great job in clarifying how these
devices may be disabled such that they can be used (without the cloud
flying enabling features operating), or at least mentioning that the
possiblity of disabling certain features may allow one to use the
instrument sans cloud flying features in a contest. It seems to me that
this is eminently forward-looking and an attempt to accommodate these new
devices without making contest flying more dangerous by giving contestants
a little voice in the back of their head telling them that it's OK to gain
just another hundred feet in this booming thermal since I've got a "cloud
flying" instrument on board "just in case." All very sensible to me.

I just don't see that being alarmed about being called a "cheater" at a
contest because you have a smart phone with you is a realistic scenario.
I note also (and perhaps this is a suggestion for the rules committee),
that the rule bans any device that "permits flight without reference to
the ground." It does not ban anything that "permits flight without
reference to the horizon." Imagine a situation where you are in VMC above
a solid cloud layer. You can see the horizon (thus an AH is not needed),
but not the ground. In this case, a GPS or other navigation system is what
"permits flight without reference to the ground," since it enables you to
compensate for the normally visually-derived navigational information that
you lack due to your inability to see the ground. Thus, GPS devices
should be banned in contests, because they "permit flight without
reference to the ground." Clearly, a literal reading of this rule will
not have the intended effect. Thus, arguments that attempt to postulate
some imaginary scenario under which a contest pilot could innocently run
afoul of this rule and be penalized seem to me to be missing the point.
CDs and other competitors need to have some common sense, in conjunction
with the clarification provided recently by the rules committee, and I
think usually is enough to prevent the kind of dire outcomes that have
been mentioned in this thread.

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan





On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:56:42 -0600, John Cochrane
> wrote:


> Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
> or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. It's also possible to sneak
> off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
> at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
> If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
> prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
> scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
> unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
> costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.

>
>




--
Stefan Murry

[Marc]

On Feb 16, 1:04*pm, "S. Murry" > wrote:
> I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
> airplanes. *I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
> partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
> flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
> instruments pilots). *I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
> GPS-derived AH display. *I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
> (compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
> IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
> thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
> rate, etc.). *My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
> instrument to "cloud fly." *It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
> already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
> derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
> time. *To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
> short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

Thank you for this informative post. The above paragraph,
unfortunately, contains an incorrect assumption. The new
"smartphones" being discussed are capable of more than just a GPS-
derived AH display. They contain full 3-axis solid state gyroscope,
accelerometer, and magnetometer (3D compass) sensors. Given the huge
size of the phone market, a single integrated circuit containing all
of these sensors now costs under $10. They are there primarily for
game playing and "augmented reality" applications, allowing the
orientation of the phone in 3D space to be determined in a stable,
repeatable, and accurate fashion, to within fractions of degrees, with
update rates upwards of 100 Hz. Software already exists (typically $5
in the appropriate app store) for some of these phones to implement a
full inertially-based (not GPS-derived) artificial horizon. With
properly implemented software, the performance can easily exceed that
of the spinning mechanical device in your IFR panel. Competition has
resulted in all new high end phones (like iPhone 4S) and tablets (like
iPad 2) being produced with this full sensor suite. This will filter
down to lower end smart phones and smaller tablets over the next few
years.

Converging from another direction are devices built, using the same
low cost sensor chips, for use in hobbyist autonomous UAVs. There are
huge online communities of people developing open source software and
hardware to allow these things to fly in a stable and controlled
fashion. Given that there is no pilot directly controlling what are
in some cases highly unstable aircraft (helicopters, quad rotors, high
speed ducted fans, even jets), accurate high rate attitude
determination is a must. This is why we're suddenly seeing phones,
tablets, varios, flight computers, etc., with usable artificial
horizons. This capability will only become more ubiquitous as time
goes on...


Marc

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 7:07*pm, RAS56 > wrote:
> I have a (err...only partially facetious) solution:
>
> A new class at contests "Open IFR".
>
> Coordinate with ATC, get them to grant you a piece of airspace with an
> altitude block. Keeps the IFR/VFR traffic away. Hopefully, it will be
> sparsely populated enough under the airspace to permit a light shower of
> carbon fiber or fiberglass to occur without much complaint from the
> populace residing there.
>
> Let all the yahoo's who desire to cloud-fly have at it. Heck, you could
> count on the "Big Sky" theory and even make FLARM optional for these
> folks. Darwinism should make the problem smaller and smaller each
> year...until extinction occurs.
>
> Seriously, this debate simply reminds me of the old saw about closing
> the gate after the cow has left the barn.
>
> The technology is already here and not going away. It will be installed
> in more and more hardware, not less. Going to Luddite phones and dumbing
> down our panels will not stop the technological advance. The rules are
> not enforced and are unenforceable, a situation which I understand, when
> it occurs, promotes a public attitude of ignoring other rules and laws
> as well. Anyone ever lived in an area where few traffic laws are
> enforced? I rest my case.
>
> To me, Andy Gough's post is spot on and exactly how this type of
> behavior should be handled. "By their behavior, ye shall know
> them"...and when you do "know them", you hammer 'em...DQ their day, kick
> 'em outta the contest, banning them from competition completely...throw
> the stinkin' book at 'em.
>
> If you think the uproar about this is big on the internet now....wait
> till you get guys pulling a trailer a 1000 miles to compete and then get
> told their results are invalid because of the cell phone they forgot to
> leave on the ground, the PDA software version they didn't know they
> weren't allowed to fly with or that their vario was a no-no.
>
> I can't wait for the debate to begin when we get cockpit mounted
> low-draw FLIR systems that can thermal-detect from 5 miles off
> integrated into our FLARMs, varios, PDA's and PNA's. Somehow, I get the
> feeling it will be a "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" of this topic with the
> rules-makers trying to capture or contain the technology rather than
> direct it's integration into soaring in a safe and positive way.
>
> --
> RAS56

If you were to look back 10 years or so, you would find that the RC
anticipated much of what has occurred and wrote the rules previously
shown to make it clear that these elements were not going to be
permitted. In fact the door was closed and the cow was outside. Then
along came some young bulls and tried to knock the door down. In
truth, I suspect that most of these folks honestly had no idea they
were outside the rules. They simply did not become aware of them.
As far as the debate about thermal finders- Read the rules. We have
made it quite clear that we will not permit them. This is, in part so
someone who bothers to read the rules and see how they might affect
the potential market, will see the barrier before they invest.
What are we going to do about phones? The RC is discussing this. We
understand pilots don't want to give up their phones.
That said, we will have to come up with a way to deal with this that
we all can live with. That includes the scorers who right now rely on
our no cloud flying rule so they have no task involving this. We can't
ask them to become cloud flying monitors. We have to ensure another
way that this is not happening.
But make no mistake- the RC can not outright permit the use of AH
equipment. As I said in an earlier message, the first midair resulting
or appearing to result from our allowing these devices would raise the
obvious question "why did you abandon a safety rule
that was in place for more than 40 years with no history of negative
consequences?".
All this said, we will continue to work this out and we are listening.
The fact that we do not accept the positions of some well meaning and
strongly believing people does not mean that we have not listened or
that they have not been heard.
The vast majority of pilots don't have equipment that would truely
infriinge on the intent of the rule. In my PERSONAL view, the presence
of a "modern" phone does not imply intent to cheat.
Be patient and we'll work this out. In the meantime understand that
the rules are set for 2012 so do what you can guys to avoid the
problem.
Hint- no AH displays on the panel. Phone off and in the pocket.
FWIW that is exactly what the pliots at the WGC in Uvalde are expected
to do.
UH

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:17:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> 6.6.3 ‡ Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with
> the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
>
> commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight
> capabilities beyond those referenced below:
>
> 6.6.3.1 ‡ An aircraft-band VHF radio
>
> 6.6.3.2 ‡ An aircraft transponder
>
> 6.6.3.3 ‡ A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
>
> 6.6.3.4 ‡ A air-to-ground position reporting device
>
> 6.6.3.5 ‡ anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of
> a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by
>
> the device.
>
> 6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-
> flight access to weather data is prohibited.
>
> 6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered
> Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

Hank, John Squared, et. al.,

You guys already know how much I appreciate your service and dedication, so I'll move right along...

Look at rule 6.6.3.3. Now let's think about it. We CAN carry a "wireless telephone", but we are on the honor system not to use it in flight. Frankly, it's a completely unenforcable rule, right? I could easily use it to cheat. I could call my crew and ask them to bring up the latest hi-res satellite loop on the laptop. "It looks like it's ODing toward the second turn -how's it look to you?" Heck, I could call my friend 2,000 miles away if he or she is sitting at a computer. Obviously, it's less convenient than doing it right in the cockpit using my smartphone. But, it's somewhere on the cheating continuum. Of course, I could do that on the "company frequency" using my good old VHF radio, running a slight risk that someone might be snooping on that frequency. Don't tell me it's never been done. So, following the logic of banning instruments with the potential to give an unfair advantage to someone willing to cheat...

I for one am certainly NOT arguing for cloud flying, nor am I buying the argument that having these instruments enhances safety. I am in the camp that says technology is moving faster than the rules can keep up (Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns). I have more computing, communications, and sensing power in my Android phone than the Space Shuttle had when it first came out for less than the cost of a NASA toilet paper holder. We can't even imagine what's going to be possible in just a couple of years.

I think it's time to get back to communicating the broad principles and get out of the business of trying to police cockpit technology. Yes, a few unscrupulous sorts will try to take advantage. A few may even succeed. Those few will have to live with the knowlege that they violated the trust of fellow pilots. That should be punishment enough.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/16/2012 9:55 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> John,
>
> I respect your concerns. I really, really do.

I'm still trying to understand why this is such an important safety
issue to you. So far, your concern seems to be based entirely on the
possibility of it happening, as you haven't shown how it would have made
contests safer in the past. It doesn't seem like it's something we need
to speculate about, with a rule that's been in force for 40 years or so.
There should be plenty of incidents to talk about if the danger is as
high as you claim.

Please humor me on these questions:

Have you ever been sucked into a cloud during a contest, or do you know
someone that has?

Was there an incident that occurred outside of contest that made you
think getting near clouds was so dangerous, you'd rather sit on the
ground than fly without an AH?

Why do you think no one teaches students about using an AH, and why the
FAA doesn't require it to get a license?

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

[Mike I Green]

On 2/16/2012 6:51 PM, wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:07 pm, > wrote:
>> I have a (err...only partially facetious) solution:
>>
>> A new class at contests "Open IFR".
>>
>> Coordinate with ATC, get them to grant you a piece of airspace with an
>> altitude block. Keeps the IFR/VFR traffic away. Hopefully, it will be
>> sparsely populated enough under the airspace to permit a light shower of
>> carbon fiber or fiberglass to occur without much complaint from the
>> populace residing there.
>>
>> Let all the yahoo's who desire to cloud-fly have at it. Heck, you could
>> count on the "Big Sky" theory and even make FLARM optional for these
>> folks. Darwinism should make the problem smaller and smaller each
>> year...until extinction occurs.
>>
>> Seriously, this debate simply reminds me of the old saw about closing
>> the gate after the cow has left the barn.
>>
>> The technology is already here and not going away. It will be installed
>> in more and more hardware, not less. Going to Luddite phones and dumbing
>> down our panels will not stop the technological advance. The rules are
>> not enforced and are unenforceable, a situation which I understand, when
>> it occurs, promotes a public attitude of ignoring other rules and laws
>> as well. Anyone ever lived in an area where few traffic laws are
>> enforced? I rest my case.
>>
>> To me, Andy Gough's post is spot on and exactly how this type of
>> behavior should be handled. "By their behavior, ye shall know
>> them"...and when you do "know them", you hammer 'em...DQ their day, kick
>> 'em outta the contest, banning them from competition completely...throw
>> the stinkin' book at 'em.
>>
>> If you think the uproar about this is big on the internet now....wait
>> till you get guys pulling a trailer a 1000 miles to compete and then get
>> told their results are invalid because of the cell phone they forgot to
>> leave on the ground, the PDA software version they didn't know they
>> weren't allowed to fly with or that their vario was a no-no.
>>
>> I can't wait for the debate to begin when we get cockpit mounted
>> low-draw FLIR systems that can thermal-detect from 5 miles off
>> integrated into our FLARMs, varios, PDA's and PNA's. Somehow, I get the
>> feeling it will be a "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" of this topic with the
>> rules-makers trying to capture or contain the technology rather than
>> direct it's integration into soaring in a safe and positive way.
>>
>> --
>> RAS56
>
> If you were to look back 10 years or so, you would find that the RC
> anticipated much of what has occurred and wrote the rules previously
> shown to make it clear that these elements were not going to be
> permitted. In fact the door was closed and the cow was outside. Then
> along came some young bulls and tried to knock the door down. In
> truth, I suspect that most of these folks honestly had no idea they
> were outside the rules. They simply did not become aware of them.
> As far as the debate about thermal finders- Read the rules. We have
> made it quite clear that we will not permit them. This is, in part so
> someone who bothers to read the rules and see how they might affect
> the potential market, will see the barrier before they invest.
> What are we going to do about phones? The RC is discussing this. We
> understand pilots don't want to give up their phones.
> That said, we will have to come up with a way to deal with this that
> we all can live with. That includes the scorers who right now rely on
> our no cloud flying rule so they have no task involving this. We can't
> ask them to become cloud flying monitors. We have to ensure another
> way that this is not happening.
> But make no mistake- the RC can not outright permit the use of AH
> equipment. As I said in an earlier message, the first midair resulting
> or appearing to result from our allowing these devices would raise the
> obvious question "why did you abandon a safety rule
> that was in place for more than 40 years with no history of negative
> consequences?".
> All this said, we will continue to work this out and we are listening.
> The fact that we do not accept the positions of some well meaning and
> strongly believing people does not mean that we have not listened or
> that they have not been heard.
> The vast majority of pilots don't have equipment that would truely
> infriinge on the intent of the rule. In my PERSONAL view, the presence
> of a "modern" phone does not imply intent to cheat.
> Be patient and we'll work this out. In the meantime understand that
> the rules are set for 2012 so do what you can guys to avoid the
> problem.
> Hint- no AH displays on the panel. Phone off and in the pocket.
> FWIW that is exactly what the pliots at the WGC in Uvalde are expected
> to do.
> UH
Thank you Uncle hank.
I'm glad I am not in your shoes.
Respectfully,

MG

--
Mike I Green

[Sean Fidler]

dan,

i believe that you are wrong. this in no way makes you a bad person for being wrong. i think your starting to get it now. this rule is simply not going to survive as it stands. its just bad (the cell phone thing too).

grammer (capitalization, etc) is rarely a concern for me from a cell phone as I travel throughout the day. i really dont care about editing this stuff. if you dont like it, dont read it. i type once and move on. get over it. is that all you have now? lol! but i guess you are trying to call me dumb in your own little way there, huh dan? ok. fine.

dan, this is not a personal thing with anyone (at least with me). it is a very healthy argument and is worthwhile. just because you dont like it i should take your example (which i highly doubt) and stop? it has meaning to many and there are alot of people who share my opinion. it is really about a principle we apparently do not share. safety focus or pure competition? trust pilots or dont. go with technology smoothly or fight it tooth and nail as old foggy's have with every new advancement in this sport and others for years (gps, vario's, smartphones, etc)

i vote safety in favor of honest sportsman. let people use AH if they choose, its more of a pain in the ass to remove them now then not allowing them.. they are everywhere. i vote to let new technology such as smart phones in (as literally everyone has them right now as I type) rather than making everyone instead go to walmart and screw around buying some other useless cheapy phone for the contest. come on guys! seriously? this clearly is really going to irritate alot of people as you can already see. its so dumb its literally sad. the rules committee has been focused on safety recently in certain areas but it needs to refresh a few more rules in order to be consistent. these two rules (no ah and no smart phone) clearly stand out as not focused on safety. not to mention they are dumb rules based on today's reality.

do you really think that a pilot with a smartphone is going to be flying in the clouds and disseminating weather information well enough to win contests? is this the same protest the slow movers in soaring had to electronic vario's in the 70's and GPS in the 90's? i praise tom k for standing up and calling out the rule in the past but that does not make the rule right. and i did not hear a peep from anyone in the 3 contests i flew last season. why...because its a dumb rule and only a couple people care about it.

lets not be dumb anymore everyone. lets be smart and change these silly rules and move on. ;-)

Sean
F2

[Sean Fidler]

Have you ever been sucked into a cloud during a contest, or do you know
someone that has?
NOT I BUT YES I KNOW SEVERAL OTHERS WHO HAVE. I ALSO KNOW ALOT OF PRIVATE POWER PILOTS WHO HAVE MADE THE SAME ERROR. IN GLIDERS, KEMPTON, AND 3 OTHERS I WILL NOT NAME. ONE LITERALLY THOUGHT HE WAS WITHOUT WINGS FOR SEVERAL MOMENTS AND TOO HIS SURPRISE THEY WERE STILL THERE (SOUNDS LIKE FUN TO ME).. I AM NEW TO THE HIGH LEVELS OF THIS SPORT BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MORE WHO HAVE MADE THIS ERROR. I DONT BELIEVE EVERYONE IS LIKE KEMPTON AND WRITES ARTICLES ABOUT IT. I BELIEVE THE AH WOULD HELP FAR MORE THAN WOULD EVER CONSIDER CHEATING BY THIS MEANS.

Was there an incident that occurred outside of contest that made you
think getting near clouds was so dangerous, you'd rather sit on the
ground than fly without an AH?
I AM AN INSTRUMENT RATED PILOT, I GET IT. I FEEL THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS A SAFETY MEASURE AND NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT THE CHANCE IT IS RIDICULOUS TO START HAVING PEOPLE DEBILITATING INSTRUMENTS TO REMOVE THE TECHNOLOGY AS IT CAN BE A LIFE SAVER TO A PILOT WHO MIGHT NEED IT. SIMPLE FACT.

I WILL FLY WITHIN THE RULES, ULTIMATELY. I AM NO WAY AM CONSIDERING NOT FLYING. END EVEN THOUGH SOME PERHAPS DISLIKE ME KNOW FOR ARGUING THIS TOPIC, I THINK ITS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO STAY WITH.

Why do you think no one teaches students about using an AH, and why the
FAA doesn't require it to get a license?
DONT CARE AND BECAUSE WE ARE LAZY IN GENERAL AS AN INDUSTRY. I FEEL MOST CONTEST PILOTS ARE GOOD "HHOONNEESSTT" PILOTS EASILY CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING LEVEL FLIGHT WITH A GOOD AH OR T&B IF THEY HAPPENED TO GET PULLED IN, RATHER THAN PULLING THERE WINGS OFF IN A BENIGN SPIRAL OR UNCONTROLLED DECENT OR PARACHUTE JUMP.

Im starting to think that some think I am arguing so that I can personally cheat. I hope not. I just think that going against the tide of technology here is a waste of time. stop, and go with it.

Why do you, eric, think it is bad to allow AH for everyone and smartphones? Just go with it? Would that be bad? Why?
- show quoted text -

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Feb 17, 8:14*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> dan,
>
> i believe that you are wrong. *this in no way makes you a bad person for being wrong. *i think your starting to get it now. *this rule is simply not going to survive as it stands. *its just bad (the cell phone thing too).
>
> grammer (capitalization, etc) is rarely a concern for me from a cell phone as I travel throughout the day. *i really dont care about editing this stuff. *if you dont like it, dont read it. *i type once and move on. *get over it. *is that all you have now? *lol! *but i *guess you are trying to call me dumb in your own little way there, huh dan? *ok. *fine.
>
> dan, this is not a personal thing with anyone (at least with me). *it is a very healthy argument and is worthwhile. *just because you dont like it i should take your example (which i highly doubt) and stop? *it has meaning to many and there are alot of people who share my opinion. *it is really about a principle we apparently do not share. *safety focus or pure competition? *trust pilots or dont. *go with technology smoothly or fight it tooth and nail as old foggy's have with every new advancement in this sport and others for years (gps, vario's, smartphones, etc)
>
> i vote safety in favor of honest sportsman. *let people use AH if they choose, its more of a pain in the ass to remove them now then not allowing them. *they are everywhere. *i vote to let new technology such as smart phones in (as literally everyone has them right now as I type) rather than making everyone instead go to walmart and screw around buying some other useless cheapy phone for the contest. *come on guys! *seriously? *this clearly is really going to irritate alot of people as you can already see. *its so dumb its literally sad. *the rules committee has been focused on safety recently in certain areas but it needs to refresh a few more rules in order to be consistent. *these two rules (no ah and no smart phone) clearly stand out as not focused on safety. *not to mention they are dumb rules based on today's reality.
>
> do you really think that a pilot with a smartphone is going to be flying in the clouds and disseminating weather information well enough to win contests? *is this the same protest the slow movers in soaring had to electronic vario's in the 70's and GPS in the 90's? *i praise tom k for standing up and calling out the rule in the past but that does not make the rule right. *and i did not hear a peep from anyone in the 3 contests i flew last season. *why...because its a dumb rule and only a couple people care about it.
>
> lets not be dumb anymore everyone. *lets be smart and change these silly rules and move on. *;-)
>
> Sean
> F2

I propose a compromise: If you can suffer without your gyros for one
more season, I will put a question on the Fall pilot opinion poll. We
can ask pilots if they would like to remove the ban on carrying cloud-
flying instruments. While the poll is advisory, not a vote on the
rules, such a poll would give all of us a much clearer view of the
matter. Would pilots prefer the "safety" option of having a gyro
installed, or the reassurance that other pilots are not using their
"safety" instrument to win contests? Let's find out.

Then we could get off this topic for a season and go flying!

John Cochrane.

[Sean Fidler]

Eric- i understand that in europe cloud flying training was part of the private glider pilot requirements. not sure if this is still the case today.

in general i think basic instrument skills should be a part of all pilot training, even sport & glider pilot. every pilot should have some basic understanding of how to maintain control of their aircraft if forced into imc. im not saying they will all live, but that doesn't mean they should not have some training.

[Sean Fidler]

John,

as long as you change the poll to read: "carrying inadvertent imc safety instruments which many already have disabled according to current rules", and smart phones. ;-)

calling them cloud flying instruments is perhaps a little biased and really goes down the same old path which assumes everyone is a cheater at heart.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Feb 17, 8:42*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> John,
>
> as long as you change the poll to read: "carrying inadvertent imc safety instruments which many already have disabled according to current rules", and smart phones. *;-)
>
> calling them cloud flying instruments is perhaps a little biased and really goes down the same old path which assumes everyone is a cheater at heart..

I'll use the language of the rules, with a pro/con and also poll
satisfaction with the disabling protocol.
John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

Fair enough.

At the end of the day this is all about having fun and being safe. If I am massively naive in the level by which people will push the rules in this matter, I apologize.

It is unfortunate that we cannot simply have all of these tools in the gliders and trust that our fellow pilots would fly legally, fairly and within the rules. But I do understand that this may not be the case and that their may not be a perfect solution here.

I enjoyed the discussion for the most part and look forward to seeing where this all goes. For the record, I was going to exchange my V7 for a butterfly, but have decided to keep the V7 which has no AH.

I think its better to let this play out before investing $3500 in a modern Vario. It would be too easy to be accused of foiling any safeguards in the Butterfly firmware. Im not sure that butterfly will be successful in removing all of the risk of cheating with their effort.

What of the LX Zues? What of all the others that come along, etc. Probably better to see where this rule goes. Probably better for the soaring instrument manufactures to rethink their product marketing, etc.

Sean
F2

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 17, 10:07*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Fair enough.
>
> At the end of the day this is all about having fun and being safe. *If I am massively naive in the level by which people will push the rules in this matter, I apologize.
>
> It is unfortunate that we cannot simply have all of these tools in the gliders and trust that our fellow pilots would fly legally, fairly and within the rules. *But I do understand that this may not be the case and that their may not be a perfect solution here.
>
> I enjoyed the discussion for the most part and look forward to seeing where this all goes. *For the record, I was going to exchange my V7 for a butterfly, but have decided to keep the V7 which has no AH.
>
> I think its better to let this play out before investing $3500 in a modern Vario. *It would be too easy to be accused of foiling any safeguards in the Butterfly firmware. *Im not sure that butterfly will be successful in removing all of the risk of cheating with their effort.
>
> What of the LX Zues? *What of all the others that come along, etc. *Probably better to see where this rule goes. *Probably better for the soaring instrument manufactures to rethink their product marketing, etc.
>
> Sean
> F2

I have asked the Rules committee for 2 waviers for the 2012 SSA
soaring season. One is for cell phones and the other concerns PDA
software. I have been informed that the waviers will not be needed as
clarification will be shortly announced.
Simply standby and allow the thought process to continue as it has
been shown by the past that the results usually turn out good and
sometimes better than expected.

Thomas Kelley #711.

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 17, 10:53*am, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:07*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > Fair enough.
>
> > At the end of the day this is all about having fun and being safe. *If I am massively naive in the level by which people will push the rules in this matter, I apologize.
>
> > It is unfortunate that we cannot simply have all of these tools in the gliders and trust that our fellow pilots would fly legally, fairly and within the rules. *But I do understand that this may not be the case and that their may not be a perfect solution here.
>
> > I enjoyed the discussion for the most part and look forward to seeing where this all goes. *For the record, I was going to exchange my V7 for a butterfly, but have decided to keep the V7 which has no AH.
>
> > I think its better to let this play out before investing $3500 in a modern Vario. *It would be too easy to be accused of foiling any safeguards in the Butterfly firmware. *Im not sure that butterfly will be successful in removing all of the risk of cheating with their effort.
>
> > What of the LX Zues? *What of all the others that come along, etc. *Probably better to see where this rule goes. *Probably better for the soaring instrument manufactures to rethink their product marketing, etc.
>
> > Sean
> > F2
>
> I have asked the Rules committee for 2 waviers for the 2012 SSA
> contest season. One is for cell phones and the other concerns PDA
> software. I have been informed that the waviers will not be needed as
> clarification will be shortly announced.
> Simply standby and allow the thought process to continue as it has
> been shown by the past that the results usually turn out good and
> sometimes better than expected.
>
> Thomas Kelley #711.

Sean,

As your a fairly new contest pilot, I would like to ad that the many
that have come before you, have normally used Sportmanship with our
rules. Even if we disagreed with them we found ways to deal with them.
Some of these ways might not be the easiest way at the time, but it
was not that difficult either. Sportmanship has been found by many as
the best way to race by. Sportmanship is not where you place on the
scoresheet, but how you, and it is you, play the game. We are
responible for our actions as one but the sport lives because of
sportsmanship shown by all. My earlier post on Sportsmanship was not
created by me, it is how it has been defined by those who have come
much earlier in time. What it does give is a well thought out
dirrection some may wish to consider. I choose that dirrection.

All of us have shown, we have flown up and down the score sheet
during our history of contests. Very few of us have maintained a true
Sportmanslike attiude during some contests.
Bobby Jones once saw his golf ball move. His caddy and others never
saw that and they told him he didn't have to take that penality. But
he did, as he said he saw it and the rules rquired him to. He lost
that major tourament by one stroke. Other great players in out history
have stepped forward in many sports and done the same. Thats what they
are remembered for, is how they played the game.
What I, and I speak as one, have never seen at all the contests I have
been at, are some of the things you have spoken of. It surprizes me
that the few contests you have been at you have seen so much to be
this concerned about. I accept your concern and hope we all can
continue to grow.
As was posted earlier, once you break the chain of sound judgement and
reasoning, unexpected results can happen. Those results can cause
unrepairable harm to inocent bystanders who were never though of.
We have spoken many times on tasks that have been called. If your not
comfortable with the task, let the CD know. You are not forced to come
to a contest, you choose to come. You are expected to read and
understand the rules, and hopefully, in my case, all the rules will be
understood before my retirement from contest soaring.
What I am leading to, is our sport lives because of us. Since we offer
no prize moneys it has remained a amateur sport. Bobby Jones asked why
he remained a amateur, he answered as this showed his undivided love
for the sport. I hope to remain an amateur in our sport of contest
soaring.

Thomas Kelley #711.

[Sean Fidler]

Tom,

I like the movie "The Legend of Bagger Vance" as much as anyone. That scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnZzNWAwSM) where Bobby Jones gives himself a penalty is recreated there. It is a great moment in sport for sure.. I think many pilots in soaring have the same sportsman attitude and would do the same if they did something illegally such as broke cloud base with or without an AH.

Im not exactly sure what you are implying with the email in general to be honest. Let me say this.

I have no intention of cheating or being a bad sport. I dont intend to be a pain in the ass here. I simply wish to argue for a more righteous and simple path in general. I just find the gyro rule inconsistent, very difficult to enforce and strongly question that it is fundamentally safer to mercilessly ban any and all gyro's (smart phones, PNA's, etc) than to just go ahead and allow them.

I really dont feel that I have alot of contest knowledge. If that is what you are implying I agree with you 100%. I dont. I have a fair bit of CC soaring experience. I just really enjoy the sport of soaring, its people and the challenges it offers me at this point. It is a distinct passion. I also care about safety and understand the dangers of flying. I hope to be participating in the sport of soaring for some time. Trying to improve and learn.

As I pilot, an HONEST pilot, I dont like it that I cant have a gyro in my cockpit in contests. The idea of installing, uninstalling and screwing around with yet another problem is generally not attractive to me. I dont want this rule to be changed in order to cheat. I want this rule to be changed mainly out of the hope to be safe. I think it is possible that one day I may find myself in a cloud without any reference. Shame on me, but I think it will happen one day. Again, perhaps I am naive in my belief that this would help me fly straight and level out of IMC if I ever should need it...but gyro's certainly help me in other aircraft when in the clouds.

I personally am amazed that people (Euro's, etc) have learned to cloud fly effectively in a contest environment. I can honestly say that I would NEVER attempt it. Its illegal, crazy, endangers other pilots (power and glider) and would forever destroy the personal reputation of any pilot who is caught doing so. Its sad that that is apparently not true of all pilots.

I appreciate it that you took the time to write your thoughts.

Fly safe.

Best,

Sean

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Somebody posed the question whether instrument flying skills are part
of the European glider pilot license.


I don’t know about other European countries, but in the UK, it is
not. When pilot qualifications (not at present a license necessarily)
stop being a BGA matter and become an EASA issue instead between April
this year and 2015, there will be a glider pilots licence, and
separately an instrument rating that can be added to it or not.


None of what follows is in any way a suggestion that other countries
copy us – I am simply stating facts as far as I know them. AFAIAC,
what you do in the USA in particular is entirely your affair.


Under the present UK arrangements, it is legal for gliders to go IMC
in class G airspace, which is where most of us fly. Nobody knows how
many people do it, nor what training they have had. Some are PPLs or
ATPLs with instrument ratings anyway. Some are not, and have learned
cloud flying by less formal means. My impression is that only a small
minority of glider pilots fly in cloud at all – but I know of no way
to establish that with certainty. My impression is gained partly from
talking to other pilots, but mostly from monitoring the cloud flying
radio frequency. I rarely hear anybody using it for cloud flying.


Competitions in the UK are either “rated” (and count for placings
towards the national competitions and national team membership etc.)
or “unrated”. I don’t know about the former, but cloud flying is often
if not always permitted in unrated competitions, of which I have
entered many. Collisions in cloud in competitions are virtually
unknown these days – we have had a radio procedure which seems
effective for over 30 years, and I think no incidents in that time.
There were a very few before that, even fewer or maybe none fatal in
the UK as far as I know.


We did have one fatal break-up in cloud nearly 30-40 years ago (not in
a competition). It was a very experienced pilot flying a modified
glider (extended wings) and the cause was unknown as far as I recall.


We had one cloud related collision, not competition, more recently. It
was about at cloud base. IIRC, neither pilot was using the cloud
flying protocol. There was another in very poor visibility. I won’t
comment further as my knowledge is second hand, from the accident
reports.


In the UK it is common practice to thermal up to cloud base, with no
requirement for instrument flying training let alone an IR. It is also
common to fly close to wave clouds. Occasionally people do enter cloud
inadvertently, but not usually sucked up in the way so graphically
described in Kempton Izuno's article. Before modern gliders, and
before much use of wave in the UK, clouds were more often used to gain
gold and diamond heights, typically in CBs – but most UK CBs are
nothing like as vigorous as those often found in the USA. I doubt if
anyone ventures deliberately into active CBs these days. (I have been
in one, or perhaps 2, not realising what they were developing into –
and I soon got out when I realised, and before the flashing and
banging started.)


I would be interested to know if it is possible to deduce from an IGC
logger file whether cloud was entered or not. If anyone wants to try
some analysis, I could provide some traces where I climbed from below
cloud up into them. I can’t say at what height, though i have a rough
idea from other clues and memory. My guess is that a competition
scrutineer would have difficulty in identifying the entry height. Even
harder would be to say when it got closer than 500 or 1000 feet from
cloud base, without other traces for comparison.


I hope you don’t mind a Brit providing the above information. As I
said, I am not trying to influence the USA scene, just provide some
facts relevant to questions posed by others.


Chris N

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 17, 2:28*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I like the movie "The Legend of Bagger Vance" as much as anyone. *That scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnZzNWAwSM) where Bobby Jones gives himself a penalty is recreated there. *It is a great moment in sport for sure. *I think many pilots in soaring have the same sportsman attitude and would do the same if they did something illegally such as broke cloud base with or without an AH.
>



Sean, thanks for the link, thats neat. I read some book about Jones
maybe 45 to 50 years ago.



> Im not exactly sure what you are implying with the email in general to be honest. *Let me say this.
>



Sean, to be sure, I am not implying anything. I speak as one, not for
others, as I have learned they wish to speak for themselves.



> I have no intention of cheating or being a bad sport. *I dont intend to be a pain in the ass here. *I simply wish to argue for a more righteous and simple path in general. *I just find the gyro rule inconsistent, very difficult to enforce and strongly question that it is fundamentally safer to mercilessly ban any and all gyro's (smart phones, PNA's, etc) than to just go ahead and allow them.
>


Sean,
I am willing to go to any length to help you on the above. In order
for me to do this, please produce a letter from your local FAA GADO
office inwhich shows that they give approval of using any of these
devices for inadverently entering IMC conditions during an SSA
contest. Also, a letter from your insurer showing the same. After said
letters are recieved, I will do what I can to be of help. I understand
that for you, my level and my fellow entrants level of Sportsmanship
is something you choose not to follow and you seek a change so some of
the others will not infringe upon the rules. This is fine with me. I
will choose to believe differently. My fellow racers race without
infrigement on our rules and with the highest levels of sportsmanship
they can attain. You can rest assured that the top of our list, our US
Team members, both current and past National Champions, have always
displayed and given honor to our sport. I feel this towards ALL
entrants. Rest assured that at any past World Soaring Championship,
our flag has been carried with respect, flown with honor and proudly
displayed for all to see. No need to ever worry here.

> I really dont feel that I have alot of contest knowledge. *If that is what you are implying I agree with you 100%. *I dont. *I have a fair bit of CC soaring experience. I just really enjoy the sport of soaring, its people and the challenges it offers me at this point. *It is a distinct passion. *I also care about safety and understand the dangers of flying. *I hope to be participating in the sport of soaring for some time. *Trying to improve and learn.
>
> As I pilot, an HONEST pilot, I dont like it that I cant have a gyro in my cockpit in contests. *The idea of installing, uninstalling and screwing around with yet another problem is generally not attractive to me. *I dont want this rule to be changed in order to cheat. *I want this rule to be changed mainly out of the hope to be safe. *I think it is possible that one day I may find myself in a cloud without any reference. *Shame on me, but I think it will happen one day. *Again, perhaps I am naive in my belief that this would help me fly straight and level out of IMC if I ever should need it...but gyro's certainly help me in other aircraft when in the clouds.
>

Sean,
Thank you again for coming forward on the above issue. I, as you,
along with every person I know, will always choose safety first. We
have learned that this road is best to go down. Your thoughts about
someday, after reading stories of such happenings of cloud suction and
your not seeing any avoidable way of inadverently going IMC, as
wanting to carry a AH or gyro during SSA contests. I understand it as
a pain for some, yet others not. Again, let me be of help. Please,
please for those inocence bystanders, request a letter from your local
FAA GADO office giving you a preclearance to do any inadverent cloud
climb someday, somewhere. Please on the first practice day, ask the
CD for time to talk with the other entrants and inform them that you
might be doing an inadverent cloud climb, as you do not understand how
to avoid possible IMC conditions. As you state, your honest, as I
believe you are, but this thought is in your mind, so let me be of
help to you. Please go and get these letters, as its a good starting
solution to this problem.

>I personally am amazed that people (Euro's, etc) have learned to
cloud fly effectively in a contest environment. *I can honestly say
that I would NEVER attempt it. *Its illegal, crazy, endangers other
pilots (power and glider) and would forever destroy the personal
reputation of any pilot who is caught doing so. *Its sad that that is
apparently not true of all pilots.
>

Sean, since you now state ""you would never attempt it"" , ""its
crazy"" it ""endangers other pilot"" then you have learned somehow,
someway, to aviod inadverently going IMC and mantaining VFR conditions
during SSA contests. Also, as the FAR's require, I may ad. I am so
happy for me and you. Dang golly.

SEAN, no need to now go do all that work of getting letters and stuff.
Wow, praise GOD, wait till Hank reads this, another miracle has
happened on RAS. Sean has learned to avoid going into cloud by maybe
using safe and sound judgement, understanding the operation capablitiy
of his glider, heck, whatever, its just good, good, good.
Hope is good, miracles do happen. Thank you, thank you.

> I appreciate it that you took the time to write your thoughts.
>
> Fly safe.
>
> Best,
>
> Sean

Sean,

I have met you and know your father. I do think the best of your
family. With over 27,000 hrs., over 200 passing their licensing test,
countless solo's, to many dang years of contest flying, bothering to
many CD's,(love bugging John Good, fun, fun, fun), Kicking KS's ass
along with the rest.

Remember this.

I will go to any length to be of service to you.

Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe.


Thomas Kelley #711.

[Dan Marotta]

Very interesting post, Chris. Using a knowledge of physics, I would infer
that the climb rate would increase upon cloud entry due to the release of
the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor as it condenses. Again,
this is only a guess.

As to how would the scorer know that someone entered a cloud? If someone's
flight was protested, I'd imagine the scorer could poll the field to
determine cloud base over the course and duration of the flight. Anything
significantly above the agreed cloud base would be cause for suspicion,
though not proof.

Still, it would be interesting to look at one of your cloud flying traces
and try to guess where the cloud base was during the flight.


"Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
Somebody posed the question whether instrument flying skills are part
of the European glider pilot license.


I don’t know about other European countries, but in the UK, it is
not. When pilot qualifications (not at present a license necessarily)
stop being a BGA matter and become an EASA issue instead between April
this year and 2015, there will be a glider pilots licence, and
separately an instrument rating that can be added to it or not.


None of what follows is in any way a suggestion that other countries
copy us – I am simply stating facts as far as I know them. AFAIAC,
what you do in the USA in particular is entirely your affair.


Under the present UK arrangements, it is legal for gliders to go IMC
in class G airspace, which is where most of us fly. Nobody knows how
many people do it, nor what training they have had. Some are PPLs or
ATPLs with instrument ratings anyway. Some are not, and have learned
cloud flying by less formal means. My impression is that only a small
minority of glider pilots fly in cloud at all – but I know of no way
to establish that with certainty. My impression is gained partly from
talking to other pilots, but mostly from monitoring the cloud flying
radio frequency. I rarely hear anybody using it for cloud flying.


Competitions in the UK are either “rated” (and count for placings
towards the national competitions and national team membership etc.)
or “unrated”. I don’t know about the former, but cloud flying is often
if not always permitted in unrated competitions, of which I have
entered many. Collisions in cloud in competitions are virtually
unknown these days – we have had a radio procedure which seems
effective for over 30 years, and I think no incidents in that time.
There were a very few before that, even fewer or maybe none fatal in
the UK as far as I know.


We did have one fatal break-up in cloud nearly 30-40 years ago (not in
a competition). It was a very experienced pilot flying a modified
glider (extended wings) and the cause was unknown as far as I recall.


We had one cloud related collision, not competition, more recently. It
was about at cloud base. IIRC, neither pilot was using the cloud
flying protocol. There was another in very poor visibility. I won’t
comment further as my knowledge is second hand, from the accident
reports.


In the UK it is common practice to thermal up to cloud base, with no
requirement for instrument flying training let alone an IR. It is also
common to fly close to wave clouds. Occasionally people do enter cloud
inadvertently, but not usually sucked up in the way so graphically
described in Kempton Izuno's article. Before modern gliders, and
before much use of wave in the UK, clouds were more often used to gain
gold and diamond heights, typically in CBs – but most UK CBs are
nothing like as vigorous as those often found in the USA. I doubt if
anyone ventures deliberately into active CBs these days. (I have been
in one, or perhaps 2, not realising what they were developing into –
and I soon got out when I realised, and before the flashing and
banging started.)


I would be interested to know if it is possible to deduce from an IGC
logger file whether cloud was entered or not. If anyone wants to try
some analysis, I could provide some traces where I climbed from below
cloud up into them. I can’t say at what height, though i have a rough
idea from other clues and memory. My guess is that a competition
scrutineer would have difficulty in identifying the entry height. Even
harder would be to say when it got closer than 500 or 1000 feet from
cloud base, without other traces for comparison.


I hope you don’t mind a Brit providing the above information. As I
said, I am not trying to influence the USA scene, just provide some
facts relevant to questions posed by others.


Chris N

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris

[S. Murry]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:38:21 -0600, Marc > wrote:

Marc,

I sort-of agree with you here, at least insofar as I think that sooner or
later usable combinations of software and hardware running on smartphone
tablets may exist. I am not sure that this is true now (but I am sure
that it will be one day), but the "proof" for me will come when someone
demonstrates could flying using one of these instruments. When this
happens, then the clarification provided by the rules committee will have
to be applied and the could flying features disabled for contests.

If anyone has actually used any smartphone/tablet app in IMC, please let
me know (although I think that this would not be legal, so I will not
blame you if you decide not to "'fess up").

--Stefan


> Thank you for this informative post. The above paragraph,
> unfortunately, contains an incorrect assumption. The new
> "smartphones" being discussed are capable of more than just a GPS-
> derived AH display. They contain full 3-axis solid state gyroscope,
> accelerometer, and magnetometer (3D compass) sensors. Given the huge
> size of the phone market, a single integrated circuit containing all
> of these sensors now costs under $10. They are there primarily for
> game playing and "augmented reality" applications, allowing the
> orientation of the phone in 3D space to be determined in a stable,
> repeatable, and accurate fashion, to within fractions of degrees, with
> update rates upwards of 100 Hz. Software already exists (typically $5
> in the appropriate app store) for some of these phones to implement a
> full inertially-based (not GPS-derived) artificial horizon. With
> properly implemented software, the performance can easily exceed that
> of the spinning mechanical device in your IFR panel. Competition has
> resulted in all new high end phones (like iPhone 4S) and tablets (like
> iPad 2) being produced with this full sensor suite. This will filter
> down to lower end smart phones and smaller tablets over the next few
> years.
>
> Converging from another direction are devices built, using the same
> low cost sensor chips, for use in hobbyist autonomous UAVs. There are
> huge online communities of people developing open source software and
> hardware to allow these things to fly in a stable and controlled
> fashion. Given that there is no pilot directly controlling what are
> in some cases highly unstable aircraft (helicopters, quad rotors, high
> speed ducted fans, even jets), accurate high rate attitude
> determination is a must. This is why we're suddenly seeing phones,
> tablets, varios, flight computers, etc., with usable artificial
> horizons. This capability will only become more ubiquitous as time
> goes on...
>
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>


--
Stefan Murry

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/17/2012 6:32 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Im starting to think that some think I am arguing so that I can
> personally cheat. I hope not. I just think that going against the
> tide of technology here is a waste of time. stop, and go with it.

I do not think you are hoping to cheat.

> Why do you, eric, think it is bad to allow AH for everyone and
> smartphones? Just go with it? Would that be bad? Why?

I do think that following your recommendations could lead to people
cheating (and discovering they can not handle cloud flying), and that it
could lead people to thinking others ARE cheating (so they decide "why
bother entering contests?").

I do think that it is becoming increasingly easier to cheat, given
changes in technology, so perhaps the method to discourage cloud flying
needs to change. The most practical one I can think of is a daily
altitude limit enforced like the current one on 18,000'. A long term
approach could be one that detects cloud around the glider, such as
video or relative humidity, and makes it part of the logger record.

The "honor method" seems impractical if everyone has an AH on their
panel, without some means penalizing egregious abuse. That might be a
committee of pilots, chosen randomly each day, that examines logger
files for climbs well above others in the area, and gives penalties.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/17/2012 6:39 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Eric- i understand that in europe cloud flying training was part of
> the private glider pilot requirements. not sure if this is still the
> case today.
>
> in general i think basic instrument skills should be a part of all
> pilot training, even sport& glider pilot. every pilot should have
> some basic understanding of how to maintain control of their aircraft
> if forced into imc. im not saying they will all live, but that
> doesn't mean they should not have some training.

That is always available in a power plane, but I don't many glider-only
pilots seek it out, and I think requiring it would reduce the number of
glider pilots entering the sport if it were required, but to the point
here (contests): contest experience has not shown that it would help.

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

[Sean Fidler]

Tom,

Why do any gliders have gyro's at all?

Sean

[Sean Fidler]

Why do light sport aircraft have gyro's?

Why do NON IFR legal aircraft have gyro's? Why waste the money? Do they have to go to the FISDO and get letters do install them?

Why do soaring instrument manufacturers install gyro's and associated AH software in their products? Cause they are pretty?

With respect,

Sean

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 17, 9:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Why do any gliders have gyro's at all?
>
> Sean


Sean,

I have never been in a glider with a gyro. All the gliders I have
owned, leased or raced have never had a gyro. Heck them dang 2-33's,
2-22's, TG3's never even had a battery. Wish I could help you, but I
just don't know. Sorry, can't suppy the answer. But I said I would be
of service. Hmmm, I recommend going to your local FAA GADO office,
they maybe willing to help you.

Or hey, talk with all the owners of the all the gliders that have
gyros, maybe they can help you with your question??? Have you asked
your father, he might have an answer for you??

I would be wasting your timing asking you to check at SSA contests. Oh
go ahead, heck, ask Hank or John, maybe Ken. The CD knows all, ask him
when your at the 15 Meter Nationals???

You flew with KS at Seminole last year, now Sean why don't you go ask
him!!!!!!!! Get another ride, help the US Team fund and he may be
able to tell you. Now thats a bang for your buck.

Oh, I don't feel we are bonded this close, so no need to tell me what
you found. Since your honest, I'll trust you'll be satisfied when you
find your answer.

Godspeed in your search.

Best, Tom.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 17, 9:16*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > Tom,
>
> > Why do any gliders have gyro's at all?
>
> > Sean
>
> *Sean,
>
> I have never been in a glider with a gyro. All the gliders I have
> owned, leased or raced have never had a gyro. Heck them dang 2-33's,
> 2-22's, TG3's never even had a battery. Wish I could help you, but I
> just don't know. Sorry, can't suppy the answer. But I said I would be
> of service. Hmmm, I recommend going to your local FAA GADO office,
> they maybe willing to help you.
>
> Or hey, talk with all the owners of the all the gliders that have
> gyros, maybe they can help you with your question??? Have you asked
> your father, he might have an answer for you??
>
> I would be wasting your timing asking you to check at SSA contests. Oh
> go ahead, heck, ask Hank or John, maybe Ken. The CD knows all, ask him
> when your at the 15 Meter Nationals???
>
> You flew with KS at Seminole last year, now Sean why don't you go ask
> him!!!!!!!! *Get another ride, help the US Team fund and he may be
> able to tell you. Now thats a bang for your buck.
>
> Oh, I don't feel we are bonded this close, so no need to tell me what
> you found. Since your honest, I'll trust you'll be satisfied when you
> find your answer.
>
> Godspeed in your search.
>
> Best, Tom.

By Golly Mr Tom,

Jeepers, I don't know you but I sure as heck like your down home,
folksy patronizing attitude towards ol Sean. Gosh, he sure did stir up
a gosh durn hornets nest by crackey!

Hey, here's an idea...............can you kinda tell me who all them
thar fellahs you mentioned in yer post are, you know, all the guys
who's first names ya used like all the rest of us un-washed and
unimportant folks are supposed to know by their first names? Oh, heck
Mr Tom, I'm just kiddin...............I know who they
are.............I'm just funnin' with ya cuz I know what a good sport
you are!

You keep on flyin' there Tom and keep kicking ol KS's ass in that
there fancy ship of yours!

Bye now!

Brad

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 17, 10:53*pm, Brad > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:16*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 9:07*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
>
> > > Tom,
>
> > > Why do any gliders have gyro's at all?
>
> > > Sean
>
> > *Sean,
>
> > I have never been in a glider with a gyro. All the gliders I have
> > owned, leased or raced have never had a gyro. Heck them dang 2-33's,
> > 2-22's, TG3's never even had a battery. Wish I could help you, but I
> > just don't know. Sorry, can't suppy the answer. But I said I would be
> > of service. Hmmm, I recommend going to your local FAA GADO office,
> > they maybe willing to help you.
>
> > Or hey, talk with all the owners of the all the gliders that have
> > gyros, maybe they can help you with your question??? Have you asked
> > your father, he might have an answer for you??
>
> > I would be wasting your timing asking you to check at SSA contests. Oh
> > go ahead, heck, ask Hank or John, maybe Ken. The CD knows all, ask him
> > when your at the 15 Meter Nationals???
>
> > You flew with KS at Seminole last year, now Sean why don't you go ask
> > him!!!!!!!! *Get another ride, help the US Team fund and he may be
> > able to tell you. Now thats a bang for your buck.
>
> > Oh, I don't feel we are bonded this close, so no need to tell me what
> > you found. Since your honest, I'll trust you'll be satisfied when you
> > find your answer.
>
> > Godspeed in your search.
>
> > Best, Tom.
>
> By Golly Mr Tom,
>
> Jeepers, I don't know you but I sure as heck like your down home,
> folksy patronizing attitude towards ol Sean. Gosh, he sure did stir up
> a gosh durn hornets nest by crackey!
>
> Hey, here's an idea...............can you kinda tell me who all them
> thar fellahs you mentioned in yer post are, you know, all the guys
> who's first names ya used like all the rest of us un-washed and
> unimportant folks are supposed to know by their first names? Oh, heck
> Mr Tom, I'm just kiddin...............I know who they
> are.............I'm just funnin' with ya cuz I know what a good sport
> you are!
>
> You keep on flyin' there Tom and keep kicking ol KS's ass in that
> there fancy ship of yours!
>
> Bye now!
>
> Brad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brad, no problem, come on by my trailer camp when we meet again. If
you wanta ad any names to help, no problem.

Have a special bewster waiting just for you. Pre-opened, little warm,
but it will help you with sort-hern drawl.

Have no fear, you'll fit right in with the rest of our trailer park
gang.

Oh, I might need a body guard, cause some of these folks I mention
already have their guns drawn on me. Now I just gave them a reason to
shoot my ass. Thats just fine, some are so old, they shake so bad,
I'll be safe.

Oh my, I went and done it again.

CYA...............#711.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/17/2012 8:07 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Why do any gliders have gyro's at all?

40 years ago, almost nobody did, because they were expensive ($1000 for
an AH when gliders cost $20,000), drew an amp, and were big and heavy,
and most people didn't have a real use for it.

Now, they they are cheap ($500 when gliders cost $100,000), use very
little current, and are small and light, so even though people don't
have any greater use for it than 40 years ago, they like the look of it
and think it might help some day. Some power pilots seem to feel naked
without them, having had one for hundreds or thousands of hours in their
airplanes.

I used to have a gyro T&B in my panel, because I got it dirt cheap, and
it looked prettier than the empty hole in the panel. I thought, maybe
some day I'll get stupid or have some really bad luck, and maybe it
would help me descend through a wave cloud that closed in. I never
worried about being sucked into a cloud, though.

And some people use them to cloud fly, illegally and legally.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 2/17/2012 8:58 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Why do light sport aircraft have gyro's?

Dunno - pretty?

> Why do NON IFR legal aircraft have gyro's? Why waste the money? Do
> they have to go to the FISDO and get letters do install them?

Dunno - pretty? Lots of them probably just stick them in the panel if
the plane is experimentally registered no FSDO or letters involved.

> Why do soaring instrument manufacturers install gyro's and associated
> AH software in their products? Cause they are pretty?

As you can tell by now, I'm on board with the "pretty" idea! But also,
it's because it is so cheap and easy to add that feature when you have
all the sensors you need just to make a top end vario.

Same thing as cell phones - 15 years ago, they were just phones, but now
they add GPS, G sensors, magnetometers, MEMS for much less than that 15
year old cell phone cost to make. And so, we now have these amazing
sensor platforms in our pocket.

An AH in every instrument trend is very new - a couple years ago, they
weren't there.

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

[Brad[_2_]]

depends?

[Brad[_2_]]

> Oh my, I went and done it again.

Depends might help...........................now gol durnit, where did
I put that comma?

Brad

[Dan Marotta]

Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of
climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.

Dan

BTW, I received your IGC files.


"Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
> Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris
>

[Dan Marotta]

I have an old J-8 gyro attitude indicator and a static inverter to feed it
400 cps AC (yup, it was cycles per second before they bestowed the honor on
Prof. Hertz). I'd mount it in my panel but it takes a large hole (80 mm?)
and the weight would probably put my CG past the forward limit or, as a
minimum, break my carbon panel. It's also a totally black sphere except for
the yellow "targets" at the plus and minus 90 degree pitch attitude points,
and there's a yellow horizon line which moves independently of the sphere,
and a yellow airplane symbol. It's probably radio active with radium paint
and, therefore, probably illegal even to own (do I hear black helicopters?).

Somebody make me an offer. It works, but I don't know how much current it
draws... Also, it's so old that most people wouldn't even think that it
works and, therefore, wouldn't think to protest its presence in the panel.
This is a full-fledged mil-spec attitude indicator, not a wimpy turn
indicator...


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/17/2012 8:07 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> Why do any gliders have gyro's at all?
>
> 40 years ago, almost nobody did, because they were expensive ($1000 for an
> AH when gliders cost $20,000), drew an amp, and were big and heavy, and
> most people didn't have a real use for it.
>
> Now, they they are cheap ($500 when gliders cost $100,000), use very
> little current, and are small and light, so even though people don't have
> any greater use for it than 40 years ago, they like the look of it and
> think it might help some day. Some power pilots seem to feel naked without
> them, having had one for hundreds or thousands of hours in their
> airplanes.
>
> I used to have a gyro T&B in my panel, because I got it dirt cheap, and it
> looked prettier than the empty hole in the panel. I thought, maybe some
> day I'll get stupid or have some really bad luck, and maybe it would help
> me descend through a wave cloud that closed in. I never worried about
> being sucked into a cloud, though.
>
> And some people use them to cloud fly, illegally and legally.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
> me)

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 16:15 18 February 2012, Dan Marotta wrote:
>Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
>functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of

>climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
>hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.
>
>Dan
>
Dan, I do quite a lot of cloud flying mostly to keep current as cloud
flying is allowed in UK competition and sometimes it is necessary to fly in
cloud to stay up.

However....it rarely is faster. I usually find that my climb rate drops as
I enter cloud because the artificial horizon although good is not anything
like as good as the real thing. In my experience if cloud base allows it is
much faster to fly the energy below cloud.

BTW I also find cloud flying fun which is after all the reason I go
flying.

J1M

[Dan Marotta]

Well, just going on a look-see, it looks like cloud base in one of the
traces was around 17,200 MSL with a top of climb of 24,740 MSL and, in the
other, around 16,000 MSL with a top of climb of 34,480.

So... How'd I do? I'm also thinking that your altitudes might be in meters
and if that's the case, then it might be...

Cloud Base: 1,720 meters, Top of climb: 2,447 meters for the first flight,
and, for the second,

Cloud Base: 1,600 meters, Top of climb: 3448 meters.

Since I can't paste a picture in here, I sent you the Excel file with the
traces included on Sheet 3. Please let us know if such a quick look came
close.

"Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
...
> Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
> functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of
> climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
> hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.
>
> Dan
>
> BTW, I received your IGC files.
>
>
> "Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris
>>
>

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

Dan was about right. Using metres is more like right – the plots Dan
sent me showed way too many feet on the left hand scale. My
recollection is that cloudbase was a bit over 4000 feet and I climbed
to about 11000 feet that day.

By the way, to repeat part of what I sent Dan privately - I do not
claim to be a very good IMC pilot. I had a bit of instruction at
first, then a lot of self-learning in a Ka6E which is strong, draggy,
has speed-limiting brakes/spoilers, and is fairly forgiving when
things go wrong – which they often did when I was slowly acquiring the
skill, using only a glider Turn and Slip (stronger spring, less
sensitive than a Power T&S so it does not go onto the stop in a
thermalling turn). I also advise other people not to cloud fly. Modern
gliders are too slippery to self-teach safely, IMHO. I do it because I
like it and accept the risk (which I think is minimal having learned
the slow way).

I also agree with Jim's comments.

Chris N.

[Dan Marotta]

Thanks to Chris who took the time to look up the IGC specification for the
log file. From his analysis, I was able to determine that the cloud base on
one of the flights was around 5,200 ft (lower than my airport!). The trace
looked the same, just the altitude scale was changed.

And it's interesting what Jim said about reduced lift inside the cloud. I
would have expected higher lift due to the heat release. Maybe that's all
expended right at cloud base...

It was a fun exercise!


"Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
...
> Well, just going on a look-see, it looks like cloud base in one of the
> traces was around 17,200 MSL with a top of climb of 24,740 MSL and, in the
> other, around 16,000 MSL with a top of climb of 34,480.
>
> So... How'd I do? I'm also thinking that your altitudes might be in
> meters and if that's the case, then it might be...
>
> Cloud Base: 1,720 meters, Top of climb: 2,447 meters for the first
> flight, and, for the second,
>
> Cloud Base: 1,600 meters, Top of climb: 3448 meters.
>
> Since I can't paste a picture in here, I sent you the Excel file with the
> traces included on Sheet 3. Please let us know if such a quick look came
> close.
>
> "Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chris, I'm going to try to analyze the height trace using the graphical
>> functions in Microsoft Excel. I'll look for a sudden increase in rate of
>> climb and make a guess from there. I might say in advance that I'm not
>> hopeful, but this should be a fun exercise.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> BTW, I received your IGC files.
>>
>>
>> "Chris Nicholas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan, see your emails. Regards - Chris
>>>
>>
>

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

In my experience lift in cloud is stronger only if the cloud has a lot
of vertical development – say several thousand feet, which of course
developing CBs do have, and provided you can stay centred in the lift,
which as Jim points out is harder if you can’t see the real horizon. I
have found that expanding the GPS scale helps a lot in keeping in good
lift, in VMC or in IMC. (I still do not advocate people teaching
themselves to do the latter these days – if it goes wrong in a
slippery glider, it can do so very quickly and very badly.)

In the more usual “good” conditions in the UK when we get them, an
inversion stops vertical cu development and they are often only a few
hundred or 1-2000 feet deep. Then, as Jim says, it is usually faster
to keep in the energy where you can see it, in VMC. With very shallow
clouds, it is not even worth going up to cloud base – the lift weakens
before getting there. Even if it does strengthen briefly at and into
cloud, I usually lose more in the fumble of coming out on the wrong
heading, or on the right one but into another cloud and in its sink,
than staying below, if achieved speed is what you are after.


Chris N

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 19, 10:12*am, Chris Nicholas > wrote:
> In my experience lift in cloud is stronger only if the cloud has a lot
> of vertical development – say several thousand feet, which of course
> developing CBs do have, and provided you can stay centred in the lift,
> which as Jim points out is harder if you can’t see the real horizon. I
> have found that expanding the GPS scale helps a lot in keeping in good
> lift, in VMC or in IMC. (I still do not advocate people teaching
> themselves to do the latter these days – if it goes wrong in a
> slippery glider, it can do so very quickly and very badly.)
>
> In the more usual “good” conditions in the UK when we get them, an
> inversion stops vertical cu development and they are often only a few
> hundred or 1-2000 feet deep. Then, as Jim says, it is usually faster
> to keep in the energy where you can see it, in VMC. With very shallow
> clouds, it is not even worth going up to cloud base – the lift weakens
> before getting there. Even if it does strengthen briefly at and into
> cloud, I usually lose more in the fumble of coming out on the wrong
> heading, or on the right one but into another cloud and in its sink,
> than staying below, if achieved speed is what you are after.
>
> Chris N

It is very common in Arizona to have at least a slight inversion at or
below cloud base. What happens in these cases is that the rising
airmass in a strong thermal continues going up under its own
momentum. It's not uncommon in these circumstance to find the lift
cutting off a thousand feet below the clouds and very nice looking
clouds have no lift under them. I sometimes refer to these clouds as
resulting from the last dying gasp of a rising thermal!

With instability of the atmosphere rising above cloud base, thermals
will often increase with strength as you approach the cloud and this
increase continues into the cloud. These are the circumstances when
you might get too close to the cloud - it's not uncommon here to find
a ten-knot thermal strengthening to 12 to 15 knots! At these vertical
speeds, you can go from a safe distance below into cloud in about half
a turn. It's very easy to do and a not uncommon experience out west.

Mike

[John Firth]

VG post by Andy Gough.
This debate has been going on since the '60s!
AH s and T and S had to be removed for constests outside
the UK ( and Yugoslavia etc) but then the Bohli compass appeared
which confused the issue.

I personally proved to myself that I could manage for a while
using a COOK compass, predecessor of the Bohli.
Cloud climb with only ASI and vario! Wow.
I would not try that in a modern ship.

The GPS record should take care of transgressions, but
wave either lee o thermal ,poses a problem.

John Firth

[Sean Fidler]

Whatever. Time to go flying. Moving on.