Question for UH or other RC personnel

[Mike[_37_]]

Looking at the SSA website there are two PDF's concerning the ban on
AH's. In neither one, do I see anything that would prevent me from
using an Android device running XCSoar.

The fact that XCSoar does not have a working AH should make it legal
to use in US contests. Is this correct?

Mike Carris

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 27, 12:44*pm, Mike > wrote:
> Looking at the SSA website there are two PDF's concerning the ban on
> AH's. In neither one, do I see anything that would prevent me from
> using an Android device running XCSoar.
>
> The fact that XCSoar does not have a working AH should make it legal
> to use in US contests. Is this correct?
>
> Mike Carris

Hi Mike,
You are correct.

The discussion has centered around the as yet unavailable "artificial
horizon" capability that we understand is under development.
The RC is working with XCSoar to ensure that any such developments do
not inadvertently disqualify the product from use in either FAI or US
competitions (FAI rules also prohibit aritficial horizons).

The RC wants to do everything possible to keep the cost of entry for
racing as low as possible and programs like XCSoar are a key part of
that.

John Godfrey (QT)
Rules Committee

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 27, 11:20*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:44*pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > Looking at the SSA website there are two PDF's concerning the ban on
> > AH's. In neither one, do I see anything that would prevent me from
> > using an Android device running XCSoar.
>
> > The fact that XCSoar does not have a working AH should make it legal
> > to use in US contests. Is this correct?
>
> > Mike Carris
>
> Hi Mike,
> You are correct.
>
> The discussion has centered around the as yet unavailable "artificial
> horizon" capability that we understand is under development.
> The RC is working with XCSoar to ensure that any such developments do
> not inadvertently disqualify the product from use in either FAI or US
> competitions (FAI rules also prohibit aritficial horizons).
>
> The RC wants to do everything possible to keep the cost of entry for
> racing as low as possible and programs like XCSoar are a key part of
> that.
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> Rules Committee

Thank you John.

Mike

[Derek Mackie]

On Feb 27, 1:20*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:44*pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > Looking at the SSA website there are two PDF's concerning the ban on
> > AH's. In neither one, do I see anything that would prevent me from
> > using an Android device running XCSoar.
>
> > The fact that XCSoar does not have a working AH should make it legal
> > to use in US contests. Is this correct?
>
> > Mike Carris
>
> Hi Mike,
> You are correct.
>
> The discussion has centered around the as yet unavailable "artificial
> horizon" capability that we understand is under development.
> The RC is working with XCSoar to ensure that any such developments do
> not inadvertently disqualify the product from use in either FAI or US
> competitions (FAI rules also prohibit aritficial horizons).
>
> The RC wants to do everything possible to keep the cost of entry for
> racing as low as possible and programs like XCSoar are a key part of
> that.
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> Rules Committee

Thanks for the direct question, Mike. Thanks for the clarification
John! I can move forward for the season and let my ulcer heal now...
(Whew!)

YAY!

Cheers,

Derek
TT

[Sean Fidler]

But what of the direct email to XC soar by UH stating that XC Soar will be banned by the SSA contest rules commitee via a soon to be released BLACK list if not changed immediately to SSA required specifications?

This was denied by UH, then XC Soar countered by posting the exact email which clearly states the direct threat outlined above.

Sounds, at least to me, like XC Soar (and the many users of XC Soar) are still being threatened with a potential contest ban. I have not heard any retraction on that threat formally, openly or whispered... Its still in play as I understand it.

And what of other firms with soon to be releases AH type functions such as LX 8000, 9000 and Zues, etc. I am sure there is some risk there. Im sure there is risk to them as well if those bodies will not or cannot comply with the committees sudden demands.

LK8000, etc...

[Tobias Bieniek]

This is the current situation in my understanding:

The US RC is forbidding:

* AH based on GPS and airspeed data
* AH based on gyro data
* Voice and data communication via smartphone

The US RC is requesting:

* Removal of all AH functionality from all PDA software products that want to comply with their rules
* Disabled voice and data communication (basically removing the SIM card from the phone or enabling the plane mode of the phone)


XCSoar currently (6.2.6) offers:

* AH based on GPS and airspeed data
(it actually did/does _not_ work, due to a bug in the code which has been fixed for the next versions)
* METAR downloads via data connection

So the current situation means that XCSoar 6.2.6 is compliant because:

* AH functionality is bugged and doesn't work
* METAR downloads don't work when the phone is in "plane" mode


XCSoar will in the future offer additionally:

* Live tracking via data connection (starting with XCSoar 6.3)
* AH based on gyro data from smartphones or e.g. the Butterfly vario (if that outputs the necessary data)


Apparently it is controversial if the use of live tracking should be allowed or not but since the RC requests the enabled plane mode the missing data connection will prevent it's use anyway.

Future versions of "vanilla" XCSoar will not be compliant because the bug is fixed now. It is not decided yet whether we will officially publish a "crippled" version of XCSoar with AH features disabled, but since XCSoar is open-source any person is theoretically able to compile a special version with these features disabled.

If we decide to publish such a version this should only be a temporary solution because the real "problem" is certainly not solved by this.

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion and may not be shared by all other developers of XCSoar. This is not an official statement of the XCSoar project, just my personal thoughts!



Am Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 14:49:08 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Fidler:
> But what of the direct email to XC soar by UH stating that XC Soar will be banned by the SSA contest rules commitee via a soon to be released BLACK list if not changed immediately to SSA required specifications?
>
> This was denied by UH, then XC Soar countered by posting the exact email which clearly states the direct threat outlined above.
>
> Sounds, at least to me, like XC Soar (and the many users of XC Soar) are still being threatened with a potential contest ban. I have not heard any retraction on that threat formally, openly or whispered... Its still in play as I understand it.
>
> And what of other firms with soon to be releases AH type functions such as LX 8000, 9000 and Zues, etc. I am sure there is some risk there. Im sure there is risk to them as well if those bodies will not or cannot comply with the committees sudden demands.
>
> LK8000, etc...



Am Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 14:49:08 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Fidler:
> But what of the direct email to XC soar by UH stating that XC Soar will be banned by the SSA contest rules commitee via a soon to be released BLACK list if not changed immediately to SSA required specifications?
>
> This was denied by UH, then XC Soar countered by posting the exact email which clearly states the direct threat outlined above.
>
> Sounds, at least to me, like XC Soar (and the many users of XC Soar) are still being threatened with a potential contest ban. I have not heard any retraction on that threat formally, openly or whispered... Its still in play as I understand it.
>
> And what of other firms with soon to be releases AH type functions such as LX 8000, 9000 and Zues, etc. I am sure there is some risk there. Im sure there is risk to them as well if those bodies will not or cannot comply with the committees sudden demands.
>
> LK8000, etc...

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 8:49*am, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> But what of the direct email to XC soar by UH stating that XC Soar will be banned by the SSA contest rules commitee via a soon to be released BLACK list if not changed immediately to SSA required specifications?
>
> This was denied by UH, then XC Soar countered by posting the exact email which clearly states the direct threat outlined above.
>
> Sounds, at least to me, like XC Soar (and the many users of XC Soar) *are still being threatened with a potential contest ban. *I have not heard any retraction on that threat formally, openly or whispered... *Its still in play as I understand it.
>
> And what of other firms with soon to be releases AH type functions such as LX 8000, 9000 and Zues, etc. *I am sure there is some risk there. *Im sure there is risk to them as well if those bodies will not or cannot comply with the committees sudden demands.
>
> LK8000, etc...

UH's denial was related my read of your claim that RC intended to not
permit ALL software like XCSoar. It is true that I indicated to Max
that , in current form XCSoar is not permissable in US contests.
The current state of this activity is that the RC has been told by
members of the XCSoar group that there will be a version made
available that will allow US pilots to comply with the rules. I know
all the enthusiastic users of the software will appreciate this.
The Folks from LK8000 have indicted they will be doing the same.
This has been mentioned several time so it should be no surprise.
The risk is to the pilots that do not do their homework with respect
to the equipment they use. There is nothing sudden in the rules.
What is sudden is that some suppliers, knowingly or unknowingly, are
producing or about to produce equipment and/ or software that has
functions not permitted in our rules. This has come as a shock to
some.
The RC will be working to list what the status of various equipment is
so pilots can check if they comply. Anyone can now review what they
have and determine if it has unnaproved AH features. The list will
help. Call it a "black list" if you choose- we do not see it that way
We have contacted many of the poeple that supply this equipment to ask
that they inform buyers of the rules in place so that pilots can make
informed decisions. We have also asked them to contact manufacturers
to make sure they are aware of this need as it relates to US racing
pilots(and those participating in the upcoming WGC). The response from
suppliers is mostly, but not all positive, so buyer beware.
Sean, please give it a bit of a rest and let this work itself out.
UH