US Rules Committee to ban XC Soar in US soaring competitioneffective immediately? - Ahh the "genius!"

[Sean Fidler]

I hate to bring this up again...but I must.

I have learned this morning that XCSoar is to be banned from US soaring competitions. In fact our rules committee is apparently planning to also ban all free, open source applications because they "feel" they cannot control whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and other "cheater" functionality. Clearly these elite rule makers don't seem to understand how easy it is to install and use a different apps (or simply build your own) for these cheater AH functions and have decided to inconvenience many pilots in US Soaring Competition in a last ditched effort to maintain their completely unenforceable AH rule.

Please confirm or deny, US Rules Committee, this news for the US Pilots who use or have just started to use this outstanding, free and intensely popular software...XC Soar? You might save alot of people $300 on their android PDA they are buying to run it...

While they get back to us...this news is apparently true (confirmed by XC Soar Developers) and the folks over at the US Rules Committee are working hard to write up the documentation required to ban XC Soar for US Pilots as we speak.

Gentleman of the US Rules Committee. I have officially lost all respect for your leadership assuming this is true. This is without question the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in any of the many sports that I have been involved in over my lifetime.

As you (Rules Committee) darn well know...many in the US have actually spent winter preparing XC Soar for this season and buying Dell Streaks to run XC Soar on.

Maybe we should start banning pee systems aimed aft because they give us extra thrust? While your at it maybe we should ban compasses because I can promise you that I can hold course in IMC with that instrument and an airspeed indicator alone? Maybe ban the Airspeed Indicator too? How about we ban all instrumentation altogether and just use the force? How about we ban pilots from watching star wars movies? They might learn something and become able to fly with their eyes closed?

I look forward to more comedy in the weeks to come per your upcoming announcement of this ban of XC soar and any other FREE Navigation Software.

Wow! You cant make this kind of stuff up...

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2

[YourNameHere]

If XC Soar has an artificial horizon, I am unable to find it even on the
latest version.

LK8000 does have and artificial horizon on one screen.

If I am correct on this, why would we ban XC Soar?

Wells

[T8]

I am working with US RC on this. It is -- to say the least --
problematic. I invite concerned XCSoar users who are competition
pilots, or thinking about becoming competition pilots to contact me
directly (reply to author should work here).

Same issues are going to come up with LK8000.

I am an XCSoar end user, tester, enthusiast. I am trying to find the
way here.

Sean, you ain't helping. Posting questions or concerns is one thing,
leaping to conclusions and drawing unwarranted inferences is another.

Insulting the RC publicly is generally bad form, too

You could do me a favor and delete your post before someone quotes it.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Dan Marotta]

The horse has escaped! Quick - lock the barn door!

This time, I have to agree with Sean if it's true that the Rules Committee
plans to ban XCSoar. BTW, I like the idea of banning aft-facing pee tubes.
I'll continue to dump pee bags out on the window on top of that guy gaining
on me in the thermal...

It's my understanding that the AH function of XCSoar is disabled in the
software. I'll try it and see if that's true but, from what I saw yesterday
while playing with the configuration, it consists of an approx 1 cm square
with 3 hyphens in it. I wonder what the resolution of such an "instrument"
would be...


"Sean Fidler" > wrote in message
news:17849774.3.1330096141431.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbt3...
I hate to bring this up again...but I must.

I have learned this morning that XCSoar is to be banned from US soaring
competitions. In fact our rules committee is apparently planning to also ban
all free, open source applications because they "feel" they cannot control
whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and other
"cheater" functionality. Clearly these elite rule makers don't seem to
understand how easy it is to install and use a different apps (or simply
build your own) for these cheater AH functions and have decided to
inconvenience many pilots in US Soaring Competition in a last ditched effort
to maintain their completely unenforceable AH rule.

Please confirm or deny, US Rules Committee, this news for the US Pilots who
use or have just started to use this outstanding, free and intensely popular
software...XC Soar? You might save alot of people $300 on their android PDA
they are buying to run it...

While they get back to us...this news is apparently true (confirmed by XC
Soar Developers) and the folks over at the US Rules Committee are working
hard to write up the documentation required to ban XC Soar for US Pilots as
we speak.

Gentleman of the US Rules Committee. I have officially lost all respect for
your leadership assuming this is true. This is without question the most
ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in any of the many sports that I have
been involved in over my lifetime.

As you (Rules Committee) darn well know...many in the US have actually spent
winter preparing XC Soar for this season and buying Dell Streaks to run XC
Soar on.

Maybe we should start banning pee systems aimed aft because they give us
extra thrust? While your at it maybe we should ban compasses because I can
promise you that I can hold course in IMC with that instrument and an
airspeed indicator alone? Maybe ban the Airspeed Indicator too? How about
we ban all instrumentation altogether and just use the force? How about we
ban pilots from watching star wars movies? They might learn something and
become able to fly with their eyes closed?

I look forward to more comedy in the weeks to come per your upcoming
announcement of this ban of XC soar and any other FREE Navigation Software.

Wow! You cant make this kind of stuff up...

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2

[Sean Fidler]

Evan...I am helping by reporting the madness, trust me.

[Sean Fidler]

I am only criticizing if the report is indeed true. And if it is true my thoughts stand AS IS. RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

[T8]

On Feb 24, 10:35*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> I am only criticizing if the report is indeed true. *And if it is true my thoughts stand AS IS. *RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

You make friends easy, don't ya?

Someone needs to wap you up side the head with a clue by four.

T8

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 10:09*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> I hate to bring this up again...but I must.
>
> I have learned this morning that XCSoar is to be banned from US soaring competitions. In fact our rules committee is apparently planning to also ban all free, open source applications because they "feel" they cannot control whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and other "cheater" functionality. Clearly these elite rule makers don't seem to understand how easy it is to install and use a different apps (or simply build your own) for these cheater AH functions and have decided to inconvenience many pilots in US Soaring Competition in a last ditched effort to maintain their completely unenforceable AH rule.
>
> Please confirm or deny, US Rules Committee, this news for the US Pilots who use or have just started to use this outstanding, free and intensely popular software...XC Soar? *You might save alot of people $300 on their android PDA they are buying to run it...
>
> While they get back to us...this news is apparently true (confirmed by XC Soar Developers) and the folks over at the US Rules Committee are working hard to write up the documentation required to ban XC Soar for US Pilots as we speak.
>
> Gentleman of the US Rules Committee. *I have officially lost all respect for your leadership assuming this is true. *This is without question the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in any of the many sports that I have been involved in over my lifetime.
>
> As you (Rules Committee) darn well know...many in the US have actually spent winter preparing XC Soar for this season and buying Dell Streaks to run XC Soar on.
>
> Maybe we should start banning pee systems aimed aft because they give us extra thrust? *While your at it maybe we should ban compasses because I can promise you that I can hold course in IMC with that instrument and an airspeed indicator alone? *Maybe ban the Airspeed Indicator too? *How about we ban all instrumentation altogether and just use the force? *How about we ban pilots from watching star wars movies? *They might learn something and become able to fly with their eyes closed?
>
> I look forward to more comedy in the weeks to come per your upcoming announcement of this ban of XC soar and any other FREE Navigation Software.
>
> Wow! *You cant make this kind of stuff up...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean Fidler
> F2

The statement put on the XCSoar Facebook page is not accurate,
Stand by for the policy which will be available very soon.
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Are you kidding me T8?

Id be happy to talk to you face to face about your concerns. Anytime.

[T8]

On Feb 24, 10:34*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Evan...I am helping by reporting the madness, trust me.

No, I am making progress. Quietly and with reasoned argument.

Inflaming passions is not helpful, at all.

T8

[Max Kellermann]

wrote:
> The statement put on the XCSoar Facebook page is not accurate,

Not accurate? Let me paste a verbatim email you wrote to a XCSoar
developer yesterday:

"Thanks for your views. When we construct our list, we now know to
put XCSoar on the list as non compliant and not approved for use in
US competition."

[unclhank > 24. Februar 2012 00:44]

I hope this is accurate enough for you.

Max

[Sean Fidler]

I rest my case.

RESPECT IS GONE. Confirmed.

[Sean Fidler]

Keep telling yourself that Evan.

I personally have no passion at all about this. I find it sad. But I will stand up for the counterpoint that it somehow makes sense to go on a crusade to make any software or device with a gyro illegal moving forward. I can afford to buy a new PDA & pay $300 for new PDA software if I must. Many other can not or will not, based on the dumbness of all of this in general.

I am concerned about the many new pilots in my region who bought new PDA's & spent days wiring up their comm boards, etc to use this software. They have now wasted their time and money while you try and Mafia Strong Arm XC Soar developers into modifying their code by threatening them (and then denying it).

To alot of guys that investment in time and money was significant. And for what? Is this rule that important? I can hear the people logging into OLC as we speak...

You guys are really lost here. Its sad to watch. Stop trying to over regulate the sport like this. Let go of this rule. There are about 10 guys (at the top of the sport) who agree with this rule. The rest could care less..

Is it really worth it?

And I am wondering what back room conversations are being had with the for profit manufacturers upset over XC Soars growth. I wonder...



On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:05:06 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:34*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > Evan...I am helping by reporting the madness, trust me.
>
> No, I am making progress. Quietly and with reasoned argument.
>
> Inflaming passions is not helpful, at all.
>
> T8

[[email protected]]

On Feb 24, 11:07*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> wrote:
> > The statement put on the XCSoar Facebook page is not accurate,
>
> Not accurate? *Let me paste a verbatim email you wrote to a XCSoar
> developer yesterday:
>
> *"Thanks for your views. *When we construct our list, we now know to
> *put XCSoar on the list as non compliant and not approved for use in
> *US competition."
>
> *[unclhank > 24. Februar 2012 00:44]
>
> I hope this is accurate enough for you.
>
> Max

This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.
At no point have we indicated intent to not permit open source
software.
To be fair, there are others within the XCSoar group who are more
inclined to help work this out so pilots can have complying software.
Hopefully they will succeed.
UH

[Max Kellermann]

wrote:
> This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max

[T8]

On Feb 24, 11:22*am, wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:07*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > > The statement put on the XCSoar Facebook page is not accurate,
>
> > Not accurate? *Let me paste a verbatim email you wrote to a XCSoar
> > developer yesterday:
>
> > *"Thanks for your views. *When we construct our list, we now know to
> > *put XCSoar on the list as non compliant and not approved for use in
> > *US competition."
>
> > *[unclhank > 24. Februar 2012 00:44]
>
> > I hope this is accurate enough for you.
>
> > Max
>
> This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> of the XCSoar group.
> At no point have we indicated intent to not permit open source
> software.
> To be fair, there are others within the XCSoar group who are more
> inclined to help work this out so pilots can have complying software.
> Hopefully they will succeed.
> UH

Context matters. Often, knowing the writer personally helps.

I was in on this exchange, I know UH personally, I knew it wasn't the
end of the conversation. I can understand that my German friend
Tobias on the other end may have understood things differently, not
for the least reason being that it was close to midnight his time.

As I see it, we have short term problems on some platforms... and a
longer term potential solution that might work. I'm handicapped here
in that I haven't written any code in 15 years and I was just a hack,
never in the class that our XCS developers are. So really, I can
suggest solutions, but I cannot implement them. I'm pretty sure the
level of willing help and cooperation is going to go down FAST if the
name calling and finger pointing keeps up.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

And what of the countless other means of installing AH capabilities on these devices, cell phones, smart phones, watches? If it is your intent to ensure that no contest pilot has this capability in the cockpit, that is next to impossible. And if you still want to go for it what is the cost in aggravation to the average pilot?

Are we going to strong arm all equipment manufacturers into eliminating those capabilities from their products? Are we going to inspect pilots cockpits for hiding places of these electronic devices on the grid? It is already going too far. It will have to go much, much further to be anywhere near enforceable.

If someone wants to try and cheat, they will be able to do so easily.

This is the wrong approach in general. As with electonic vario's and GPS's, learn from history. We should simply let it go!!!! Or at minimum we should have a set of rules for Nationals and Worlds and a open policy for regional's.

On a final note...I really do not appreciate the attack on XC Soar. I do not think the committee has any idea how much work they are doing and how difficult it is to change midstream in their late stage development of V6.3 and do whatever modifications to their code that committee is requesting. It does not work like that. I find it rude and of very poor taste to make the statement that was made to XC soar. It boarders on un-ethical. Who do we think we are?

This should have thought of this LONG ago if it was that important. Just because committee was unaware of a massive problem in your own rules does not mean everyone else must drop what they are doing to fix your so called problem immediately (or else we will ban you). And oh by the way screw a large number of our own contest pilots who invested alot of time and money in getting it all working.

[Karl Kunz]

Will they also ban bringing cell phones. Many smartphone apps provide better "apps for that" then XCSoar. The smartphones have better sensors then a GPS based attitude indicators which have to much lag time to be really useful.

[T8]

On Feb 24, 11:46*am, Karl Kunz > wrote:
> Will they also ban bringing cell phones. Many smartphone apps provide better "apps for that" then XCSoar. * The smartphones have better sensors then a GPS based attitude indicators which have to much lag time to be really useful.

If you are speaking of gyro horizon type displays, those have always
been prohibited in competition. That's true for just about everywhere
people race gliders.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

Smart phones are also illegal according to SSA rules...read butterfly vario thread (set aside some time...). I have copied Tom Kelley's post on the subject at the bottom of this response.

There is an honor system supposedly but I have not seen anything official. It very well could not change from present. AT PRESENT...if you are caught in a contest with a smart phone in the contest you have cheated and will be DSQ'd. You are expected, at current, to go to walmart and by a disposable cell phone for use in the glider for land outs, etc at a contest.

Again, this rule is a nearly impossible to enforce. Consider the pilot that "WANTS TO TRY AND CLOUD FLY..." The rules committee is trying (at great cost) to do the impossible.

Pretty soon we will have to go thru a bomb detector before we get into the cockpit at a contest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

By Tom Kelley on Smart Phones in contests...

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 Kelley]

On Feb 24, 10:03*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Smart phones are also illegal according to SSA rules...read butterfly vario thread (set aside some time...). *I have copied Tom Kelley's post on the subject at the bottom of this response.
>
> There is an honor system supposedly but I have not seen anything official.. *It very well could not change from present. *AT PRESENT...if you are caught in a contest with a smart phone in the contest you have cheated and will be DSQ'd. *You are expected, at current, to go to walmart and by a disposable cell phone for use in the glider for land outs, etc at a contest..
>
> Again, this rule is a nearly impossible to enforce. *Consider the pilot that "WANTS TO TRY AND CLOUD FLY..." *The rules committee is trying (at great cost) to do the impossible.
>
> Pretty soon we will have to go thru a bomb detector before we get into the cockpit at a contest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> On the Android platform: *https://market.android.com/details?id=com.auraquest.flightdeck.ahoriz...
>
> On the iPhone platform: *http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airplane-gyroscope-attitude/id38549164...
>
> ----------------------------
>
> By Tom Kelley on Smart Phones in contests...
>
> 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.

Just go to the SSA web page for a CURRENT ANSWER as it has been
decided.

Best regards,

Thomas Kelley #711.

[[email protected]]

There seems to be a misconception around that gyros are required to implement a functional AH.
This is not true.

Gps derived attitude algorithms have been in the open literature for many years. Indeed, this is what is implemented in xcsoar.

A higher fidelity and faster AH is enabled by data fusion of gps, 3 axis accelerometers gyros and magnetometers. Emerging smartphones have these sensors.

To my knowledge, many of the apps available for smartphones do NOT implement the complete 9 degree of freedom data fusion - typically they assume unaccelerated dynamics (I.e not circling flight). This is just a warning should anyone decide to try those apps out.

[Sean Fidler]

Tom,

Thanks. If you know of an update or clarification to "smart phone" legality in contests please attach a link. I could not find it.

The only update I see seems to be the one focused on the butterfly vario: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf

Thanks,

Sean

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 24, 10:29*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thanks. *If you know of an update or clarification to "smart phone" legality in contests please attach a link. *I could not find it.
>
> The only update I see seems to be the one focused on the butterfly vario: *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean

3. Cell Phones
Rule 6.11.3 anticipates the presence of cell phones and reflects the
expected purpose of these and similar devices (“smart” phones) as not
being used in flight and turned off. The RC reaffirms its’ position in
this respect and recognizes that absolute enforcement of this is not
possible, certainly within the scope of what we expect volunteer
officials to do.
If such a device is used for the purposes of a flight display as
contemplated in (2) above, it is to be set in a mode that disables
communication with carrier networks (i.e. “airplane mode” or
equivalent). No other applications which could provide prohibited
functionality are to be available in flight.
It is otherwise expected that these devices will be stowed in a safe
place so as to be available for ground use and that they will be
turned off (see Rule 6.11.3 for permissible uses).
It is understood that many of these devices used for display may have
sensors or devices that could be used to support AH functions. This is
not interpreted by the RC as being out of compliance with the
provisions of the rules and associated policies. It is understood that
it is getting harder to find economical equipment that does not have
these sensors and devices. It will be the responsibility of the pilot
to ensure that programs and applications that could make these devices
functional as AH equipment are not installed. Presence of these
programs or applications will be assumed to be evidence of intent not
to comply with the provisions described herein.
Pilots please note that substituting an inexpensive “retrieve phone”
in the glider for a more capable phone used in daily life can be
expected to avoid any questions in this area.
4. Monitoring and compliance
Entrants shall comply with the provisions of the rules and associated
policies as a continuing display of good sportsmanship.


http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6789819598&show=blog&id=2759

[stephanevdv]

It seems evident that unenforcable rules will vanish over time. There
was a time when rules in certain competitions prohibited the use of
any other frequency than the competition frequency, to guarantee
individual performance instead of team flying. Relatively easy to
control when crystal radios were the norm. Difficult to enforce once
small portable720 channel radios became available. Completely
impossible to enforce once cell phones became widespread. I don't
think there still is one single competition using this rule. And team
flying is now promoted in international competition. The same happened
with GPS. First banned, now mandatory.

In this case, I think it was most unwise to develop a AH-function in
the XCSoar program, if competition flying was envisioned at the start.
The AH and every other system permitting cloud flying, includung some
types of compasses (Bohli etc.), have been banned from soaring
competition for a long time. But given the numerous stand-alone AH
apps for every type of PDA/PNA/tablet/smartphone, I don't see how this
rule can still be enforced today.

By the way: if you favour an "honor" system to control compliance of
the AH rule, you could just as well believe a pilot when he tells you
he won't go / hasn't been going IMC. The same people (if any) will try
to cheat...

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks Tom.

On Friday, February 24, 2012 12:45:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:29*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Thanks. *If you know of an update or clarification to "smart phone" legality in contests please attach a link. *I could not find it.
> >
> > The only update I see seems to be the one focused on the butterfly vario: *http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Equipment%20Policy.pdf
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sean
>
> 3. Cell Phones
> Rule 6.11.3 anticipates the presence of cell phones and reflects the
> expected purpose of these and similar devices (“smart” phones) as not
> being used in flight and turned off. The RC reaffirms its’ position in
> this respect and recognizes that absolute enforcement of this is not
> possible, certainly within the scope of what we expect volunteer
> officials to do.
> If such a device is used for the purposes of a flight display as
> contemplated in (2) above, it is to be set in a mode that disables
> communication with carrier networks (i.e. “airplane mode” or
> equivalent). No other applications which could provide prohibited
> functionality are to be available in flight.
> It is otherwise expected that these devices will be stowed in a safe
> place so as to be available for ground use and that they will be
> turned off (see Rule 6.11.3 for permissible uses).
> It is understood that many of these devices used for display may have
> sensors or devices that could be used to support AH functions. This is
> not interpreted by the RC as being out of compliance with the
> provisions of the rules and associated policies. It is understood that
> it is getting harder to find economical equipment that does not have
> these sensors and devices. It will be the responsibility of the pilot
> to ensure that programs and applications that could make these devices
> functional as AH equipment are not installed. Presence of these
> programs or applications will be assumed to be evidence of intent not
> to comply with the provisions described herein.
> Pilots please note that substituting an inexpensive “retrieve phone”
> in the glider for a more capable phone used in daily life can be
> expected to avoid any questions in this area.
> 4. Monitoring and compliance
> Entrants shall comply with the provisions of the rules and associated
> policies as a continuing display of good sportsmanship.
>
>
> http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6789819598&show=blog&id=2759

[Marc]

On Feb 24, 9:18*am, wrote:
> There seems to be a misconception around that gyros are required to implement a functional AH.
> This is not true.
>
> Gps derived attitude algorithms have been in the open literature for many years. Indeed, this is what is implemented in xcsoar.
>
> A higher fidelity and faster AH is enabled by data fusion of gps, 3 axis accelerometers gyros and magnetometers. Emerging smartphones have these sensors.
>
> To my knowledge, many of the apps available for smartphones do NOT implement the complete 9 degree of freedom data fusion - typically they assume unaccelerated dynamics (I.e not circling flight). This is just a warning should anyone decide to try those apps out.

Given the proliferation of open source sensor fusion software and
knowledge from the hobbyist UAV community, it's a very simple
programming project to implement a full 9 DF artificial horizon app.
Such apps already exist, just not for $5, yet...

Marc

[T8]

On Feb 24, 12:18*pm, wrote:
> There seems to be a misconception around that gyros are required to implement a functional AH.
> This is not true.

Best info I have is that displays w/o gyro input are unlikely to be of
any practical use for maneuvering flight in high performance
sailplanes. Do you know differently?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

As someone who works on such a project, I have to disagree that it's "very simple". But I do agree with your general point, absolutely.

The fact many of the cheapy AH apps don't apparently implement true AHRS is probably laziness.

The funny thing about all this fuss is that gps derived attitude has been feasible for decades.

[kirk.stant]

Ok EVERYBODY JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND RELAX!

This is getting blown way out of proportion, IMO.

Fact: Cloud flying is prohibited in contests. Period. Anybody caught
intentionally doing it should be immediately kicked out of the
contest.

Fact: While it is easy to prohibit old school gyro AH and T&Bs from
cockpits, it is becoming practically impossible to ban newer devices
and/or software that would have some capability to allow cloud flying,
such as PNAs/droid phones, etc.

Fact: Many glider pilots like having some sort of attitude indicator
available - especially if they have personally experienced the need
for one and not had it available. BTDT, for example on a late evening
final glide in Illinois, heading West into the sun - there was
ABSOLUTELY NO HORIZON VISIBLE, even though it was technically still
VMC. I basically used the position of the sun on the canopy to stay
shiny side up while cruising, and while thermalling, when the sun was
out of sight behind, had literally no way to maintain pitch attitude.
That was scary...and I sure would have liked to have had a simple AH
display!

Fact: PowerFlarm is pretty soon going to be "required" at contests.

So - I suggest we change the enforcement of the cloud flying ban from
the prohibition of any device that would allow it, to the use of
"sportmanship", coupled with the ability of PowerFLARM to show what
other gliders around you are doing. If I'm circling 500' below
cloudbase, and see a PF track 2000' above me and climbing, and I look
up and see nothing but cloud - then I'm going to report that glider,
and it should be pretty easy to find out who it is via the turned in
logger traces.

Then stop worrying about it and race!

Kirk
66
No gyros - yet...

PS - I don't understand all this drivel about smartphones. Unless you
are down in the weeds, good luck getting any signal from a carrier,
and if you are dicking around with your phone trying to get the AH app
to work as you are getting sucked into a clout, I doubt you will be
much of a racing threat! Give it a rest.

[[email protected]]

Evan:

It's degraded and slow to update if the gps source is 1 hz (as most are), also assumes zero sideslip and assumes pitch is related only to difference between TE vario and vertical speed.
Despite those limitations, I would consider that it would be possible (but not recommended) for a pilot of average skill to cloud fly with such an algorithm.

Gps derived attitude is used in autopilots in low cost uavs.

There are also more capable gps-only attitude systems that use three gps receivers, the phase differences yielding attitude at high accuracy and high rate.

You can see now why I shudder when gyros are singled out as the evil component that supposedly enables cloud flying.

[soartech[_2_]]

This is all such a distraction.
Why not ban FLARM? After all, if you're in a contest and considering
climbing into a cloud what better time is there to do it then when you
know that every other glider around
has FLARM so you can tell if there is one already in that cloud above
you?
FLARM is the ultimate safe cloud flying instrument for sailplanes in a
contest!
(Also makes sure no one else is nearby to see you.)

[T8]

On Feb 24, 3:01*pm, wrote:
> Evan:
>
> It's degraded and slow to update if the gps source is 1 hz (as most are), also assumes zero sideslip and assumes pitch is related only to difference between TE vario and vertical speed.
> Despite those limitations, I would consider that it *would be possible (but not recommended) for a pilot of average skill to cloud fly with such an algorithm.
>
> Gps derived attitude is used in autopilots in low cost uavs.
>
> There are also more capable gps-only attitude systems that use three gps receivers, the phase differences yielding attitude at high accuracy and high rate.
>
> You can see now why I shudder when gyros are singled out as the evil component that supposedly enables cloud flying.

I think -- with respect to modern sailplanes -- you are
optimistic :-). I've flown simulated instrument in Cessnas on riotous
soaring days. I actually did a 45 minute check flight in a new type
that way, all under the hood, from 500 agl on take off, to 1000 agl in
the pattern one time. Made me green as all get out. But the point
is, the effective bandwidth of a real gyro horizon is probably on the
order of 20 or 30 Hz. I am certain I could not cloud fly in
turbulence on 1 Hz. I might be able to keep wings level on an
emergency letdown (flaps & spoilers out) in reasonably smooth air.
I'm hoping our RC interpretation is similar because it leads to a
simplification in the rules interpretation for guys with older (1 Hz)
equipment and modern software: "No gyros / No 3G/4G / No problem". QT
says otherwise in one of these threads, but I have had private
conversation with one of the other RC guys that sounded amenable to
this in principle. I think it's defensible for the short term, if not
preferred for the medium or longer term. The contest season is upon
us, we need solutions, pretty much right now.

[David Reitter]

On Feb 24, 11:22*am, wrote:

> To be fair, there are others within the XCSoar group who are more
> inclined to help work this out so pilots can have complying software.
> Hopefully they will succeed.

To be very clear, it would be trivial for a programmer to disable the
artificial horizon feature (which is a very tiny info box that I'd
find barely useable even as a get-out-of-jail safety feature).

Once the rules have been clarified, and as long as there are no
requirements that an application cannot technically implement without
major difficulties, some people either related or unrelated to the
XCSoar project will step forward and will make an Android version
available on the Android market that is "ready for competition". This
would have the info box removed or permanently disabled, and it would
display the fact that it rules-compliant loud and clear in the splash
screen. The IGC log file would carry evidence of the software used.

It's open source and licensed as free software, and there is no
unsurmountable difficulty in doing this. It may be difficult to
convince Max K to spend his time on this, but that does not mean that
nobody else would step forward.

So, relax.

[Marc]

On Feb 24, 1:15*pm, David Reitter > wrote:
> Once the rules have been clarified, and as long as there are no
> requirements that an application cannot technically implement without
> major difficulties, some people either related or unrelated to the
> XCSoar project will step forward and will make an Android version
> available on the Android market that is "ready for competition". *This
> would have the info box removed or permanently disabled, and it would
> display the fact that it rules-compliant loud and clear in the splash
> screen. *The IGC log file would carry evidence of the software used.
>
> It's open source and licensed as free software, and there is no
> unsurmountable difficulty in doing this. *It may be difficult to
> convince Max K to spend his time on this, but that does not mean that
> nobody else would step forward.

What prevents yet another individual from compiling another Android
version that reproduces the "rules-compliant" splash screen, and
produces the same evidence in the IGC file, but nonetheless implements
the AH capability (with a stealth interface, of course). I do have to
agree with others that, at least with a 1 Hz GPS, the capability is
probably worthless in a modern glider in a real cloud. So, why is
this even being discussed?

Marc

[YourNameHere]

Is there an assumption being made that an AH is required to cloud fly?

It is completely possible to cloud fly without an AH or XC Soar or a
Bohli compass or T&B with existing instruments in our cockpits, just not
as easily.

By disallowing XC Soar, all we are doing is just making it less easy to
cloud fly only and not solving a thing.

On 2/24/2012 12:52 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> Ok EVERYBODY JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND RELAX!
>
> This is getting blown way out of proportion, IMO.
>
> Fact: Cloud flying is prohibited in contests. Period. Anybody caught
> intentionally doing it should be immediately kicked out of the
> contest.
>
> Fact: While it is easy to prohibit old school gyro AH and T&Bs from
> cockpits, it is becoming practically impossible to ban newer devices
> and/or software that would have some capability to allow cloud flying,
> such as PNAs/droid phones, etc.
>
> Fact: Many glider pilots like having some sort of attitude indicator
> available - especially if they have personally experienced the need
> for one and not had it available. BTDT, for example on a late evening
> final glide in Illinois, heading West into the sun - there was
> ABSOLUTELY NO HORIZON VISIBLE, even though it was technically still
> VMC. I basically used the position of the sun on the canopy to stay
> shiny side up while cruising, and while thermalling, when the sun was
> out of sight behind, had literally no way to maintain pitch attitude.
> That was scary...and I sure would have liked to have had a simple AH
> display!
>
> Fact: PowerFlarm is pretty soon going to be "required" at contests.
>
> So - I suggest we change the enforcement of the cloud flying ban from
> the prohibition of any device that would allow it, to the use of
> "sportmanship", coupled with the ability of PowerFLARM to show what
> other gliders around you are doing. If I'm circling 500' below
> cloudbase, and see a PF track 2000' above me and climbing, and I look
> up and see nothing but cloud - then I'm going to report that glider,
> and it should be pretty easy to find out who it is via the turned in
> logger traces.
>
> Then stop worrying about it and race!
>
> Kirk
> 66
> No gyros - yet...
>
> PS - I don't understand all this drivel about smartphones. Unless you
> are down in the weeds, good luck getting any signal from a carrier,
> and if you are dicking around with your phone trying to get the AH app
> to work as you are getting sucked into a clout, I doubt you will be
> much of a racing threat! Give it a rest.
>
>

[David Reitter]

On Feb 24, 5:00*pm, Marc > wrote:

> What prevents yet another individual from compiling another Android
> version that reproduces the "rules-compliant" splash screen, and
> produces the same evidence in the IGC file, but nonetheless implements
> the AH capability (with a stealth interface, of course).

Absolutely nothing.

You can make things a little more tamper-proof, just like hardware in
loggers can be made somewhat tamper-proof.

The software itself could be signed digitally, and distributed with a
non-public key used to sign IGC logs, though verification of the
digitally signed software would have to be done using separate
(technical) means rather than a splash screen, and perfect protection
of the secret IGC signature key that has to come with the software is
impossible.

However, building (compiling) a fake XCSoar version is technically
somewhat involved. That is where the rules committee may come up with
a solution that will make it more difficult, but not impossible to
cheat.


> I do have to
> agree with others that, at least with a 1 Hz GPS, the capability is
> probably worthless in a modern glider in a real cloud. *So, why is
> this even being discussed?

With the present hardware, that is probably true.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 24, 12:57*pm, stephanevdv > wrote:

> By the way: if you favour an "honor" system to control compliance of
> the AH rule, you could just as well believe a pilot when he tells you
> he won't go / hasn't been going IMC. The same people (if any) will try
> to cheat...

This is so true we are still relying on honor system.

I have a real problem banning LK8000 just because it has a screen that
shows estimated angle of bank based on GPS position. I think this
clarification needs to be changed a bit. I am all for RC efforts but
banning a screen like this would be too much. We are talking about
processing GPS data not sensors signals. Please think about this you
have the same data by zooming into your moving map display.

I hope Evan is going to sort all of this with RC before this thread
reaches 200 entries.

Andrzej

[PCool]

LK8000 will not "put much work into it" as well.
If XCSoar delivers a stripped version, we shall do the same.
If XCSoar does not deliver a stripped version, and shall be put on the black
list, LK8000 will be there too.

Paolo , for LK8000

"Max Kellermann" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
wrote:
> This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Feb 24, 8:35*pm, "PCool" > wrote:
> LK8000 will not "put much work into it" as well.
> If XCSoar delivers a stripped version, we shall do the same.
> If XCSoar does not deliver a stripped version, and shall be put on the black
> list, LK8000 will be there too.
>
> Paolo , for LK8000
>
> "Max Kellermann" > ha scritto nel . de...
>
> wrote:
> > This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> > individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> > that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> > of the XCSoar group.
>
> No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. *To remind you of how it
> really was, here's what you replied to:
>
> *"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
> *unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
> *won't put much work into it."
>
> Can you?
>
> Max

I will not use the stripped down version of LK8000. I will use the
full version (even though I have that screen disabled) because the
full version does not provide any support for gyro sensors therefore
it shows the same information as moving map on high zoom level. I
think these interpretations are going too far. I understand true Gyros
but we are talking about software that does not use any gyro sensors.

[jim wynhoff]

On Feb 24, 1:12*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 3:01*pm, wrote:
>
> > Evan:
>
> > It's degraded and slow to update if the gps source is 1 hz (as most are), also assumes zero sideslip and assumes pitch is related only to difference between TE vario and vertical speed.
> > Despite those limitations, I would consider that it *would be possible (but not recommended) for a pilot of average skill to cloud fly with such an algorithm.
>
> > Gps derived attitude is used in autopilots in low cost uavs.
>
> > There are also more capable gps-only attitude systems that use three gps receivers, the phase differences yielding attitude at high accuracy and high rate.
>
> > You can see now why I shudder when gyros are singled out as the evil component that supposedly enables cloud flying.
>
> I think -- with respect to modern sailplanes -- you are
> optimistic :-). *I've flown simulated instrument in Cessnas on riotous
> soaring days. *I actually did a 45 minute check flight in a new type
> that way, all under the hood, from 500 agl on take off, to 1000 agl in
> the pattern one time. *Made me green as all get out. *But the point
> is, the effective bandwidth of a real gyro horizon is probably on the
> order of 20 or 30 Hz. *I am certain I could not cloud fly in
> turbulence on 1 Hz. *I might be able to keep wings level on an
> emergency letdown (flaps & spoilers out) in reasonably smooth air.
> I'm hoping our RC interpretation is similar because it leads to a
> simplification in the rules interpretation for guys with older (1 Hz)
> equipment and modern software: "No gyros / No 3G/4G / No problem". *QT
> says otherwise in one of these threads, but I have had private
> conversation with one of the other RC guys that sounded amenable to
> this in principle. *I think it's defensible for the short term, if not
> preferred for the medium or longer term. *The contest season is upon
> us, we need solutions, pretty much right now.

Better ban these, and other (cheaper) products like it while you're at
it.
http://www.micropilot.com/
28 grams - two FOGs, GPS, pressure speed and altitude.
We either have an honor system, or we don't. Pick one. I'm just glad
my Dell Streak and I don't fly contests.

[WaltWX[_2_]]

I would hope that the U.S. RC will not ban the GPS based AH
capability. It's probably unreliable with the 1sec GPS updates. Any
1sec update moving map software could probably be used as a crude AH
anyway... are we going to ban use of the ClearNav, Outdie, Minimaps,
etc?

The rules should specify banning devices that display an AH based on
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_measurement_unit

My plans are to fly this year with LK8000.

Walt Rogers, WX

On Feb 24, 9:18*am, wrote:
> There seems to be a misconception around that gyros are required to implement a functional AH.
> This is not true.
>
> Gps derived attitude algorithms have been in the open literature for many years. Indeed, this is what is implemented in xcsoar.
>
> A higher fidelity and faster AH is enabled by data fusion of gps, 3 axis accelerometers gyros and magnetometers. Emerging smartphones have these sensors.
>
> To my knowledge, many of the apps available for smartphones do NOT implement the complete 9 degree of freedom data fusion - typically they assume unaccelerated dynamics (I.e not circling flight). This is just a warning should anyone decide to try those apps out.

[lanebush]

On Feb 25, 5:29*pm, WaltWX > wrote:
> I would hope that the U.S. RC will not ban the GPS based AH
> capability. It's probably unreliable with the 1sec GPS updates. Any
> 1sec update moving map software could probably be used as a crude AH
> anyway... are we going to ban use of the ClearNav, Outdie, Minimaps,
> etc?
>
> The rules should specify banning devices that display an AH based on
> an inertial measurement unit (IMU)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_measurement_unit
>
> My plans are to fly this year with LK8000.
>
> Walt Rogers, WX
>
> On Feb 24, 9:18*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There seems to be a misconception around that gyros are required to implement a functional AH.
> > This is not true.
>
> > Gps derived attitude algorithms have been in the open literature for many years. Indeed, this is what is implemented in xcsoar.
>
> > A higher fidelity and faster AH is enabled by data fusion of gps, 3 axis accelerometers gyros and magnetometers. Emerging smartphones have these sensors.
>
> > To my knowledge, many of the apps available for smartphones do NOT implement the complete 9 degree of freedom data fusion - typically they assume unaccelerated dynamics (I.e not circling flight). This is just a warning should anyone decide to try those apps out.

Let me give some advice. Don't try to talk to the software guys about
this. They have taken this as a personal insult against their
beautiful work! You will get tarred and feathered if you try to make
any suggestions regarding this matter.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:45:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kelley
> wrote:

> It will be the responsibility of the pilot
>to ensure that programs and applications that could make these devices
>functional as AH equipment are not installed. Presence of these
>programs or applications will be assumed to be evidence of intent not
>to comply with the provisions described herein.

>Pilots please note that substituting an inexpensive “retrieve phone”
>in the glider for a more capable phone used in daily life can be
>expected to avoid any questions in this area.


Hi Tom,

a silly question from someone who is having a really good laugh about
this discussion (I'm from Germany and therefore not affected):

How are you going to conduct the strip search of any pilot entering
his or her glider (in order to stop him/her from smuggeling a
smartphone on board) ...?

:)

Andreas

[Tom Kelley]

On Feb 26, 12:41*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:45:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kelley
>
> > wrote:
> > It will be the responsibility of the pilot
> >to ensure that programs and applications that could make these devices
> >functional as AH equipment are not installed. Presence of these
> >programs or applications will be assumed to be evidence of intent not
> >to comply with the provisions described herein.
> >Pilots please note that substituting an inexpensive “retrieve phone”
> >in the glider for a more capable phone used in daily life can be
> >expected to avoid any questions in this area.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> a silly question from someone who is having a really good laugh about
> this discussion (I'm from Germany and therefore not affected):
>
> How are you going to conduct the strip search of any pilot entering
> his or her glider (in order to stop him/her from smuggeling a
> smartphone on board) ...?
>
> :)
>
> Andreas

Andreas, that really is silly.
BUT sinced you asked,
The ""HOOTER"" girls will be coming out and doing their best!!!!

Regards, Tom.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Feb 24, 12:52*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> So - I suggest we change the enforcement of the cloud flying ban from
> the prohibition of any device that would allow it, to the use of
> "sportmanship", coupled with the ability of PowerFLARM to show what
> other gliders around you are doing. *If I'm circling 500' below
> cloudbase, and see a PF track 2000' above me and climbing, and I look
> up and see nothing but cloud - then I'm going to report that glider,
> and it should be pretty easy to find out who it is via the turned in
> logger traces.
>
> Then stop worrying about it and race!
>
> Kirk
> 66
> No gyros - yet...

And just as a reminder, there are often days with weak wave around the
clouds. Even at Uvalde. Not much use during the race, as it is often
only a knot or two and the thermals are often much more. But, if the
start gate height is set high and the bases are lower, you can get "on
top" without losing sight of the ground and pick up a few minutes on
those hanging out below cloudbase.

I remember the first day of a regionals at TSA where I found the wave
and got at least 1000 feet up above base. On a day with 2 knot
thermals. Ha! Just got 5 minutes on all you suckers down there
trying to figure out "how the heck did he get up there?" But, I was
back down at cloudbase with the rest of them by the time I got to the
edge of the cylinder. But, seeing the desperation of the gliders
below me searching in the blue and sink was priceless.

So, don't be too quick to accuse someone of "cloud flying" just
because they are above you and you are "right at" cloud base.

Now, if the rain will just stop at Daytona...

Steve Leonard
Flat-land Wave Flyer

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>
> a silly question from someone who is having a really good laugh about
> this discussion (I'm from Germany and therefore not affected):
>
> How are you going to conduct the strip search of any pilot entering
> his or her glider (in order to stop him/her from smuggeling a
> smartphone on board) ...?
>
> :)
>
> Andreas

Don't bet on not being affected. The IGC is on top of this every bit
as much as the US rules committee, they're just not masochistic enough
to read r.a.s.

There is also a huge difference between instruments sitting right in
the cockpit that everyone can see have artificial horizon displays,
and something you need to hack or smuggle in. The point is to raise
the costs of cheating, and avoid the environment in which each pilot
thinks "all the others are doing it" and feels justified.

Why don't we worry about hacked cell phones and smuggled artificial
horizons? Because anyone who wants to cheat that badly will obviously
put his efforts towards hacking IGC files and smuggling far more
useful electronics on board.

John Cochrane

[lanebush]

On Feb 26, 3:56*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > a silly question from someone who is having a really good laugh about
> > this discussion (I'm from Germany and therefore not affected):
>
> > How are you going to conduct the strip search of any pilot entering
> > his or her glider (in order to stop him/her from smuggeling a
> > smartphone on board) ...?
>
> > :)
>
> > Andreas
>
> Don't bet on not being affected. The IGC is on top of this every bit
> as much as the US rules committee, they're just not masochistic enough
> to read r.a.s.
>
> There is also a huge difference between instruments sitting right in
> the cockpit that everyone can see have artificial horizon displays,
> and something you need to hack or smuggle in. The point is to raise
> the costs of cheating, and avoid the environment in which each pilot
> thinks "all the others are doing it" and feels justified.
>
> Why don't we worry about hacked cell phones and smuggled artificial
> horizons? Because anyone who wants to cheat that badly will obviously
> put his efforts towards hacking IGC files and smuggling far more
> useful electronics on board.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

Can the rules make a differentiation between simple GPS displayed info
such as LK8000 and XCsoar? They have a simple turn and bank which is
simply based on ground track heading changes.

Lane
XF

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:57:55 -0800 (PST), Tom Kelley
> wrote:

>> How are you going to conduct the strip search of any pilot entering
>> his or her glider (in order to stop him/her from smuggeling a
>> smartphone on board) ...?
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Andreas
>
>Andreas, that really is silly.
>BUT sinced you asked,
>The ""HOOTER"" girls will be coming out and doing their best!!!!


Hi Tom,

that Hooter girls thing sounds good and is probably going to attract
many guys to the struggling US contest scene. :)

But in earnest:
Today nearly any appilication can be run on a small mobile device.
Banning certain types of applications is never going to work as long
as there is no way to enforce that such a device cannot be smuggled on
board.
I really wonder how the US is going to deal with this problem.


Cheers
Andreas

[Sean Fidler]

Is Garmin G1000 illegal?

:-)

On Friday, February 24, 2012 10:09:01 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I hate to bring this up again...but I must.
>
> I have learned this morning that XCSoar is to be banned from US soaring competitions. In fact our rules committee is apparently planning to also ban all free, open source applications because they "feel" they cannot control whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and other "cheater" functionality. Clearly these elite rule makers don't seem to understand how easy it is to install and use a different apps (or simply build your own) for these cheater AH functions and have decided to inconvenience many pilots in US Soaring Competition in a last ditched effort to maintain their completely unenforceable AH rule.
>
> Please confirm or deny, US Rules Committee, this news for the US Pilots who use or have just started to use this outstanding, free and intensely popular software...XC Soar? You might save alot of people $300 on their android PDA they are buying to run it...
>
> While they get back to us...this news is apparently true (confirmed by XC Soar Developers) and the folks over at the US Rules Committee are working hard to write up the documentation required to ban XC Soar for US Pilots as we speak.
>
> Gentleman of the US Rules Committee. I have officially lost all respect for your leadership assuming this is true. This is without question the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in any of the many sports that I have been involved in over my lifetime.
>
> As you (Rules Committee) darn well know...many in the US have actually spent winter preparing XC Soar for this season and buying Dell Streaks to run XC Soar on.
>
> Maybe we should start banning pee systems aimed aft because they give us extra thrust? While your at it maybe we should ban compasses because I can promise you that I can hold course in IMC with that instrument and an airspeed indicator alone? Maybe ban the Airspeed Indicator too? How about we ban all instrumentation altogether and just use the force? How about we ban pilots from watching star wars movies? They might learn something and become able to fly with their eyes closed?
>
> I look forward to more comedy in the weeks to come per your upcoming announcement of this ban of XC soar and any other FREE Navigation Software.
>
> Wow! You cant make this kind of stuff up...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean Fidler
> F2

[[email protected]]

As much as I hope that folks won’t cheat in soaring, I’m not optimistic.. I’ve seen WAY too much in my younger years in competitive golf (the gentleman’s sport <cough>). It still continues today. I play very little golf these days and one of the main reasons is the cheating. One of the most effective ways I saw of stopping it was to publically humiliate the offender in front of a large crowd of his/her peers. That works on many levels to bring an end to it. Let’s hope we don’t have to go to go down this road in soaring.
Craig

[Tony V]

> Let me give some advice. Don't try to talk to the software guys about
> this. They have taken this as a personal insult against their
> beautiful work!


As a professional software engineer (MS Computer Science) and over 30
years of real world software development experience, let me make these
two observations:

1. Some actual or potential customers can be a royal pain (in your
view). If you get personally insulted, grow thicker skin. You will need it.

2. Recognize bloatware when you see it. If a feature has no practical
application, leave it out.

just my 2 cents

Tony "6N"

[Derek Mackie]

On Feb 26, 9:53*pm, Tony V > wrote:
> > Let me give some advice. *Don't try to talk to the software guys about
> > this. *They have taken this as a personal insult against their
> > beautiful work!
>
> As a professional software engineer (MS Computer Science) and over 30
> years of real world software development experience, let me make these
> two observations:
>
> 1. Some actual or potential customers can be a royal pain (in your
> view). If you get personally insulted, grow thicker skin. You will need it.

[[email protected]]

I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

[T8]

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".
>
> I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

[Derek Mackie]

On Feb 27, 7:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".
>
> > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> > RAS
>
> OLC isn't racing.
>
> T8

And glider racing is for the money and chicks. Oh wait - we do it for
FUN. And if it stops being fun...

TT

[RAS56]

On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".

I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.

RAS

OLC isn't racing.

T8

True enough.

No fatalities in OLC.

ZAP

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".
>
> > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> > RAS
>
> OLC isn't racing.
>
> T8

The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.

Brad

Brad

[T8]

On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".
>
> > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> > > RAS
>
> > OLC isn't racing.
>
> > T8
>
> The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
>
> Brad

Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
equivalent to tigers.

Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
scratching mine.

T8

[[email protected]]

The RC had better start getting ready to inspect sunglasses worn at a competition:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2012/0223/Google-glasses-due-this-year-turn-seeing-into-searching

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 27, 7:16*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it."..
>
> > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> > > > RAS
>
> > > OLC isn't racing.
>
> > > T8
>
> > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
>
> > Brad
>
> Difference between house cats and tigers. *Saying "house cats have
> more appeal" may be demonstrably true. *That doesn't make them
> equivalent to tigers.
>
> Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. *If OLC
> scratches your itch, good for you. *It doesn't even come close to
> scratching mine.
>
> T8

That's cute.................Tigers also live pampered lives in Zoos!

Brad

[POPS]

As much as I hope that folks won’t cheat in soaring, I’m not optimistic.. I’ve seen WAY too much in my younger years in competitive golf (the gentleman’s sport cough). It still continues today. I play very little golf these days and one of the main reasons is the cheating. One of the most effective ways I saw of stopping it was to publically humiliate the offender in front of a large crowd of his/her peers. That works on many levels to bring an end to it. Let’s hope we don’t have to go to go down this road in soaring.
Craig


That's right. That is totally right. The few 'losers' (and it is always the few) that are psyco-crazed to get ahead, and cheat to do so, will, period. Still around this after 25 yrs on the world wide ocean racing scenes. Mega high profile people, with more money then God to lowly club racers, doing this crap, unbelievable. Psychos. It's the few.
The only cure is to fight back from within, via peer pressure, Forcing a Race Committee Protest response in the Protest Room. Race people must be willing to police themselves, even when it brings you into the Colosseum. I can only imagine that it would be a rare occasion, that someone files a protest, being that the air racing crowd actually is so small. Minimal load on the RC. Plenty of sweet drama when there is. These people would eventually get nailed, and when they do, a HUGE red flag gets planted -forever- in their head, earmarking them as 'potential' cheaters. Now lots of eyes, every time you race just might be painting your back side - psych out pressure. Race committee's response should be severe, hit the pocketbook too, like, you don't have to get out of town, but you're not leaving the tarmac again in this regatta with our tow boys, not even for rec flying, brother. Oh, and thanks for your entrance fee, your meal tickets are void too, (ya cheese-ball).
How do you protest? Log your position when you have a visual, hopefully you can see the tail feathers or recognize the plane. File, RC goes to work, does data logger analysis of both loggers, maybe from others too. Sees that you were at X feet, in visual range of the protest-ee, and based on the meteorology, and other pilot inputs as to actual cloud bases of the day, .... grinds it out....swings the gavel. It can go either way. But sh-t always end up stinking eventually.
Ban equipment? Software? Forget about it. I want that stuff with me. I want to be able BROADCAST out in a emergency situation if I were to screw up, for others to hear - "Alpha Bravo, going IFR, switching to AH over 'ThankgoodGodalmighty Peak' " and take 0.0 pts for the day, and launch the next day, with my friends.....
Over and out.

[Robert S]

Considering this and recent threads combined with low participation
rates for contests, this seems appropriate:

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Seems pretty fitting to this
newbie...

RS

On Feb 26, 10:17*pm, wrote:
> I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it.".
>
> I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> RAS

[BobW]

On 2/27/2012 8:16 AM, T8 wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:00 am, > wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 4:45 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 11:17 pm, wrote:
>>
>>>> I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at
>>>> the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of
>>>> leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with
>>>> contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all
>>>> out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit
>>>> it to OLC and be done with it.".
>>
>>>> I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My
>>>> day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to
>>>> voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm
>>>> ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>>
>>>> RAS
>>
>>> OLC isn't racing.
>>
>>> T8
>>
>> The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants in
>> sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
>>
>> Brad
>
> Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have more
> appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them equivalent to
> tigers.
>
> Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC scratches
> your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to scratching mine.
>
> T8

I don't have a horse in this race - have never participated in racing or OLC
and have no desire to do either going ahead - but this particular threadlet
touches upon a critical element, i.e. desire. In America, we all get to
(pretty much) do as we please and are motivated to do. That said, at some
point(s) in every activity, the 'entry hassle' (which is to say hoops one has
to jump through in order to participate) DOES get factored into every
individual's equations, and in that sense (assuming organizers of a given
activity worry about declining participation, as evidently U.S. glider racing
folks are), the placement of (advertent or inadvertent) barriers is arguably
not a desirable thing.

Though the above is (I'd hope!) a "Duh!" observation, it's not entirely clear
to me everyone who DOES have a horse in this race gives this reality
sufficient due.

In any case, the discussion continues interesting 'from the grandstand'...!

Bob W.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 27, 12:22*pm, Robert S > wrote:
> Considering this and recent threads combined with low participation
> rates for contests, this seems appropriate:
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us." *Seems pretty fitting to this
> newbie...
>
> RS

I would recommend reading the rules (http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?
mbr=6310235857) yourself and basing any opinion of them on that
reading, not on what you've read on RAS, especially in the last month
or so. There has been a lot of exaggeration and "what if"
extrapolation here lately.

[doug]

I look at this on google groups and the title to the thread was
truncated to read:
"US Rules Committee to ban XC Soa"

I thought it was trying to say the rules committee was going to ban XC
soaring (!) With all the goings on, I thought it just might be
possible.

[Terry Walsh]

At 18:50 27 February 2012, Tony wrote:
>On Feb 27, 12:22=A0pm, Robert S wrote:
>> Considering this and recent threads combined with low participation
>> rates for contests, this seems appropriate:
>>
>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." =A0Seems pretty fitting to this
>> newbie...
>>
>> RS
>
>I would recommend reading the rules (http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?
>mbr=3D6310235857) yourself and basing any opinion of them on that
>reading, not on what you've read on RAS, especially in the last month
>or so. There has been a lot of exaggeration and "what if"
>extrapolation here lately.
>

As someone who has flown gliders in cloud using gyro instruments in a
country where this is still legal (UK) let me say that I would not even
consider doing so with a gps based system updating at 1 Hz. I have flown
limited panel (turn & slip) and the secret to being able to successfully
fly high rate turns in cloud is using the rate of change displayed by both
gyros and pitot instruments. With a 1 second or more lag this would almost
certainly result in PIO's and loss of control if trying to fly a thermal
turn. In my opinion positively dangerous although perhaps useful for flying
wings level with airbrakes deployed for an emergency descent if trapped
above cloud.
IMHO this whole thing is being overblown and if tried may result in an
increased accident rate, rather than increasing safety as has been
suggested.

Here in the UK in any case the advantage of climbing high in a modern
glider in cloud is debatable to say the least due to the effects of water
and ice on the wings.

Terry Walsh

[T8]

On Feb 27, 9:38*am, RAS56 > wrote:
> T8;810426 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:-
> > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at
> > the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving
> > smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest
> > flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the
> > expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be
> > done with it.".
>
> > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My
> > day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to
> > voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm
> > ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> > RAS-
>
> > OLC isn't racing.
>
> > T8
>
> True enough.
>
> No fatalities in OLC.
>
> ZAP
>
> --
> RAS56

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

T8

[T8]

On Feb 27, 9:38*am, RAS56 > wrote:
> T8;810426 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:-
> > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at
> > the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving
> > smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest
> > flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the
> > expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be
> > done with it.".
>
> > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My
> > day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to
> > voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm
> > ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
>
> > RAS-
>
> > OLC isn't racing.
>
> > T8
>
> True enough.
>
> No fatalities in OLC.
>
> ZAP
>
> --
> RAS56

I can prove this is untrue. I will not so crass as to do so.

Zap, yourself.

T8

[Rick Walters[_2_]]

> True enough.
>
> No fatalities in OLC.
>
> ZAP
>
> --
> RAS56

Nonsense, there are plenty of gliders and pilots destroyed on OLC
flights. It does prove difficult to turn in a trace when you are dead.

Rick

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>
No fatalities in OLC.

ZAP

Which proves only that dead people don't send in traces.

John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.

I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?

While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.

I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.

The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.

For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?

The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?

I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?

It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.

In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!

We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!

Sincerely,

Sean
F2


On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> >
> > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying...just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it."..
> >
> > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> >
> > > > RAS
> >
> > > OLC isn't racing.
> >
> > > T8
> >
> > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> >
> > Brad
>
> Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> equivalent to tigers.
>
> Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> scratching mine.
>
> T8

[Sean Fidler]

T8 has run off to create a new thread he aptly labels "On Racing." Probably another subtle effort to discount OLC as not "real racing" or competition per my last post. Talk about running and hiding.

I continue to strongly disagree with this "vision" of OLC not being real competition. I think free distance is outstanding personally! I think of OLC as a great asset to soaring in the United States. OLC's simplicity and popularity can teach the contest community a great deal about what is really important in glider competition, PARTICIPATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont believe that T8 intentionally insulted the OLC. But I think he should respond in more detail as to why OLC, in his opinion, is not scratching him effectively.

These attitudes are extremely important in terms of participation and interest/focus in attracting new pilots vs. appeasing the "old guard" in my opinion. This is our leadership...and they are controlling (with an iron fist in some ways) the rules and terms by which we all might compete in contests..

Sean
F2

On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8

s

On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8



On Monday, February 27, 2012 5:38:30 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8, I would encourage more consideration for comments which are not in complete support of your longstanding views. These comments from the “little people” of our sport are not personal attacks on you, any individual or group. They are meaningful, heartfelt thoughts from an extremely important, tiny and shrinking group of pilots considering US contests.
>
> I am starting to get the feeling (based on your comments) that more than a few of the SSA Contest Elite would rather see 40 purists flying contests in the USA than 500 with some simpler version of sailplane racing rules. I don’t quite get it. Isn’t the topic of the day our hugely declining participation? Are our priorities in line with reality?
>
> While OLC might not “scratch you just right,” it clearly scratches A HUGE number of very nice, important people within our sport (worldwide) just fine. There are at least 10:1 more pilots in the US competing within OLC vs. SSA Contests. Why is that? OLC, when compared to this "Technology & Rules discussion," clearly eliminates much unnecessary complexity which comes along with existing Contest Soaring Rules, right or wrong. I believe that OLC has significant value in understanding what is important to the vast majority of US pilots who fly and COMPETE in sailplanes.
>
> I fear that you unknowingly (or intentionally) have talked down, way down (via the very colorful “scratch” comment), to people who fly OLC as if they are somehow inferior to contest pilots. I would also argue that there are many excellent OLC pilots who could compete with contests pilots big time. But it’s not all about top level competition is it? There are also a lot of great people and pilots who are not in contention for the top competitive honors in our sport? They too should be very important to all of us, even top contest pilots.
>
> The average OLC pilot is perhaps more important to our sport overall than contest pilots. OLC people are also the ones most likely to actually fly contests someday (helping to reverse course in falling participation) IF we are responsive to the reality of the situation. Without OLC our sport might be in an even worse place than it is now. If contest flying dies out entirely, I think OLC would live on and flourish. It is a foundation that contest soaring survives on at current, like it or not.
>
> For the record Rules Committee I took a moment to read this update in detail: http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Restricted%20Device%20Policy.pdf. I find it to be generally reasonable and fair. I understand the intent as a high level discouragement effort. Thanks for trying. That said I think that it clearly fails to solve any problem. I find it rather naïve (I know, that is probably intentional). But did you REALLY think this through?
>
> The intentional cheater would not allow phone records to have the slightest possibility of being traced back to him or herself or team. SIM cards would likely be tossed out of the cockpit in the air before landing each day.. Would the contest organizers have the guts to hold off scoring long enough to actually see the records (weeks or months)? Only a buffoon would be capable of capture via these new safeguards. Only metal detectors, airport scanners and strip searches could realistically prevent the disciplined cheater from defeating this cell phone data rule. In fact, this rule likely to only ruin a few honest pilots’ contests that forget to turn off their cell phones data (are accused of cheating) and investigated. Is the cell phone the most likely way one would get data to cheat? Radio’s?
>
> I have no problem with metal detectors or aircraft inspections personally.. When I once competed in the Pan American Games (Sailing) I had to take daily urine tests and random blood tests in the US trial and during the competition. This is normal at the top levels of many competitive sports these days. But is it really necessary in contest soaring? What is the competitive advantage of smart phone data? Is it worth it?
>
> It all goes back to the lessons learned via the sports elites stern resistance to electronic vario’s, GPS, etc in that time. The only solution is simply to go with it. The flood of communication and electronic technology has already crashed over our heads and has been pulling us up and down the beach for years. These new rule updates are like telling the waterlogged masses to put on a raincoat.
>
> In this case resistance actually gives MORE ADVANTAGE to the cheater than if smartphones were actually legalized. Saying nothing of safety concerns and aggravation the new rules will inevitably cause!
>
> We should simply open the new technology up to everyone and learn to use weather information to our collective advantage in flight (something I doubt would be very effective at current anyway). These rules, while noble and well meaning from the committee's viewpoint, are not going to help contest soaring in any way. Cheaters will still be cheating!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
> On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, T8 wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:00*am, Brad > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27, 4:45*am, T8 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 26, 11:17*pm, wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have to wonder at what point if folks (like me)....when looking at the confusing compliance and scoring issues (to say nothing of leaving smartphones behind or disabling equipment) associated with contest flying....just decide "to heck with trying to figure it all out, plus the expenses/hassles of a road trip, etc...I'll just submit it to OLC and be done with it..".
> > >
> > > > > I know that's the thought process I'm going through with all this.. My day job has compliance issues enough for me...I'm not wanting to voluntarily bring that same type of pressure into something I'm ostensibly doing to enjoy on my time off.
> > >
> > > > > RAS
> > >
> > > > OLC isn't racing.
> > >
> > > > T8
> > >
> > > The number of participants in the OLC, and the number of participants
> > > in sanctioned racing events tells me OLC has more appeal.
> > >
> > > Brad
> >
> > Difference between house cats and tigers. Saying "house cats have
> > more appeal" may be demonstrably true. That doesn't make them
> > equivalent to tigers.
> >
> > Racing is two orders of magnitude more intense than OLC. If OLC
> > scratches your itch, good for you. It doesn't even come close to
> > scratching mine.
> >
> > T8

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:28:19 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8 has run off to create a new thread he aptly labels "On Racing." Probably another subtle effort to discount OLC as not "real racing" or competition per my last post. Talk about running and hiding.
>
> I continue to strongly disagree with this "vision" of OLC not being real competition. I think free distance is outstanding personally! I think of OLC as a great asset to soaring in the United States. OLC's simplicity and popularity can teach the contest community a great deal about what is really important in glider competition, PARTICIPATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Sean,

OLC isn't "racing". Nor is badge and record flying. They are all different flavors of the same activity, but they each have their unique aspects. IMO, none of them is "better" than the other, but they do emphasize different skills. There are a few pilots out there who pursue all three aspects of our sport with great success. There are others who do well in one or two but not all three. So be it.

As a dedicated racing pilot who also actively pursues records and participates in the OLC, I fervently hope that the OLC can help feed the ranks of competition pilots. However, I am under no delusion that the numbers will ever be even close to equal. The OLC, as a decentralized, DIY contest makes it very easy to participate - no long drives, no vacation, no need to learn rules or practice the unique elements (start strategy, TAT vs. MAT vs. AAT, etc.). The best we can hope for is that a few OLC pilots become interested enough in serious XC to investigate record flying and racing.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann (P3)

[Dan Marotta]

Maybe we can get groups of our local pilots/clubs to fly contest tasks and
post on OLC. All it takes is for someone to declare the task for the day
and the pilots to decide to take the challenge. This might even spark a few
pilots to try a contest...

My observation at Moriarty during the summer is that most of the private
owners will show up at the launch point around the same time and could
easily fly an "assigned task". Practically speaking, however, most would
just prefer to go out and have a good time and go to a sanctioned contest
once or twice a year.


"Papa3" > wrote in message
news:25083709.1909.1330471920481.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlt17...
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:28:19 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> T8 has run off to create a new thread he aptly labels "On Racing."
> Probably another subtle effort to discount OLC as not "real racing" or
> competition per my last post. Talk about running and hiding.
>
> I continue to strongly disagree with this "vision" of OLC not being real
> competition. I think free distance is outstanding personally! I think of
> OLC as a great asset to soaring in the United States. OLC's simplicity
> and popularity can teach the contest community a great deal about what is
> really important in glider competition, PARTICIPATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Sean,

OLC isn't "racing". Nor is badge and record flying. They are all
different flavors of the same activity, but they each have their unique
aspects. IMO, none of them is "better" than the other, but they do
emphasize different skills. There are a few pilots out there who pursue
all three aspects of our sport with great success. There are others who do
well in one or two but not all three. So be it.

As a dedicated racing pilot who also actively pursues records and
participates in the OLC, I fervently hope that the OLC can help feed the
ranks of competition pilots. However, I am under no delusion that the
numbers will ever be even close to equal. The OLC, as a decentralized, DIY
contest makes it very easy to participate - no long drives, no vacation, no
need to learn rules or practice the unique elements (start strategy, TAT vs.
MAT vs. AAT, etc.). The best we can hope for is that a few OLC pilots
become interested enough in serious XC to investigate record flying and
racing.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann (P3)

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37:56 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
> wrote:
> > This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> > individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> > that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> > of the XCSoar group.
>
> No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
> really was, here's what you replied to:
>
> "As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
> unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
> won't put much work into it."
>
> Can you?
>
> Max

As a constructive thought for all of the software developers out there, working on either a commercial or an open-source model:

This isn't the first nor is it the last time that local rules/procedures are going to come up. You already have significant differences in areas such as task formats, scoring optimization, airspace configuration, and many, many others. If I were in your shoes, I would certainly consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI and feature sets based on chosen location. From there, it's not hard to see a way forward in terms of compliance AND perhaps to further improve the usability of the software at the same time.

I would suggest that the various rule-making bodies at various NACs certainly have the right and even the responsibilty to set standards, so digging in one's heals will probably just result in frustration on all sides...

Respectfully,
P3

Th



On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37:56 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
> wrote:
> > This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> > individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> > that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> > of the XCSoar group.
>
> No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
> really was, here's what you replied to:
>
> "As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
> unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
> won't put much work into it."
>
> Can you?
>
> Max



On Friday, February 24, 2012 11:37:56 AM UTC-5, Max Kellermann wrote:
> wrote:
> > This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
> > individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
> > that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
> > of the XCSoar group.
>
> No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
> really was, here's what you replied to:
>
> "As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
> unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
> won't put much work into it."
>
> Can you?
>
> Max

[Big Wings]

Reading all the posts about competitions, competition rules and the OLC is
a rather depressing demonstration about how to make a minority
sport/recreation even more so.

Racing is all about egos - as has been amply demonstrated. An artificial
set of contraints is imposed around each day's flying with the objective of
trying to compare pilots performances using a limited skills set. (E.g.
task setting and weather forecasting skills are not required. Gaggle
flying eliminates the need for thermal finding skills.)

The debate was initiated by proposals for additional constraints on
equipment to ensure a pilot with superior skills (cloud flying) does not
use them. Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. This could be
say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. The obvious
objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
expect.

[Tobias Bieniek]

> This isn't the first nor is it the last time that local rules/procedures are going to come up. *You already have significant differences in areas such as task formats, scoring optimization, airspace configuration, and many, many others. * If I were in your shoes, *I would certainly consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI and feature sets based on chosen location. * From there, it's not hard to see a way forward in terms of compliance AND perhaps to further improve the usability of the software at the same time.

Unfortunatly that is not a solution. We could build localization into
our application (like XCSoar did for things like units and UI
language) but the US RC clearly demands that the feature is not
available in the application even if you reconfigure it to a country
where the AH would be allowed. The only solution is publishing
localized applications for all different countries and organisations
and I invite everybody to come and do it. The key problem however is
still not addressed because it is so damn easy on modern devices to
install/run/uninstall the differents apps. This problem can't be
addressed by us software developers and the only solution to comply
with the rule is banning all smartphones. Since that is certainly the
wrong thing to do I would suggest to remove the stupid no-cloud-flying-
instruments rule and just use the no-cloud-flying rule. If you are
caught cheating by flying in a cloud you will get punished. Simple and
easy. Yes, that rule can't be properly enforced but the current rule
is by now also unenforceable.

[YourNameHere]

Diito!
Finally, some sound common sense on this topic.

On 3/1/2012 7:27 AM, Tobias Bieniek wrote:
Since that is certainly the
> wrong thing to do I would suggest to remove the stupid no-cloud-flying-
> instruments rule and just use the no-cloud-flying rule. If you are
> caught cheating by flying in a cloud you will get punished. Simple and
> easy. Yes, that rule can't be properly enforced but the current rule
> is by now also unenforceable.

[Mike the Strike]

*Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
> much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
> altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
> say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
> objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
> is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
> simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
> expect.

As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
workable. We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
may factors, including time-of-day and location. I have flown under
clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! I am
also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
clearing a ridge and whacking into it.

I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
validate my forecasts. It is in this role that I have observed what
you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. So far, I haven't reported
any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
into my morning weather briefings.

Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?

Mike

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 1, 10:14*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> *Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
>
> > much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
> > altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
> > say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
> > objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
> > is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
> > simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
> > expect.
>
> As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
> quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
> declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
> workable. *We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
> may factors, including time-of-day and location. *I have flown under
> clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! *I am
> also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
> terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
> clearing a ridge and whacking into it.
>
> I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
> validate my forecasts. *It is in this role that I have observed what
> you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. *So far, I haven't reported
> any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
> into my morning weather briefings.
>
> Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?
>
> Mike

Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

[Tobias Bieniek]

> Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

Yes, definitly. I've seen it myself, though most (if not all) cases
were rather marginal for a few seconds. Enough to make them invisible
but nothing like circling inside the cloud or anything like that. As
you can see this raises the question if the ban of cloud-flying-
instruments really prevents pilots from flying into clouds... I am
sure that without such an instrument nobody these days will try to
circle inside of a cloud but I've seen enough pilots "touching" the
clouds without these devices.

[Mike the Strike]

On Mar 1, 9:10*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:14*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > *Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
>
> > > much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
> > > altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
> > > say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
> > > objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
> > > is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
> > > simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
> > > expect.
>
> > As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
> > quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
> > declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
> > workable. *We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
> > may factors, including time-of-day and location. *I have flown under
> > clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! *I am
> > also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
> > terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
> > clearing a ridge and whacking into it.
>
> > I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
> > validate my forecasts. *It is in this role that I have observed what
> > you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. *So far, I haven't reported
> > any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
> > into my morning weather briefings.
>
> > Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?
>
> > Mike
>
> Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

Let's just say that rules maintaining minimum separation from clouds
as mandated by Federal Aviation Regulations are frequently broken in
contests and virtually impossible to police.

As I have previously also said, it is very easy to do in areas with
strong thermals (and happens to me as well). In a ten-knot thermal,
you are climbing at close to 1,000 feet a minute and half a turn will
take you from legal cloud clearance to too close. Folks flying in
typical northern European or eastern US conditions may find this hard
to believe, but those who fly in hot places (Western US, South Africa,
Namibia and Australia) will know what I mean.

Mike

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Mar 1, 11:35*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:10*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 10:14*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > > *Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be
>
> > > > much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
> > > > altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
> > > > say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
> > > > objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
> > > > is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
> > > > simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
> > > > expect.
>
> > > As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
> > > quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
> > > declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
> > > workable. *We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
> > > may factors, including time-of-day and location. *I have flown under
> > > clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! *I am
> > > also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
> > > terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
> > > clearing a ridge and whacking into it.
>
> > > I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
> > > validate my forecasts. *It is in this role that I have observed what
> > > you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. *So far, I haven't reported
> > > any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
> > > into my morning weather briefings.
>
> > > Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?
>
> > > Mike
>
> > Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?
>
> Let's just say that rules maintaining minimum separation from clouds
> as mandated by Federal Aviation Regulations are frequently broken in
> contests and virtually impossible to police.
>
> As I have previously also said, it is very easy to do in areas with
> strong thermals (and happens to me as well). *In a ten-knot thermal,
> you are climbing at close to 1,000 feet a minute and half a turn will
> take you from legal cloud clearance to too close. *Folks flying in
> typical northern European or eastern US conditions may find this hard
> to believe, but those who fly in hot places (Western US, South Africa,
> Namibia and Australia) will know what I mean.
>
> Mike

I simply asked if anyone is flying in the clouds cheating.

I see in contests people getting very close to the clouds even cutting
through wisps, but I have never seen true intentional cheating. I
would not consider cutting through wisps a cheating, although not
really a legal activity.

[Rob D]

>> consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI and feature sets based on chosen location

Erik,

That's a good idea. This year the US rules committee has indicated
that "It must not be possible to enable the prohibited functions
<added artificial horizon> by changing any device setting or memory
location (i.e. registry)." So, we would have to compile and
distribute XCSoar binaries for each localized version. A runtime
"Country" switch in the software wouldn't satisfy that requirement.
Assuming the IGC AH prohibition is still in place next year (and I
hope it is rescinded), this would be a step in the direction towards
reliance on sportsmanship if the US RC would allow a runtime switch
for AH.

Rob

[Robert Fidler[_3_]]

At 23:22 01 March 2012, Rob D wrote:
>>> consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI
and
>feature sets based on chosen location
>
>Erik,
>
>That's a good idea. This year the US rules committee has indicated
>that "It must not be possible to enable the prohibited functions
> by changing any device setting or memory
>location (i.e. registry)." So, we would have to compile and
>distribute XCSoar binaries for each localized version. A runtime
>"Country" switch in the software wouldn't satisfy that requirement.
>Assuming the IGC AH prohibition is still in place next year (and I
>hope it is rescinded), this would be a step in the direction towards
>reliance on sportsmanship if the US RC would allow a runtime switch
>for AH.
>
>Rob
>
Please read the XCSOAR website forum reply about the the current XCSOAR
version without AH is legal according to the latest SSA Contest Rules. Hope
this ends the debate.

[Gregg Leslie[_2_]]

I for one am tired of the endless rules associated with contests...Why
can't
we just keep it simple? As a contest pilot I have never thought about
cheating, or have I ever suspected any competitors of cheating, let's keep
it
simple, we are all a family, no more changes....Please....

GL

>At 23:22 01 March 2012, Rob D wrote:
>>>> consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI
>and
>>feature sets based on chosen location
>>
>>Erik,
>>
>>That's a good idea. This year the US rules committee has indicated
>>that "It must not be possible to enable the prohibited functions
>> by changing any device setting or memory
>>location (i.e. registry)." So, we would have to compile and
>>distribute XCSoar binaries for each localized version. A runtime
>>"Country" switch in the software wouldn't satisfy that requirement.
>>Assuming the IGC AH prohibition is still in place next year (and I
>>hope it is rescinded), this would be a step in the direction towards
>>reliance on sportsmanship if the US RC would allow a runtime switch
>>for AH.
>>
>>Rob
>>
>Please read the XCSOAR website forum reply about the the current XCSOAR
>version without AH is legal according to the latest SSA Contest Rules.
Hope
>this ends the debate.
>
>

[Sean Fidler[_2_]]

Those who are happy with the status quo (and likely not invested in
any technology related to this discussion) definitely want this debate
to end. This has been made abundantly clear by the numerous tantrums
and attacks (meds, OLC vs Contest Pilots, etc) by those most
passionate about contest soaring against anyone who argues a
counterpoint. I understand there is a system for changing rules.
But vetting the debate here prepares us for that eventual vote or
poll. Debate is good!

FACT: The only way to ensure that AH functionality is not used in
contests is to: 1) ban all smart phones and stricktly enforce the ban
by, 2) randomly strip search contest pilots as they get into the
glider 3) ransack those contest gliders for contraband (smart phones
& instrument firmware versions, memory sticks, etc) and 4) patroling
the task area with advanced electronic counter measure aircraft to
intercept data signals and phone bills. Probably should scan radio
frequencies for communications as well...but im getting off track.
All of this contest version, regular version crud is meaningless other
than it satisfies a highly outdated rule (which has not been enforced
for several years). Even with these steps in place those who are
capable of cheating will still cheat, EASILY. Nothing will change in
the air other than all of us have had to go to Wal-Mart and buy a junk
phone that probably won’t work when we need it. This will be a dark
day indeed.

If XC Soar does the work requested and we do not ban smart phones,
PNA's etc what is the point of doing the work? Nobody seems to want
to deal with these facts. The rule as it stands still does literally
nothing to prevent the cheater from cheating. It makes no sense.

There is alot of great work that went into XC Soar version 6.3. I
think we would all greatly enjoy using many improvements within the
new version. Unfortunately, we are being told “just be happy” using
the old version until (wink, wink) the XC Soar folks..."bow" like the
others to our divine power! :-)

Who else saw 300? Will Leonidas (XC Soar) bow in submission to King
Xerxes (US Rules Committee & eventually the FAI/IGC) as others have?
Bow to the Rules Committee XC Soar! On your knees!

We shall see. I’m guessing not... Here is a nice video that
illustrates our tale with humor --> http://youtu.be/kmgRv2V_7P4

EXAMPLES OF SEVERAL (of hundreds) ARTIFICIAL HORIZON MOBILE APPS (30
seconds of search, copy paste):
Easily installed on PNA's, etc...(Many smart phones come preinstalled
with gyro monitoring apps that are very nice)

http://ipilotapps.com/ipad/nav/airboard/
http://www.mobiles24.com/downloads/s/396270-265-artificial_horizon_simulator
https://market.android.com/details?id=ro.cripat.mobile.ArtificialHorizontX3Fu n
http://www.mobileapps.com/mobileapps/main/application_detail.jsp?appsId=70797&appsVerId=70853&category=15&platform=1
http://download.cnet.com/Artificial-Horizon-3D/3000-12940_4-206495.html?tag=rb_content;main;dropDownForm


On Mar 2, 5:04*am, Robert Fidler > wrote:
"Please read the XCSOAR website forum reply about the the current
XCSOAR
version without AH is legal according to the latest SSA Contest Rules.
Hope
this ends the debate."

[toad]

On Mar 2, 9:59*am, Gregg Leslie > wrote:
> I for one am tired of the endless rules associated with contests...Why
> can't
> we just keep it simple? As a contest pilot I have never thought about
> cheating, or have I ever suspected any competitors of cheating, let's keep
> it
> simple, we are all a family, no more changes....Please....
>
> GL
>

But, but, but, if someone cheats, they'll get all the hot chicks and
sponsorship money ... oh wait, there aren't any. ( well, there's a few
hot chicks, but no money )

Please keep the rules simple and enforceable, since it is currently
impossible to prevent a pilot from showing up with an attitude gyro in
his pocket today, that rule is just not enforceable and should be
scrapped. keep the ban on cloud flying, that's fine and will be
enforced the same way other rules are enforced, self policing.

The cost to sailplane racing of cheating by cloud flying seems prettly
damn low compared to the cost of trying to prevent any pilot from
having an attitude gyro available to him with today's technology.

To Sean Fidler, don't take my statements as support. You might be a
nice guy in real life, but you are an ass on the internet.

Todd Smith
3S

[Sean Fidler[_2_]]

Classy Todd! :-)

On Mar 2, 12:52*pm, toad > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 9:59*am, Gregg Leslie > wrote:
>
> > I for one am tired of the endless rules associated with contests...Why
> > can't
> > we just keep it simple? As a contest pilot I have never thought about
> > cheating, or have I ever suspected any competitors of cheating, let's keep
> > it
> > simple, we are all a family, no more changes....Please....
>
> > GL
>
> But, but, but, * if someone cheats, they'll get all the hot chicks and
> sponsorship money ... oh wait, there aren't any. ( well, there's a few
> hot chicks, but no money )
>
> Please keep the rules simple and enforceable, since it is currently
> impossible to prevent a pilot from showing up with an attitude gyro in
> his pocket today, that rule is just not enforceable and should be
> scrapped. *keep the ban on cloud flying, that's fine and will be
> enforced the same way other rules are enforced, self policing.
>
> The cost to sailplane racing of cheating by cloud flying seems prettly
> damn low compared to the cost of trying to prevent any pilot from
> having an attitude gyro available to him with today's technology.
>
> To Sean Fidler, don't take my statements as support. *You might be a
> nice guy in real life, but you are an ass on the internet.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S

[Liam]

I am confused by this whole controversy. As I understand it, the
issue is, artificial horizons would enable a pilot to cheat by flying
in clouds, and there's no way to detect it, so they must be banned.
However, even without an artificial horizon, a pilot can still fly say
100ft below cloud base, which is also against regulations and cannot
be detected. So, the only way really make sure nobody is cheating is
to ban contest flying on days when there are clouds expected. Problem
solved!