Re: Question for UH or other RC personnel

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 16:22 28 February 2012, Dan Marotta wrote:
>I'm a simple person, honest, and generally unsuspecting. If I understand

>correctly, XCSoar v 6.2.6 has no AH capability. It works just fine for my

>needs and, frankly, none of the whiz-bang products will ever enable me to

>win a national contest. So, if XCSoar v 6.3 has an AH, it seems simple
>enough to just not download and install it. Look at the startup screen -
>it
>tells the version.
>
>And, yes, I know a SW engineer or a hacker could make a simple source code

>change to fake this but, as I said, I'm honest. Are you? If you're going

>to win a contest or be a safe pilot, it will not be because of any device

>you've got in your pocket or panel.
>
>So what if the RC bans XCSoar or LK8000 or the Butterfly? It won't be
>money
>out of Max's pocket.
>
>
Anyone thought of looking to see who gains from the banning of software by
certain providers? Someone will.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 28, 6:37*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> At 16:22 28 February 2012, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I'm a simple person, honest, and generally unsuspecting. *If I understand
> >correctly, XCSoar v 6.2.6 has no AH capability. *It works just fine for my
> >needs and, frankly, none of the whiz-bang products will ever enable me to
> >win a national contest. *So, if XCSoar v 6.3 has an AH, it seems simple
> >enough to just not download and install it. *Look at the startup screen -
> >it
> >tells the version.
>
> >And, yes, I know a SW engineer or a hacker could make a simple source code
> >change to fake this but, as I said, I'm honest. *Are you? *If you're going
> >to win a contest or be a safe pilot, it will not be because of any device
> >you've got in your pocket or panel.
>
> >So what if the RC bans XCSoar or LK8000 or the Butterfly? *It won't be
> >money
> >out of Max's pocket.
>
> Anyone thought of looking to see who gains from the banning of software by
> certain providers? Someone will.

right because 60 odd years ago when the first rules banning
instruments which allow flight in clouds was written it was done so to
protect certain software companies.

[Dan Marotta]

Sixty odd years ago it would have taken a C-124 to haul the computer running
the software. I'm not sure it would have beaten the then current hot
glider...


"
right because 60 odd years ago when the first rules banning
instruments which allow flight in clouds was written it was done so to
protect certain software companies.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

Can no-one else see the lack of logic in banning a peice of software just
because it could be used possibly to fly in cloud? Is the thinking that
just because an artificial horizon is fitted to a glider then that glider
will fly in cloud?
Despite cloud flying being legal in the UK I never have deliberately flown
in cloud and never ever intended to do so. I had an artificial horizon
fitted because I wave fly, and the UK for those that do not know can be a
cloudy place and in wave conditions it is possible to get caught out above
cloud that has formed beneath you, that is why I had the AH. Never had to
use it.
What is amazing to me is that people fight tooth and nail for the right to
carry a gun in the US and the argument is that just because you carry it
does not mean that you have to use it. Hundreds of people die because of
it.
If you have a rule that cloud flying is forbidden then all that is
necessary is that people obey that rule and if they do not they are
penalised?
The are many pilots in the UK who happily cloud fly with just a turn and
slip indicator, and do it very sucessfully. Turn and slip indicators are
fitted to most gliders in the UK. Is this instrument banned in the US? If
it is not then why not, it is definitely an instrument that can easily be
used to fly in cloud but again just because you have it does not mean you
have to fly in cloud.

[S. Murry]

Dan,

Yes, Turn and Slip Indicators are banned in contests in the US. Because
they could be used to cloud fly.

--Stefan

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:02:23 -0600, Don Johnstone >
wrote:

> Can no-one else see the lack of logic in banning a peice of software just
> because it could be used possibly to fly in cloud? Is the thinking that
> just because an artificial horizon is fitted to a glider then that glider
> will fly in cloud?
> Despite cloud flying being legal in the UK I never have deliberately
> flown
> in cloud and never ever intended to do so. I had an artificial horizon
> fitted because I wave fly, and the UK for those that do not know can be a
> cloudy place and in wave conditions it is possible to get caught out
> above
> cloud that has formed beneath you, that is why I had the AH. Never had to
> use it.
> What is amazing to me is that people fight tooth and nail for the right
> to
> carry a gun in the US and the argument is that just because you carry it
> does not mean that you have to use it. Hundreds of people die because of
> it.
> If you have a rule that cloud flying is forbidden then all that is
> necessary is that people obey that rule and if they do not they are
> penalised?
> The are many pilots in the UK who happily cloud fly with just a turn and
> slip indicator, and do it very sucessfully. Turn and slip indicators are
> fitted to most gliders in the UK. Is this instrument banned in the US? If
> it is not then why not, it is definitely an instrument that can easily be
> used to fly in cloud but again just because you have it does not mean you
> have to fly in cloud.
>


--
Stefan Murry

[Sean Fidler]

Don, could not agree more with you. But unfortunately...

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:02:23 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
> Can no-one else see the lack of logic in banning a peice of software just
> because it could be used possibly to fly in cloud? Is the thinking that
> just because an artificial horizon is fitted to a glider then that glider
> will fly in cloud?
> Despite cloud flying being legal in the UK I never have deliberately flown
> in cloud and never ever intended to do so. I had an artificial horizon
> fitted because I wave fly, and the UK for those that do not know can be a
> cloudy place and in wave conditions it is possible to get caught out above
> cloud that has formed beneath you, that is why I had the AH. Never had to
> use it.
> What is amazing to me is that people fight tooth and nail for the right to
> carry a gun in the US and the argument is that just because you carry it
> does not mean that you have to use it. Hundreds of people die because of
> it.
> If you have a rule that cloud flying is forbidden then all that is
> necessary is that people obey that rule and if they do not they are
> penalised?
> The are many pilots in the UK who happily cloud fly with just a turn and
> slip indicator, and do it very sucessfully. Turn and slip indicators are
> fitted to most gliders in the UK. Is this instrument banned in the US? If
> it is not then why not, it is definitely an instrument that can easily be
> used to fly in cloud but again just because you have it does not mean you
> have to fly in cloud.

[Dan Marotta]

165,322,431 legal gun owners killed *exactly nobody* in the USA yesterday.
It's the silly dream of not very bright people that "gun free zones" will
make us safe. Tell that to the kids at that Ohio school.

I agree with what you said about instruments on the panel. I have a TruTrak
turn indicator on my panel but have no intention of flying into a cloud.
Likewise, I have no intention of shooting anyone, either.


"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
. com...
> Can no-one else see the lack of logic in banning a peice of software just
> because it could be used possibly to fly in cloud? Is the thinking that
> just because an artificial horizon is fitted to a glider then that glider
> will fly in cloud?
> Despite cloud flying being legal in the UK I never have deliberately flown
> in cloud and never ever intended to do so. I had an artificial horizon
> fitted because I wave fly, and the UK for those that do not know can be a
> cloudy place and in wave conditions it is possible to get caught out above
> cloud that has formed beneath you, that is why I had the AH. Never had to
> use it.
> What is amazing to me is that people fight tooth and nail for the right to
> carry a gun in the US and the argument is that just because you carry it
> does not mean that you have to use it. Hundreds of people die because of
> it.
> If you have a rule that cloud flying is forbidden then all that is
> necessary is that people obey that rule and if they do not they are
> penalised?
> The are many pilots in the UK who happily cloud fly with just a turn and
> slip indicator, and do it very sucessfully. Turn and slip indicators are
> fitted to most gliders in the UK. Is this instrument banned in the US? If
> it is not then why not, it is definitely an instrument that can easily be
> used to fly in cloud but again just because you have it does not mean you
> have to fly in cloud.
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 15:25 01 March 2012, Dan Marotta wrote:
>165,322,431 legal gun owners killed *exactly nobody* in the USA yesterday.

>It's the silly dream of not very bright people that "gun free zones" will

>make us safe. Tell that to the kids at that Ohio school.
>
>I agree with what you said about instruments on the panel. I have a
>TruTrak
>turn indicator on my panel but have no intention of flying into a cloud.
>Likewise, I have no intention of shooting anyone, either.
>
>
I think my analogy has been misunderstood, what I was saying is that your
second amendment gives you a right, it does not follow that having that
right means that you are required, encouraged or even allowed to use the
weapon to shoot someone unlawfully.
Just because you have an instrument available to you does not mean that you
are required, encouraged, allowed or ganted the right to enter cloud per
se.
If I have this right if the rules committee made a rule banning handguns
from being carried in a glider cockpit this would be ruled
unconstitutional, they can however ban a useful instrument that might save
your life if you get it wrong, the mind boggles. Yer couldn't make it up
could you.
God bless America.

[Dan Marotta]

My apologies, Sir. Too many of our rights have been stepped on lately that
I'm sensitive about mine and not afraid to speak up about it. (There are
probably black helicopters on their way right now...)

Nobody has said that I can't be armed in my own cockpit (yet) and, IIRC,
back in the early '70s when I was an Air Force pilot in Alaska, I learned
that, when flying general aviation aircraft, I was *required* by state law
to be armed! That wasn't a bad idea considering the wild territory over
which we flew.


"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
. com...
> At 15:25 01 March 2012, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>165,322,431 legal gun owners killed *exactly nobody* in the USA yesterday.
>
>>It's the silly dream of not very bright people that "gun free zones" will
>
>>make us safe. Tell that to the kids at that Ohio school.
>>
>>I agree with what you said about instruments on the panel. I have a
>>TruTrak
>>turn indicator on my panel but have no intention of flying into a cloud.
>>Likewise, I have no intention of shooting anyone, either.
>>
>>
> I think my analogy has been misunderstood, what I was saying is that your
> second amendment gives you a right, it does not follow that having that
> right means that you are required, encouraged or even allowed to use the
> weapon to shoot someone unlawfully.
> Just because you have an instrument available to you does not mean that
> you
> are required, encouraged, allowed or ganted the right to enter cloud per
> se.
> If I have this right if the rules committee made a rule banning handguns
> from being carried in a glider cockpit this would be ruled
> unconstitutional, they can however ban a useful instrument that might save
> your life if you get it wrong, the mind boggles. Yer couldn't make it up
> could you.
> God bless America.
>