Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

[Sean Fidler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
> Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.
>
> As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.
>
> Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?
>
> Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.
>
> What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.
>
> Sean
> F2

I didn't see any VFR into IMC flight :) The RC needs to lighten up IMO.

[GM]

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
> Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.
>
> As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.
>
> Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?
>
> Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.
>
> What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.
>
> Sean
> F2

>>>> Please endure the music and watch this video... <<<<
What's wrong with the music?

[Sean Fidler]

I, personally, like AC/DC ina nostalgic way. I imagine the rules committee being more into classical. Perhaps the occasional jazz flute...

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

[Dave[_26_]]

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
> Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.
>
> As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.
>
> Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?
>
> Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.
>
> What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.
>
> Sean
> F2

Whats your point?

There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.

Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.

Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.

Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.

Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?

-Dave

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks Dave.

The points are intentionally subtle.

To put it into a less subtle form:

....It seems that many or perhaps MOST glide computer & instrument manufacturers (Butterfly, LX NAV, XC SOAR, LK 8000, etc) are indeed building AH capability into their products. Several notables on RAS recently went nuts stating "how dare instrument manufactures include this technology in their wares...etc" Several "organizations" were recently shaken down very directly with ultimatums to ensure new software versions are GUARANTEED not to have the capability to utilize the functionality in ANY WAY etc (or they would be put on a black list and deemed illegal for US contests). Meaning special software versions must be developed by these organizations which absolutely are incapable of utilizing AH functions (BOX OR NO BOX!).

LXNAV seems absolutely untouched in this area even though there product offers highly capably "pro grade" AH functionality complete with a hard mounted fixed gyro, etc. Trust but verify. Here is why...nobody is going to check thru the glider and ID the box. This is a cold hard fact.

So I ask the rules committee VERY DIRECTLY. Is LXNAV going to be required to develop a special US Contest Firmware version (time locked or permanent) which CANNOT utilize the AH box? Thus ENSURING that the AH functionality is unusable on the instrument? Just as ButterflyNAV and XC Soar (and LK 8000) have been forced to do in order to be allowed in US Contests in 2012? Are the LXNAV product owners going to be forced to install these new firmware versions which ensure the functionality is locked out during the entire contest in the same way ButterflyNAV has been asked to do? And in the same way XC Soar is being forced to do for literally no useful reason (its AH functionality is utterly useless).

If not...WHY NOT? Very peculiar. Borderline hypocrisy. Especially when the capability and potential of the new LX NAV AH is considered.

That is my point I guess. I would like to see consistency and all pilots and manufactures inconvenienced equally. ;-)

Sean
F2




On Sunday, April 1, 2012 7:47:31 PM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> >
> > Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.
> >
> > As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.
> >
> > Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?
> >
> > Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.
> >
> > What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.
> >
> > Sean
> > F2
>
> Whats your point?
>
> There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.
>
> Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.
>
> Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.
>
> Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.
>
> Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?
>
> -Dave

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks Dave.

The points are intentionally subtle.

To put it into a less subtle form:

....It seems that many or perhaps MOST glide computer & instrument manufacturers (Butterfly, LX NAV, XC SOAR, LK 8000, etc) are indeed building AH capability into their products. Several notables on RAS recently went nuts stating "how dare instrument manufactures include this technology in their wares...etc" Several "organizations" were recently shaken down with ultimatums from the USRC to ensure new software versions are GUARANTEED to NOT have the capability to utilize AH functionality in ANY WAY etc (or they would be put on a black list and deemed illegal for US contests). This requires special software versions be developed by these "offending" organizations which absolutely GUARANTEES are incapable of utilizing AH functions (BOX OR NO BOX!).

LXNAV seems absolutely untouched in this area even though their new line of products offers highly capably "pro grade" AH functionality complete with a hard mounted fixed gyros, etc. I love the term, "Trust but verify." Here is why...nobody is going to check thru the glider and ID the existence of the box at a regional. This is a cold hard fact. So why not the same standard that has been set just weeks ago for all the rest?

I will ask the rules committee VERY DIRECTLY so there is no confusion.

Is LXNAV going to be required to develop a special US Contest Firmware version (time locked or permanent) which CANNOT utilize the AH box? Thus ENSURING that the AH functionality is unusable on the instrument? Just as ButterflyNAV and XC Soar (and LK 8000) have been forced to do in order to be allowed in US Contests in 2012 (just weeks ago)? Are the LXNAV product owners going to be forced to install these new firmware versions which ensure the functionality is locked out during the entire contest in the same way ButterflyNAV has been asked to do? And in the same way XC Soar is being forced to do for literally no useful reason (its AH functionality is utterly useless).

If not...WHY NOT? I find this all very peculiar and must say it borders on hypocrisy. Especially when the capability and potential of the new LX NAV AH is considered. This "offensive" :-) contest capability must be absolutely ensured INOPERATIVE during contests. These are not my words...but the standard that has been set for us all (pilots and equipment manufactures (and dealers)).

That is my point I guess. I would like to see consistency and all pilots and manufactures (and dealers) inconvenienced equally. ;-)

Sean
F2

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 7:47:31 PM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> >
> > Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.
> >
> > As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.
> >
> > Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?
> >
> > Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.
> >
> > What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.
> >
> > Sean
> > F2
>
> Whats your point?
>
> There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.
>
> Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.
>
> Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.
>
> Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.
>
> Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?
>
> -Dave

[Sean Fidler]

So a completely docile and different approach for a LXNAV, a far more "dangerous" system in terms of AH cheating risk in US Contests. Makes perfect sense really...

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
> Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.
>
> As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.
>
> Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?
>
> Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.
>
> What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.
>
> Sean
> F2

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> Just because IFR may not be permitted in your country, does not mean it
> is not permitted elsewhere.
>
> However, there are moves afoot to facilitate the recording the AH or T&S
> state in the .igc file. So that should keep everyone happy ;=>
>
> Tim Newport-Peace * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."


Just for clarity, the approach of carrying an artificial horizon
enabled instrument, but relying on igc file verification to see it is
turned off, will not work in US contests. US rules say you can't have
the AH in the glider and functional, period.

Why? Pilots carry multiple recorders. So now you have to check all the
files every day, and the scorer needs to know how many you have. Any
broken log now must mean the presumption the AH was on, so zero points
for the day, despite backup logs, and many unhappy pilots. Scorers,
CDs, and our patient software writer Guy Byars have enough to do to
run contests well and monitor basic file security without this extra
step. This isn't the worlds, this is a 20 glider regional with a
volunteer CD and scorer. We have enough, and entirely valid,
complaints about complexity of rules and procedures. We're barely
getting file security checks to work in the field. This would be a
very complex system in practice, with lots of bugs and little
payoff.

If you have an LX, leave the AH module at home for US contests.

John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

Dear USRC,

Should you not IMMEDIATELY require a special US version of the LXNAV firmware for LXNAV 8000, 8080 and 9000 Flight Computers (as IS now required for pilots using the butterfly vario, LK8000 and XCsoar)?

The rules commitee has CLEARLY established precedent for the other "offending" systems of far less capability. As such only a special US rules firmware can eliminate the risk of cheating.

The LXNAV Artificial Horizon product is a highly capable system which is easily accessible to the contest pilot. As shown off in the video advertisement (see first post in thread) the LXNAV AH funtionality is the "real deal" complete with a fixed installation module, calibrated real spinning gyros, etc. It will be highly accurate and capable of accurate cloud flying.

Astonishingly the USRC has not required the manufacturer of this specific system, LXNAV, to provide its US contest pilot customers with a US rules compliant firmware version which ensures the functiinality is impossible to use? Butterfly was required (asked) to provide this kind of US rules "compliant" firmware very early on and Butterfly has the exactly same level of AH technology.

Even LK8000 and XCsoar have been "required" (forced) to build US rules compliant software versions just weeks ago dispite the fact that accurate IMC flight (let alone safe) is literally IMPOSSIBLE with their unfixed, uncalibrated, highly unreliable mobile based electronic gyro's which are designed for "1g" gaming and not contest level flight as Butterfly and LXNAVs systems are specifically designed for.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[Paul Remde]

Hi Sean and everyone,

Interestingly, LXNAV has just announced new firmware version 2.8 for the
LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000. I don't think the details are on their web site
yet. In addition to many cool new features, they announced a new
"Competition Mode" for customers using an AHRS. It makes it possible to
switch off the AHRS for the entire contest period. The screen capture in
the PDF file shows a dialog box appearing on the screen showing "AHRS will
be switched OFF for 14 days! Do you really wish to do that?". This implies
that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be re-enabled for the 14
days.

I imagine that the U.S. Rules Committee will need to approve the new
feature. I don't know whether or not LXNAV has approached the U.S. Rules
Committee in regard to this new feature yet.

It is very easy to remove the AHRS for the entire contest period anyway, but
this new feature would make it so that a pilot couldn't sneak the AHRS back
into the glider during the contest.

I have just installed an LX9000 and AHRS in our DG-1000S. I plan to fly in
a U.S. contest in 2013. If necessary I plan to completely remove the AHRS
from the glider for the duration of the contest. But, I must admit, it
really makes me very, very unhappy/angry that I must remove the AHRS from
the glider, or disable it, or both. I would never use it to cheat. I will
already be agreeing to fly by the rules. It just bugs me that I must
disable this cool and fun high-tech feature because the rules committee
(which I highly respect and appreciate) is worried that pilots would use an
AHRS-like feature to fly up into clouds (which would be unsafe and
cheating).

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"Sean Fidler" > wrote in message
news:11592598.2199.1333289256635.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo2...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to
2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these
well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight
without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as
Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there
software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in
there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will
undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US
contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality
to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

[Max Kellermann]

Paul Remde > wrote:
> This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
> re-enabled for the 14 days.

What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?

I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
without the new AHRS hardware.

(Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)

If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
;-)

I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
"LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/lk8000.git/commit/?id=67c52a848e6b0ab675a3c0cf615859495c5818d2

Given the existence of this patch, contest organizers cannot be sure
whether a pilot's PNA runs an approved LK8000 version or a fake
full-featured version with my patch.

I'm not trying to support cheaters, I just want to make clear that
banning new technology is not a useful measure to prevent cheating.

Max

[PCool]

This statement that you have written a "patch" disabling LK8000 competition
mode is quite untrue.
You are only enabling back the TRI.
On our website we clearly state:

THE ONLY APPROVED AND GRANTED TO BE COMPLIANT VERSIONS FOR COMPETITIONS ARE
DOWNLOADABLE FROM THE OFFICIAL RELEASE AUTHORITY OF THIS SOFTWARE, WHICH IS
lk8000.it .

DOWNLOADING THE SOFTWARE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE DOES NOT - DOES NOT - GRANT
ANY KIND OF COMPLIANCY.

THE CRC/MD5 CHECKSUM FOR THE EXECUTABLES MUST MATCH THOSE OF THE EXECUTABLES
RELEASED BY THE SOFTWARE AUTHORITY.

This is also required by the US RC, and I believe it is a good approach.
In fact, your faked version will not pass the CRC MD5 check, and the user
will be banned as a cheater for the rest of his life.

So your statement
>Given the existence of this patch, contest organizers cannot be sure
>whether a pilot's PNA runs an approved LK8000 version or a fake
>full-featured version with my patch.

is not true. You must do something more than that: fake the CRC MD5
checksum, and make the TRI it fit inside the same number of bytes of the
code.
And by the way, the compiler generating the code for LK8000 has been
recompiled for the purpose, so I doubt you can regenerate the same code.

Too optimistic, I guess.
paolo



"Max Kellermann" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Paul Remde > wrote:
> This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
> re-enabled for the 14 days.

What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?

I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
without the new AHRS hardware.

(Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)

If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
;-)

I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
"LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:

...

[Max Kellermann]

PCool > wrote:
> is not true. You must do something more than that: fake the CRC MD5
> checksum

It seems you do not understand the nature of CRC. "Faking" a CRC is
trivial, and is the most basic property of CRC. Better remove the
mention of CRC from your web site, it's embarassing!

Faking a MD5 checksum is not impossible nowadays, but still harder
than winning a contest. And not required at all for "cheating".

Now you tell me how the contest will verify the MD5 checksum
(practical example, not some theoretical contest organized by some
uber-geek), and I tell you how to get around it easily.

(There are enough catch-all cheats that not even the aforementioned
uber-geek will notice, but I'm curious how you imagine the
verification procedure will work in practice)

> and make the TRI it fit inside the same number of bytes of the
> code.

Don't be silly. That one is just as trivial as "faking" a CRC.

Max

[PCool]

By the way,
http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/HorizonRenderer.cpp?id=v6.2.6c
inside xcsoar 6.2 there is really a Horizon, and US RC require you to remove
that code even if unused, like we did.
Even if unused, the Horizon code is included by the Makefile
http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/Makefile?id=v6.2.6c

So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
competition version of xcsoar too.

regards
paolo




"Max Kellermann" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Paul Remde > wrote:
> This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
> re-enabled for the 14 days.

What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?

I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
without the new AHRS hardware.

(Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)

If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
;-)

I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
"LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:

[PCool]

Thanks, Professor.

"Max Kellermann" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
PCool > wrote:
> is not true. You must do something more than that: fake the CRC MD5
> checksum

It seems you do not understand the nature of CRC. "Faking" a CRC is
trivial, and is the most basic property of CRC. Better remove the
mention of CRC from your web site, it's embarassing!

Faking a MD5 checksum is not impossible nowadays, but still harder
than winning a contest. And not required at all for "cheating".

Now you tell me how the contest will verify the MD5 checksum
(practical example, not some theoretical contest organized by some
uber-geek), and I tell you how to get around it easily.

(There are enough catch-all cheats that not even the aforementioned
uber-geek will notice, but I'm curious how you imagine the
verification procedure will work in practice)

> and make the TRI it fit inside the same number of bytes of the
> code.

Don't be silly. That one is just as trivial as "faking" a CRC.

Max

[Max Kellermann]

PCool > wrote:
> So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
> Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
> competition version of xcsoar too.

Thanks for the nice suggestion, but I suggest you actually read and
understand the code before drawing (the wrong) conclusions.

Max

[PCool]

I did.
I could read:
This feature of having a backup artificial horizon based on inferred
orientation from GPS and vario data is useful, and reasonably well
tested, but has the issue of potentially invalidating use of XCSoar in
FAI contests due to rule ref Annex A to Section 3 (2010 Edition) 4.1.2
"No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to
the ground may be carried on board, even if made unserviceable." The
quality of XCSoar's pseudo-AH is arguably good enough that this
violates the rule. We need to seek clarification as to whether this
is the case or not.

And this feature is included in the 6.2, it does not matter if disabled or
enabled.
The US RC is requesting that such code is not inside the executable.



"Max Kellermann" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
PCool > wrote:
> So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
> Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
> competition version of xcsoar too.

Thanks for the nice suggestion, but I suggest you actually read and
understand the code before drawing (the wrong) conclusions.

Max

[Sean Fidler]

+1 Max. Its a bit like the first attempt at communication with the alien mother ship of Close Encounters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUcOaGawIW0

Its going to take some time to understand eachother!

Paul, I truly appreciate your post on the firmware version and your efforts to smooth the sands. The timing is (shockingly) perfect for LXNAV to release this news. I'll be happy when the USRC makes a specific statement about the requirement for special firmware to ensure that LXNAV's modern instruments AH capability is absolutely inaccessible, just as is required for the others. Firmware and app versions is a fairly weak method of enforcement, FWIW. That said, my posts are intended to engage a broader argument. I hope its starting to sink in a little. Its a pain in the ass for everyone! Fairness and consistency comes into play...

The inconvenience these AH ban rules are increasingly producing (for all of us...dealers, software and hardware manufactures, RC, contest staff and especially pilots who heaven forbid have bought updated systems) greatly outweigh the competition or safety value of banning the flood of AH type functionality in modern (racing level) soaring instruments. I assume the vast majority of US pilots do not cheat by cloud flying. Even with the existing rules...the intelligent cheater is going to EASILY be capable cheat no matter what is written. This is the fact that it most troubling.

It is definitely not enough, in my opinion, for LXNAV customers to "say" that they don't have the AH box installed. Its capability is FAR MORE THREATENING than, for example, mobile phone based systems. The rest of us (Butterfly, LK8000 and XCSoar) are required by USRC to build/install special versions of firmware and software for our products. If Paul's post is correct, add LXNAV to that list assuming the USRC requires it and enforces it. Great. But what does all this effort really gain us?

At a basic level, who is going to enforce the firmware and app versions and confirm them? This is more difficult than it sounds. I could easily switch my SD card on my phone for example with XCSoar. So could a young child. To be effective in any meaningful way these inspections need to be on a daily basis as firmware can be changed in 5 minutes and SD cards can be swapped out in seconds. Etc. The cheating pilot is far more creative than this ban and even strong enforcement levels can detect... The ban does literally nothing to prevent actual illegal cloud flying. It is a very minimal deterrent in general given the level of tools available.

So what is it going to be in regards to LXNAV? USRC required contest firmware version or daily box checks inside the panel? We cant have it both ways, can we? Who will enforce this at contests and to what level & frequency (daily I hope with random spot checks). Can competing pilots request to check other pilots gliders at contests if they suspect cheating?

I suggest that it should NOT be an honor system with LXNAV's $1700 AH system. The LXNAV system is an extremely capable product and should require a much higher standard than useless mobile systems which HAVE ALREADY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED by you to produce US Contest legal versions of their firmware and software.

Sean
F2

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 10:26:15 AM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> Paul Remde
> wrote:
> > This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
> > re-enabled for the 14 days.
>
> What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
> LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?
>
> I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
> upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
> will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
> without the new AHRS hardware.
>
> (Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)
>
> If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
> products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
> electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
> ;-)
>
> I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
> "LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:
>
> http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/lk8000.git/commit/?id=67c52a848e6b0ab675a3c0cf615859495c5818d2
>
> Given the existence of this patch, contest organizers cannot be sure
> whether a pilot's PNA runs an approved LK8000 version or a fake
> full-featured version with my patch.
>
> I'm not trying to support cheaters, I just want to make clear that
> banning new technology is not a useful measure to prevent cheating.
>
> Max

[Tobias Bieniek]

That is obviously wrong. The AH in 6.2 is bugged and will never be drawn even if the code exists to draw it... How can you prove that such code isn't included in WinPilot, SeeYou, Strepla, etc.?!

[PCool]

So you are confirming that the Horizon code is in the 6.2 version.
You say it is bugged, but the code says the contrary:

Quoted from xcsoar code:
This feature of having a backup artificial horizon based on inferred
orientation from GPS and vario data is useful, and reasonably well
tested, but has the issue of potentially invalidating use of XCSoar in
FAI contests due to rule ref Annex A to Section 3 (2010 Edition) 4.1.2

And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.

Let me add that it was not smart nor clever to come here declaring that it
is easy to cheat by adulterating other's software.
The only software proven to be invalid right now is xcsoar in fact, and
there is no need to adulterate it, because it comes out naturally invalid.

Winpilot, SeeYou, Stretpla, LK, LX8000... why are xcsoar developers
concerned only about what others are doing?
You cannot prove that these software have illegal code inside, but now
everyone know by xcsoar's own admission that Xcsoar has it.
Nice move.

paolo





"Tobias Bieniek" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20728050.2799.1333488993408.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbex14...
That is obviously wrong. The AH in 6.2 is bugged and will never be drawn
even if the code exists to draw it... How can you prove that such code isn't
included in WinPilot, SeeYou, Strepla, etc.?!

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=XCSoar+No+Horizon&c=apps

Works for me.

T8

[Blue Whale]

To Sean's point, will there be x-ray machines and random strip searches on the grid before each day's launch to ensure no one has a PNA hidden in their jockey shorts?

[Max Kellermann]

PCool > wrote:
> And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
> US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
> The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.

According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!


I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
fool of yourself:

Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.

I mean, really explain. Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
visual reference to the ground.

Max

[Peter Scholz[_3_]]

Am 04.04.2012 09:27, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > wrote:
>> And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
>> US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
>> The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.
>
> According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
> of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!
>
>
> I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
> never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
> to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
> fool of yourself:
>
> Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.
>
> I mean, really explain. Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
> there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
> the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
> horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
> visual reference to the ground.
>
> Max

Max & Paolo,

I would like to ask you kindly, could you please move your personal
discussion off to a more private terrain. I guess you know how to reach
each other via E-Mail, there is no need to bother the whole r.a.s.
community with this rather special dialog.

I don't want a flame war like we had a couple of years ago.

Thank you for your cooperation.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Apr 4, 3:27*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> PCool > wrote:
> > And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
> > US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
> > The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.
>
> According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
> of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!
>
> I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
> never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
> to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
> fool of yourself:
>
> *Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.
>
> I mean, really explain. *Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
> there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
> the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
> horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
> visual reference to the ground.
>
> Max

It doesn't, of course. FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
it's still broken, doesn't display at all.

XCS developers, please just take this annoying, troublesome, untested,
non-working TOY out of your otherwise excellent code and just leave it
out. It serves no useful purpose.

There are plenty of other android horizon type applications out there
that people can amuse themselves with should they choose to do so.

T8

[Sean Fidler]

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:22:32 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> https://play.google.com/store/search?q=XCSoar+No+Horizon&c=apps
>
> Works for me.
>
> T8

Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

[Sean Fidler]

What is the definition of AH toy? AH's that have a chance that they may actually allow cloud flying and AH's that have no chance?

The "toy" is not the problem. The problem (as this thread intends to point out) is the useless, outdated, nonenforceable, unenforced and unnecessary rule and all the hassle it is causing everyone (example: you trying to communicate with the rules committee on how ineffective XC soars AH is). The rule has no fundamental or measurable benefit other than making the traditional guard happy (who really do not understand the capability of the technology in my opinion) and irritating alot of people all over the world.

The rule should be for fixed gyro's only (systems which might actually work)...not cell phones with unfixed, un-calibrated solid state gyro's designed for rudimentary 1g gaming. The rule should be strictly, actively enforced or removed entirely.

Back to topic. LX NAV's system is clearly usable for cloud flying? Were is my statement on USRC policy outlawing its presence at contests? Hello RC....I know your'e reading this... We are waiting..............

Sean
F2

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 6:23:51 AM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> On Apr 4, 3:27*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> > PCool > wrote:
> > > And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
> > > US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
> > > The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.
> >
> > According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
> > of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!
> >
> > I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
> > never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
> > to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
> > fool of yourself:
> >
> > *Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.
> >
> > I mean, really explain. *Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
> > there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
> > the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
> > horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
> > visual reference to the ground.
> >
> > Max
>
> It doesn't, of course. FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
> last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
> silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
> it's still broken, doesn't display at all.
>
> XCS developers, please just take this annoying, troublesome, untested,
> non-working TOY out of your otherwise excellent code and just leave it
> out. It serves no useful purpose.
>
> There are plenty of other android horizon type applications out there
> that people can amuse themselves with should they choose to do so.
>
> T8

[kirk.stant]

Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?

The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!

All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. That includes the latest smartphones. Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!

If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!

If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.

And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.

But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!

OK, I'll shut up now. Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Dave[_26_]]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:50:21 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> What is the definition of AH toy? AH's that have a chance that they may actually allow cloud flying and AH's that have no chance?
>
> The "toy" is not the problem. The problem (as this thread intends to point out) is the useless, outdated, nonenforceable, unenforced and unnecessary rule and all the hassle it is causing everyone (example: you trying to communicate with the rules committee on how ineffective XC soars AH is). The rule has no fundamental or measurable benefit other than making the traditional guard happy (who really do not understand the capability of the technology in my opinion) and irritating alot of people all over the world.
>
> The rule should be for fixed gyro's only (systems which might actually work)...not cell phones with unfixed, un-calibrated solid state gyro's designed for rudimentary 1g gaming. The rule should be strictly, actively enforced or removed entirely.
>
> Back to topic. LX NAV's system is clearly usable for cloud flying? Were is my statement on USRC policy outlawing its presence at contests? Hello RC...I know your'e reading this... We are waiting..............
>
> Sean
> F2
>
What are you waiting for? The policy published in Feb fits this perfectly.

Don't bring an LX with the external AHRS plugged into it. If you must, disable it and get a waiver. Its up to the individual competitor to get the waiver. Its not initiated by the RC.

-Dave

[Sean Fidler]

Kurt, So unsurprisingly you want me to go away. Got it. But not going to happen. Do you have a LX product? Sorry it is nothing personal...

I want to see everyone's feet held to the same fire. The standard has been set clearly by USRC. If other software/hardware possesses AH capability (of any level of usefulness) the they must be forced to build a special version of firmware or software. LXNAV (and any other "offenders") should be "required" to provide its customers a special version as the others have been forced to do. Reason: nobody is going to check under the panel and the technology is very capable. Double standards are afoot. We have a big double standard in the case of LXNAV vs. Butterfly, XCSoar or LK8000.

The USRC has opened this can of worms. But they are only forcing a couple parties to eat them. We all must eat the same worms. Now lets dig in! Ummmmm!

Sean
F2

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 1:24:07 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?
>
> The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!
>
> All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. That includes the latest smartphones. Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!
>
> If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!
>
> If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.
>
> And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.
>
> But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!
>
> OK, I'll shut up now. Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

[Max Kellermann]

Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

You mean the one with the ostrich? ;-)

Anyway, this is not an official build, it was not published by the
XCSoar project. It's open source, anybody can modify XCSoar and
publish modified versions.

Max

[Sean Fidler]

Nice try Dave but no cigar.

A special firmware must guarantee that LXNAV's AH system cannot be switched back on in the night, just as Buttefly has been forced to do with their Vario...

Cant have double standards here...no no!

The special firmware should be timestamped and easily identifiable for the CD or other pilots wishing to ensure cloud flying cannot occur without great personal risks!

You know its not personal in any way...:-)

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:19:32 PM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:50:21 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > What is the definition of AH toy? AH's that have a chance that they may actually allow cloud flying and AH's that have no chance?
> >
> > The "toy" is not the problem. The problem (as this thread intends to point out) is the useless, outdated, nonenforceable, unenforced and unnecessary rule and all the hassle it is causing everyone (example: you trying to communicate with the rules committee on how ineffective XC soars AH is). The rule has no fundamental or measurable benefit other than making the traditional guard happy (who really do not understand the capability of the technology in my opinion) and irritating alot of people all over the world.
> >
> > The rule should be for fixed gyro's only (systems which might actually work)...not cell phones with unfixed, un-calibrated solid state gyro's designed for rudimentary 1g gaming. The rule should be strictly, actively enforced or removed entirely.
> >
> > Back to topic. LX NAV's system is clearly usable for cloud flying? Were is my statement on USRC policy outlawing its presence at contests? Hello RC...I know your'e reading this... We are waiting..............
> >
> > Sean
> > F2
> >
> What are you waiting for? The policy published in Feb fits this perfectly..
>
> Don't bring an LX with the external AHRS plugged into it. If you must, disable it and get a waiver. Its up to the individual competitor to get the waiver. Its not initiated by the RC.
>
> -Dave

[Sean Fidler]

Can you send me the file in as much resolution as possible? I would like to make T-Shirts for contests this year!

smfidlerATgmail.com

Long live the resistance!

SeanOn Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:52:07 PM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
>
> You mean the one with the ostrich? ;-)
>
> Anyway, this is not an official build, it was not published by the
> XCSoar project. It's open source, anybody can modify XCSoar and
> publish modified versions.
>
> Max

[Max Kellermann]

Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> It doesn't, of course. FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
> last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
> silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
> it's still broken, doesn't display at all.

I never claimed that XCSoar's horizon in any version actually works or
is useful, did I?

The people who suggest that XCSoar will be banned should first do
their homework check if any version of XCSoar really violates the FAI
Sporting Code. It's not a good idea to do this whole discussion based
on rumors. That just produces large amounts of hot air. On the other
hand, entities producing hot air can be very useful for our sport ;-)

Max

[Max Kellermann]

Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Can you send me the file in as much resolution as possible? I would like to make T-Shirts for contests this year!

Unfortunately, the ostrich was copied from a copyrighted image which
we are not allowed to redistribute, and nobody took the time to
find/create a free image. Volunteers welcome.

Max

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Apr 4, 3:06*pm, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> > It doesn't, of course. *FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
> > last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
> > silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
> > it's still broken, doesn't display at all.
>
> I never claimed that XCSoar's horizon in any version actually works or
> is useful, did I?
>
> The people who suggest that XCSoar will be banned should first do
> their homework check if any version of XCSoar really violates the FAI
> Sporting Code. *It's not a good idea to do this whole discussion based
> on rumors. *That just produces large amounts of hot air. *On the other
> hand, entities producing hot air can be very useful for our sport ;-)
>
> Max

I have not yet seen a version of XCSoar that I would trust to fly
"without reference to ground", even in an emergency. In fact, I have
not yet seen a version of XCS that displays anything more than a
static picture of an AH display, and most of them don't even do that.
So again, I see no point to having this bit of code in there and
arousing suspicion. It's completely pointless.

FWIW, I'm flying XCS in competition, very shortly, at R5N. I don't
expect to have an argument about that. I'll use the "No Horizon"
version, though as I've said, it doesn't appear to make any functional
difference. If the CD or RC or any other contest personnel have
questions or concerns about XCS, I'll do my best to answer them
completely and honestly. (and it would be great to get that taken
care of ahead of time)

T8

[toad]

On Apr 4, 1:24*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?
>
> The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. *Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!
>
> All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. *Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. *That includes the latest smartphones. *Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!
>
> If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!
>
> If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.
>
> And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.
>
> But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!
>
> OK, I'll shut up now. *Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66

If you want a backup, try this. I bet it would even get past the
strip search.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/beliteturn003.php

Todd

[Dave[_26_]]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 12:58:48 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Nice try Dave but no cigar.
>
> A special firmware must guarantee that LXNAV's AH system cannot be switched back on in the night, just as Buttefly has been forced to do with their Vario...
>
> Cant have double standards here...no no!
>
> The special firmware should be timestamped and easily identifiable for the CD or other pilots wishing to ensure cloud flying cannot occur without great personal risks!
>
> You know its not personal in any way...:-)
>

It can't be switched on in the night if its not there. This capability only comes with an external gyro package. Even I could tell if its there or not with a quick visual inspection.

If the gyro package is installed, it must be disabled and the same waiver requirements apply to LX as any other instrument. Check the policy again. Sounds like LX read the policy and made changes to support a waiver without your help.

So what response are you waiting for from the RC? Did you ask for a waiver?

-Dave

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Apr 4, 3:54*pm, toad > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:24*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?
>
> > The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. *Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!
>
> > All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. *Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. *That includes the latest smartphones. *Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!
>
> > If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!
>
> > If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.
>
> > And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.
>
> > But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!
>
> > OK, I'll shut up now. *Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> If you want a backup, try this. *I bet it would even get past the
> strip search.http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/beliteturn003.php
>
> Todd

lol. that might even be crappier than some of the phone apps I've
seen.

T8

[Sean Fidler]

Only $139! Sweet!

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:54:17 PM UTC-4, toad wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:24*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?
> >
> > The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. *Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!
> >
> > All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. *Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. *That includes the latest smartphones. *Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!
> >
> > If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!
> >
> > If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.
> >
> > And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.
> >
> > But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!
> >
> > OK, I'll shut up now. *Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> If you want a backup, try this. I bet it would even get past the
> strip search.
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/beliteturn003.php
>
> Todd

[toad]

>
> lol. *that might even be crappier than some of the phone apps I've
> seen.
>
> T8

Nah, I expect it actually could be pretty decent. Remember, all that
it needs is 1 solid state rate gyro and circuity to light up the led
indicators.

I had asked one of the flight control engineers how much a decent gyro
would cost, about $100 was his answer. So I think with bulk purchase
this think mighty actually be made with decent components.

I only need it for letting down through that cloud when the wave whole
disappears or the lennie moves forward unexpectedly :-)

Todd

[Sean Fidler]

How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.

https://plus.google.com/photos/107761712519280835678/albums/5727652900309699361

[Max Kellermann]

Sean Fidler > wrote:
> How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.
>
> https://plus.google.com/photos/107761712519280835678/albums/5727652900309699361

LOL, I would "+1" this if I had an account :-)

[kirk.stant]

Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66

[Ventus_a]

[QUOTE=kirk.stant;812642]Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66[/QUOTE

Well said Kirk

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 00:33 05 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
>Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away,
I
>=
>want you to GROW UP!
>
>You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you
>repeat=
> the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march
>o=
>f progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your
>g=
>lider.
>
>Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your
rants.
>
>Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in
>your=
> glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout,
>and=
> have fun. =20
>
>Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would
>ha=
>ve been in "FU!"
>
>Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it
>is,=
> you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC,
>or=
> had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they
are
>=
>to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Kirk
>66
If all else fails you can still shoot them with your Sig Sauer, which you
are allowed to carry with you in the cockpit. :-)

[Sean F2]

Kirk,

You make many assumptions about what you think I want. Most are wrong. Really wrong. Nothing personal but **** off.

I have no interest in an AH in my glider. Rules are rules but the rulemaker has to defend them occasionally. That goes with the territory. I wish to see all pilots and manufacturers inconvienenced equally by the USRC rules.. Right now that is not EVEN CLOSE to happening. There is a distinct double standard. It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers saying "its ok...wink....ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink...;-)

Get over it. I have no personal issue with the people of the RC. I have a really big issue with the manner they have handled this rule policy. It needs to be tightened up and enforcement needs to be far better defined.

Any logical person can see the massive steaming pile of double standard here. I need it bagged up...not left on the sidewalk for people to step in this summer.

[David Reitter]

On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:

> It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the
> manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see
> a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers
> saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink...;-)

I think there's a misunderstanding.

A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to accomplish.

Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box -> no IMC instrument. No XCSoar with "horizon" -> no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14 days -> no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.

[Wayne Paul]

Anyone remember "Lennie the Lurker?" This thread is starting to look like
he has been reincarnated.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:12283817.128.1333546526179.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc18...

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:22:32 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
> https://play.google.com/store/search?q=XCSoar+No+Horizon&c=apps
>
> Works for me.
>
> T8

Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider
updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

[Dan Marotta]

I've been thinking exactly the same thing!


"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone remember "Lennie the Lurker?" This thread is starting to look like
> he has been reincarnated.
>
>
> "Sean Fidler" wrote in message
> news:12283817.128.1333546526179.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc18...
>
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:22:32 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
>> https://play.google.com/store/search?q=XCSoar+No+Horizon&c=apps
>>
>> Works for me.
>>
>> T8
>
> Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider
> updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
>
>

[Sean F2]

XC Soar and LK8000 are useless mobile based, unfixed 1g gyro's on mobile phones and faced direct demands from the USRC.

LXNAV has a huge high priced capability and not a peep?

Follow the money...



On Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:23:37 AM UTC-4, David Reitter wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:
>
> > It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the
> > manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see
> > a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers
> > saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink....;-)
>
> I think there's a misunderstanding.
>
> A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to accomplish.
>
> Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box -> no IMC instrument. No XCSoar with "horizon" -> no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14 days -> no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.

[Papa3[_2_]]

Sean,

You really are a prick.

P3

[Paul Remde]

Hi Sean,

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The XCSoar and LK8000 software
products (which I hear are very nice) are (if I understand correctly)
opensource products. The code is freely available.

The LXNAV LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 are not opensource. They are products
that have firmware that is not freely available. Updates to those LXNAV
products is done by requesting a new version of the firmware from LXNAV
which is tied to a particular unit serial number. It would not be possible
for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes to those products. They have
recently implemented features in the firmware which make it easy to disable
the artificial horizon for 14 days - longer than any contest. Also, it is
easy for any contest official to look inside the glider and determine
whether or not the AHRS unit is installed and connected to the flight
computer. It connects to the flight computer using a standard USB cable.
If there is no USB cable connected to the flight computer, then the AHRS is
not connected. This is much different than the opensource software issues.

However, I strongly agree with you that it is silly and frustrating that the
rule committee has decided to restrict our technology. It discourages
innovation and discourages pilots from flying in U.S. soaring competitions.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"Sean F2" > wrote in message
news:32549288.367.1333683984277.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36...
XC Soar and LK8000 are useless mobile based, unfixed 1g gyro's on mobile
phones and faced direct demands from the USRC.

LXNAV has a huge high priced capability and not a peep?

Follow the money...



On Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:23:37 AM UTC-4, David Reitter wrote:
> On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:
>
> > It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some
> > and not for the
> > manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying"
> > capability. We need to see
> > a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers
> > and customers
> > saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink
> > wink...;-)
>
> I think there's a misunderstanding.
>
> A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying
> instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can
> circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar
> version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a
> data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your
> sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to
> accomplish.
>
> Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The
> may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly
> in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they
> apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box -> no IMC instrument. No
> XCSoar with "horizon" -> no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14
> days -> no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 12:11:01 PM UTC-4, Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> I'm not sure I understand your argument. The XCSoar and LK8000 software
> products (which I hear are very nice) are (if I understand correctly)
> opensource products. The code is freely available.
>
> The LXNAV LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 are not opensource. They are products
> that have firmware that is not freely available. Updates to those LXNAV
> products is done by requesting a new version of the firmware from LXNAV
> which is tied to a particular unit serial number. It would not be possible
> for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes to those products. They have
> recently implemented features in the firmware which make it easy to disable
> the artificial horizon for 14 days - longer than any contest. Also, it is
> easy for any contest official to look inside the glider and determine
> whether or not the AHRS unit is installed and connected to the flight
> computer. It connects to the flight computer using a standard USB cable.
> If there is no USB cable connected to the flight computer, then the AHRS is
> not connected. This is much different than the opensource software issues.
>
> However, I strongly agree with you that it is silly and frustrating that the
> rule committee has decided to restrict our technology. It discourages
> innovation and discourages pilots from flying in U.S. soaring competitions.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Sean F2" > wrote in message
> news:32549288.367.1333683984277.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36...
> XC Soar and LK8000 are useless mobile based, unfixed 1g gyro's on mobile
> phones and faced direct demands from the USRC.
>
> LXNAV has a huge high priced capability and not a peep?
>
> Follow the money...
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:23:37 AM UTC-4, David Reitter wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:
> >
> > > It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some
> > > and not for the
> > > manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying"
> > > capability. We need to see
> > > a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers
> > > and customers
> > > saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink
> > > wink...;-)
> >
> > I think there's a misunderstanding.
> >
> > A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying
> > instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can
> > circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar
> > version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a
> > data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your
> > sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to
> > accomplish.
> >
> > Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The
> > may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly
> > in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they
> > apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box -> no IMC instrument. No
> > XCSoar with "horizon" -> no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14
> > days -> no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.

With all due respect, the RC has not "decided" to restrict anything. What the RC has done is provide a way for instrument manufacturers and software developers who choose to include AH capability in their product to remain compliant with a very long standing (decades) FAI rule.

QT
Rules Committee

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 18:35 06 April 2012, John Godfrey QT wrote:

>
>With all due respect, the RC has not "decided" to restrict anything.
What
>=
>the RC has done is provide a way for instrument manufacturers and
software
>=
>developers who choose to include AH capability in their product to remain
>c=
>ompliant with a very long standing (decades) FAI rule.
>
>QT
>Rules Committee

It is not an FAI Rule. Nothing to prevent the fitting or indeed use of AH
in civilised parts of the world. By all means restrict the members in your
own country if that is your wish but accept that it is totally your
responsibility not the FAI.
>

[[email protected]]

All this defending of the "march of technology" by Sean makes me wonder if I am the only one not climbing into the clouds? I use LK8000 competition version and can attest that it still does everything I need to do in VFR weather.

Lane
XF

[Sean F2]

On Friday, April 6, 2012 7:23:43 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> Sean,
>
> You really are a prick.
>
> P3

Anytime.

[Kevin Christner]

Once again I urge you to sell your glider

On Apr 4, 2:32*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Kurt, So unsurprisingly you want me to go away. *Got it. *But not going to happen. *Do you have a LX product? *Sorry it is nothing personal....
>
> I want to see everyone's feet held to the same fire. *The standard has been set clearly by USRC. *If other software/hardware possesses AH capability (of any level of usefulness) the they must be forced to build a special version of firmware or software. *LXNAV (and any other "offenders") should be "required" to provide its customers a special version as the others have been forced to do. *Reason: *nobody is going to check under the panel and the technology is very capable. *Double standards are afoot. *We have a big double standard in the case of LXNAV vs. Butterfly, XCSoar or LK8000.
>
> The USRC has opened this can of worms. *But they are only forcing a couple parties to eat them. *We all must eat the same worms. *Now lets dig in! *Ummmmm!
>
> Sean
> F2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 1:24:07 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> > Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?
>
> > The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. *Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!
>
> > All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. *Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. *That includes the latest smartphones. *Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!
>
> > If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!
>
> > If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.
>
> > And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.
>
> > But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!
>
> > OK, I'll shut up now. *Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Kirk
> > 66

[Papa3[_2_]]

Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships. It's terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of its Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..


On Friday, April 6, 2012 6:42:21 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 18:35 06 April 2012, John Godfrey QT wrote:
>
> >
> >With all due respect, the RC has not "decided" to restrict anything.
> What
> >=
> >the RC has done is provide a way for instrument manufacturers and
> software
> >=
> >developers who choose to include AH capability in their product to remain
> >c=
> >ompliant with a very long standing (decades) FAI rule.
> >
> >QT
> >Rules Committee
>
> It is not an FAI Rule. Nothing to prevent the fitting or indeed use of AH
> in civilised parts of the world. By all means restrict the members in your
> own country if that is your wish but accept that it is totally your
> responsibility not the FAI.
> >

[Sean F2]

Kevin,

If you really want to urge me to do something I suggest you do it in person, man to man. I truly look forward to this moment. Until then Kevin.

Sean

On Friday, April 6, 2012 8:17:58 PM UTC-4, Kevin Christner wrote:
> Once again I urge you to sell your glider
>
> On Apr 4, 2:32*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > Kurt, So unsurprisingly you want me to go away. *Got it. *But not going to happen. *Do you have a LX product? *Sorry it is nothing personal...
> >
> > I want to see everyone's feet held to the same fire. *The standard has been set clearly by USRC. *If other software/hardware possesses AH capability (of any level of usefulness) the they must be forced to build a special version of firmware or software. *LXNAV (and any other "offenders") should be "required" to provide its customers a special version as the others have been forced to do. *Reason: *nobody is going to check under the panel and the technology is very capable. *Double standards are afoot. *We have a big double standard in the case of LXNAV vs. Butterfly, XCSoar or LK8000.
> >
> > The USRC has opened this can of worms. *But they are only forcing a couple parties to eat them. *We all must eat the same worms. *Now lets dig in! *Ummmmm!
> >
> > Sean
> > F2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 1:24:07 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> > > Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?
> >
> > > The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. *Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!
> >
> > > All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. *Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. *That includes the latest smartphones. *Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!
> >
> > > If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!
> >
> > > If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.
> >
> > > And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.
> >
> > > But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!
> >
> > > OK, I'll shut up now. *Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.
> >
> > > Cheers,
> >
> > > Kirk
> > > 66

[Max Kellermann]

Paul Remde > wrote:
> It would not be possible for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes
> to those products.

Paul, that is wrong, did you read my reply to your first post here?

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
>Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
>Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
>terribly inconvenient for your argument:
>
>4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
>Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
>a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
>Fly not excluding competitions.
>b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
>briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
>configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
>unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
>it
>is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
>permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
>carried
>on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
>instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
>..
>
Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:36:41 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
> >Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
> >Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
> It's
> >terribly inconvenient for your argument:
> >
> >4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
> its
> >Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
> >a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
> to
> >Fly not excluding competitions.
> >b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
> >briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
> >configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
> >unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
> >it
> >is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
> >permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
> >carried
> >on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
> >instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
> >..
> >
> Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
> misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
> like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
> does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
> you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
> the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
> unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
> and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
> flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
> instrument, just plain crazy.
> You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
> Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
> one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
> come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

that is the FAI rule for world and continental championships.

[Sean F2]

I flew with XC soar 6.3 and the AH actually worked (looks like an actual AH, globe blue top/brown bottom). It seems to function fairly well...but i could not figure out how accurate it was. I think it was simply using GPS alt and heading...not really a gyro funtion becuase it was easy to trick with skids, slips and inverted flight. This was the first time I have seen it function. As much of a toy as any other mobile based AH, but neat! Well done Max and team.

As to the arguments that LXNAV is exempt from firmware requirements via USRC (when Butterfly and others are not) to be legal to fly in US contests...I simply disgree. The current LXNAV firmare has the AH mode code needed to utilize harware which going to be burried in the panel or elsewhere.

The LXNAV firmware is ready to go, AH capable (this is a fact)...and nobody is going to check to confirm if the AH box exists or is plugged in. Do the only way to be sure is to require special firmware as butterfly has built.. Dangerous stuff indeed.

I think the RC needs to clarify this...

As for the personal comments I am amused. This should not be that emotionally stimulating...

Sean

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
> >Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
> >Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
> It's
> >terribly inconvenient for your argument:
> >
> >4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
> its
> >Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
> >a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
> to
> >Fly not excluding competitions.
> >b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
> >briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
> >configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
> >unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
> >it
> >is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
> >permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
> >carried
> >on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
> >instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
> >..
> >
> Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
> misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
> like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
> does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
> you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
> the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
> unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
> and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
> flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
> instrument, just plain crazy.
> You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
> Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
> one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
> come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

Don - Sporting Code = FAI = International Rules. Largely written and influenced by the former Colonial Powers.

[rk]

I suggest that we rewrite FAI Sporting Code and any national rules for the simple reason of stopping these endless threads.

[[email protected]]

Where is the AH in XCSOAR 6.3? I've looked through all the menus and don't see it. Is there special confuguration to enable it or something?

Running XCS standard build 6.3.


On Saturday, April 7, 2012 1:34:23 PM UTC-5, Sean F2 wrote:
> I flew with XC soar 6.3 and the AH actually worked (looks like an actual AH, globe blue top/brown bottom). It seems to function fairly well...but i could not figure out how accurate it was. I think it was simply using GPS alt and heading...not really a gyro funtion becuase it was easy to trick with skids, slips and inverted flight. This was the first time I have seen it function. As much of a toy as any other mobile based AH, but neat! Well done Max and team.
>
> As to the arguments that LXNAV is exempt from firmware requirements via USRC (when Butterfly and others are not) to be legal to fly in US contests....I simply disgree. The current LXNAV firmare has the AH mode code needed to utilize harware which going to be burried in the panel or elsewhere.
>
> The LXNAV firmware is ready to go, AH capable (this is a fact)...and nobody is going to check to confirm if the AH box exists or is plugged in. Do the only way to be sure is to require special firmware as butterfly has built. Dangerous stuff indeed.
>
> I think the RC needs to clarify this...
>
> As for the personal comments I am amused. This should not be that emotionally stimulating...
>
> Sean

[BobW]

On 4/7/2012 1:50 PM, rk wrote:
> I suggest that we rewrite FAI Sporting Code and any national rules for the
> simple reason of stopping these endless threads.

Heh.

And fully realizing we both are contributors to the "endlessness", rk's post
did raise a (serious) question in my noodle.

Is the objection to: a) the thread length; b) the (entirely unnecessary and
easily avoidable, it seems to me) unpleasantness of a number of the posts; c)
the very topic; d) other???

It is, after all, easy enough to ignore reading posts...

Bob - curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back - W.

[Paul Remde]

"Max Kellermann" > wrote in message
...
Paul Remde > wrote:
> It would not be possible for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes
> to those products.

Paul, that is wrong, did you read my reply to your first post here?

___________________

Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the LXNAV
LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?

In your first reply I assumed that you were saying LX8000 when you meant
LK8000.

Paul Remde

[Paul Remde]

"Sean F2" > wrote in message
news:18597873.26.1333823663671.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbuc18...
I flew with XC soar 6.3 and the AH actually worked (looks like an actual AH,
globe blue top/brown bottom). It seems to function fairly well...but i
could not figure out how accurate it was. I think it was simply using GPS
alt and heading...not really a gyro funtion becuase it was easy to trick
with skids, slips and inverted flight. This was the first time I have seen
it function. As much of a toy as any other mobile based AH, but neat! Well
done Max and team.

As to the arguments that LXNAV is exempt from firmware requirements via USRC
(when Butterfly and others are not) to be legal to fly in US contests...I
simply disgree. The current LXNAV firmare has the AH mode code needed to
utilize harware which going to be burried in the panel or elsewhere.

The LXNAV firmware is ready to go, AH capable (this is a fact)...and nobody
is going to check to confirm if the AH box exists or is plugged in. Do the
only way to be sure is to require special firmware as butterfly has built.
Dangerous stuff indeed.

I think the RC needs to clarify this...

As for the personal comments I am amused. This should not be that
emotionally stimulating...

Sean
______________

Hi Sean,

I don't see anyone saying that LXNAV is exempt from anything. But it seems
to me that LXNAV has already met the requirements in the same way that
Butterfly has. The AHRS can be disabled for 14 days. And/or it can be
removed from the glider. I don't know what could be more rules compliant
than that.

Paul Remde

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:10:29 -0700, resigler wrote:

> Where is the AH in XCSOAR 6.3? I've looked through all the menus and
> don't see it. Is there special confuguration to enable it or something?
>
> Running XCS standard build 6.3.
>
Its an info box - at least it is in 6.2.5.


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

[Max Kellermann]

Paul Remde > wrote:
> Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the LXNAV
> LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?

The LXNav products are just Linux PCs, and it is easy to install a
customized firmware.

The LXNav firmware update comes with a shell script that gets executed
on the LX8000 (autorun.sh), and that would be the easiest hook of all
to get custom code in.

Once you have your custom AH code in, you can easily run it as a Linux
daemon, overlaying its data on the Linux frame buffer (/dev/fb0).

To detect such a hack, you would need to inspect all of the LX8000's
memory, it would be as hard as detecting a computer virus or a
rootkit. In other words: practically impossible for a competition to
do.

(The same is true for any other flight computer, the LX8000 is just an
example, because my club has one and I know well how the firmware
works)

> In your first reply I assumed that you were saying LX8000 when you meant
> LK8000.

No. The LK8000 name was explicitly choosen to get mixed up with
LX8000, to benefit from its good name, but no I really meant LXNav
LX8000.

Max

[Ventus_a]

I shouldn't really but want to see if any out there have seen this?

http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS_mini.htm

Looks a cool piece of kit. Pity I'm not into cloud flying otherwise this could be quite compelling.

Colin

p.s. I don't live in the US or contest fly

[Dan Marotta]

This should be mandatory in the US! Of course we won't fly into clouds
because we're all honest. The Rules Committee should OK this immediately
for the safety of all! Tax payers should gladly purchase these for all
glider pilots!

Uhhhh... Nevermind...



"Ventus_a" > wrote in message
...
>
> I shouldn't really but want to see if any out there have seen this?
>
> http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS_mini.htm
>
> Looks a cool piece of kit. Pity I'm not into cloud flying otherwise
> this could be quite compelling.
>
> Colin
>
> -p.s.- I don't live in the US or contest fly
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ventus_a

[Dan Marotta]

Actually, that looks like a cool toy for an experimental aircraft. Too bad
there's no room in my LAK and I'd rather be looking outside anyway.


"Dan Marotta" > wrote in message
...
> This should be mandatory in the US! Of course we won't fly into clouds
> because we're all honest. The Rules Committee should OK this immediately
> for the safety of all! Tax payers should gladly purchase these for all
> glider pilots!
>
> Uhhhh... Nevermind...
>
>
>
> "Ventus_a" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I shouldn't really but want to see if any out there have seen this?
>>
>> http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS_mini.htm
>>
>> Looks a cool piece of kit. Pity I'm not into cloud flying otherwise
>> this could be quite compelling.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> -p.s.- I don't live in the US or contest fly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ventus_a
>

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 5:26:50 PM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> Sean Fidler > wrote:
> > How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.
> >
> > https://plus.google.com/photos/107761712519280835678/albums/5727652900309699361
>
> LOL, I would "+1" this if I had an account :-)

Don't forget to copy the FAI, I'm sure they will enjoy it also.
FAI Sporting Code (Section 3, Annex A, 4.1.2b)

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 06:42 09 April 2012, Max Kellermann wrote:
>Paul Remde wrote:
>> Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the
LXNAV
>
>> LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?
>
>The LXNav products are just Linux PCs, and it is easy to install a
>customized firmware.
>
>The LXNav firmware update comes with a shell script that gets executed
>on the LX8000 (autorun.sh), and that would be the easiest hook of all
>to get custom code in.
>
>Once you have your custom AH code in, you can easily run it as a Linux
>daemon, overlaying its data on the Linux frame buffer (/dev/fb0).
>
>To detect such a hack, you would need to inspect all of the LX8000's
>memory, it would be as hard as detecting a computer virus or a
>rootkit. In other words: practically impossible for a competition to
>do.
>
>(The same is true for any other flight computer, the LX8000 is just an
>example, because my club has one and I know well how the firmware
>works)
>
Seriously this identifies the problem with this sort of rule: it is
impossible to enforce. A rule that cannot be enforced, like a law that is
not enforced is seldom complied with even by "honest" people. Pandora is
out of the box, technology has overtaken the ability to detect the fitting
or use of such an instrument. The FAI is as out of touch with reality on
this as they are with flight recorders, hacking the code for IGC files is
now so simple that it is no longer secure and it matters not how long the
key is. (The private key is in every flight recorder produced so all you
have to so is break into the software to get it, who wants to try and
compute it from the public key?)
When making rules one of the primary considerations should be "can it be
enforced"? Far to often the answer is no but ignorant people still make the
rule.

[Marc]

On Apr 13, 5:50*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> (The private key is in every flight recorder produced so all you
> have to so is break into the software to get it, who wants to try and
> compute it from the public key?)

The correct wording here would be that "A private key is in every
flight recorder produced so all you have to do is break into the
hardware to get it". Thank you for warning us, every badge or record
flight made by you or your mates in the future will require that the
flight recorder be sent to the IGC for inspection 8^)

Marc

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 01:19 14 April 2012, Marc wrote:
>On Apr 13, 5:50=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> (The private key is in every flight recorder produced so all you
>> have to so is break into the software to get it, who wants to try and
>> compute it from the public key?)
>
>The correct wording here would be that "A private key is in every
>flight recorder produced so all you have to do is break into the
>hardware to get it". Thank you for warning us, every badge or record
>flight made by you or your mates in the future will require that the
>flight recorder be sent to the IGC for inspection 8^)
>
>Marc
>
That is not going to work. The same private code is used in many flight
recorders, so all you have to do is break into one and break into the
software. You then have the private key for all similar flight recorders.
Mine as you put it is still intact. It is pointless relying on a private
key of any length if you are going to put it out into the world in an
easily available box, that is not security, that is total ignorance and I
suspect the penny has already dropped with the IGC as well, took em long
enough.
Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever that
is is a complete nonsence to ban soaring software that has ability to
display an AH. Using a small stand alone unit, smuggled into the glider in
your Glock holster would make far more sense if someone is determined to
fly in cloud. Having the instrument does not force you to fly in cloud
anyway. Banning useful software in this way is an ignorant and ineffective
thing to do, especially when the software is "Open Source" and you can
change it how you will with no-one else being the wiser.
I have managed to get two of my gyros I use on models to inteface with my
iPaq and provide a working artificial horizon so it is not at all
difficult. Anyone who would like plans forward your name on a £50 note
to............

[kirk.stant]

Don, do you race? Do you understand why there is a rule prohibiting hardware or software that allows cloud flying?

We all understand that if you want to, it is now easy to cheat. But the point is that because of the rule, it is CHEATING, and if you are caught you get booted from the race.

When not racing, by all means have an AH - it can be a life saver. But when you race you agree to play by the rules.

As far as carrying my Sig or Glock in my glider cockpit - You appear to be a Brit. So the most dangerous thing you would encounter following a landout is probably a band of rowdy football (soccer to us colonials) fans.

In my backyard, I have rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, etc. And in some of the places I fly over, there are human coyotes that are a lot more dangerous. So if I choose to arm myself, because I can (unlike you poor bloody poms), then it's because I have evaluated the risk and feel it is worth doing.

Also, a Sig is good for shooting out the AH from your cheating competitor's instrument panel....

Cheers!

Kirk
66
"Gun control is hitting what you aim at - the first time..."

[Marc]

On Apr 16, 3:21*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> That is not going to work. The same private code is used in many flight
> recorders, so all you have to do is break into one and break into the
> software. You then have the private key for all similar flight recorders.
> Mine as you put it is still intact. It is pointless relying on a private
> key of any length if you are going to put it out into the world in an
> easily available box, that is not security, that is total ignorance and I
> suspect the penny has already dropped with the IGC as well, took em long
> enough.

Don, use of a single private key for multiple units of a given
approved flight recorder model is not permissible. Each flight
recorder unit must have a unique private key. This requirement was
added to the specification in 2001 (AL4), after it was shown that one
design (since updated) had this flaw. See section 6.1 and Appendix G
of the IGC Technical Specification for GNSS Flight Recorders, if it
amuses you.

Any device that is freely available to a community at large (as
opposed to locked away in safes) can't be 100% free of security
issues, but shared private keys is not one of them...

Marc

[Max Kellermann]

Marc > wrote:
> Don, use of a single private key for multiple units of a given
> approved flight recorder model is not permissible. Each flight
> recorder unit must have a unique private key.

Food for thought (opening Pandora's box a little):

The VALI-xxx.EXE (or the according DLL) needs to contain all public
keys of all flight recorders of its kind.

Does everybody have to update their VALI-xxx.EXE when I send my flight
recordor for seal repair to the manufacturer?
If not, how else are new public keys distributed?

(Yes, there are other technical solutions like including the signed
certificate and the public key in the G record, but this technology
has not been documented and peer reviewed, and crypto technology that
hasn't been peer reviewed is insecure more often than not.)

Max

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 23:48 16 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
>Don, do you race? Do you understand why there is a rule prohibiting
>hardwa=
>re or software that allows cloud flying?
>
>We all understand that if you want to, it is now easy to cheat. But the
>po=
>int is that because of the rule, it is CHEATING, and if you are caught
you
>=
>get booted from the race.
>
>When not racing, by all means have an AH - it can be a life saver. But
>whe=
>n you race you agree to play by the rules.
>
>As far as carrying my Sig or Glock in my glider cockpit - You appear to
be
>=
>a Brit. So the most dangerous thing you would encounter following a
>lando=
>ut is probably a band of rowdy football (soccer to us colonials) fans.
>
>In my backyard, I have rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, etc. And in
some
>=
>of the places I fly over, there are human coyotes that are a lot more
>dange=
>rous. So if I choose to arm myself, because I can (unlike you poor
bloody
>=
>poms), then it's because I have evaluated the risk and feel it is worth
>doi=
>ng.
>
>Also, a Sig is good for shooting out the AH from your cheating
>competitor's=
> instrument panel....
>
>Cheers!
>
>Kirk
>66
>"Gun control is hitting what you aim at - the first time..."

I think you are confusing having an AH with being allowed to cloud fly.
Cloud flying in competition is permmitted in the UK as is the fitting of an
AH. If the EASA rules are strictly complied with the removal of an AH is
not a simple task. A lot of gliders in the UK are fitted with AH for very
good reason, mine was although I took care to never deliberately set out to
fly in cloud. An even larger number, possibly a majority have a turn and
slip fitted. My point is simple, having a rule that says you cannot fly in
cloud is fine and enforceable. A ban on having an AH is not enforceable,
quite apart from the lash up that I built, my iPhone has an app that
provides that instrument so enforcing that ban is not possible without
draconian, and possibly unlawful measures, like searching every pilot
before they get into the cockpit. A rule that cannot be enforced is better
never made. Having an AH is not cheating, flying in cloud is (in some parts
of the world). By all means enforce no cloud flying, but crippling
technology is not the way to go about enforcing it. If someone wants to
cheat they will find a way of fitting an AH that you cannot see. Someone
who has no intention of cheating will not do so whatever instrument they
happen to have fitted.

I do not campaign against you right to bear arms so why should you campaign
to have software crippled that would improve safety where clouds are more
of a problem.

[Marc]

On Apr 17, 1:52*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Food for thought (opening Pandora's box a little):
>
> The VALI-xxx.EXE (or the according DLL) needs to contain all public
> keys of all flight recorders of its kind.
>
> Does everybody have to update their VALI-xxx.EXE when I send my flight
> recordor for seal repair to the manufacturer?
> If not, how else are new public keys distributed?
>
> (Yes, there are other technical solutions like including the signed
> certificate and the public key in the G record, but this technology
> has not been documented and peer reviewed, and crypto technology that
> hasn't been peer reviewed is insecure more often than not.)
>

There are a variety of ways this is handled with varying levels of
complexity. In general, though, the VALI program and/or DLL contains
the public side of a pre-generated pool of key pairs intended to be
sufficient to cover the entire lifecycle of the flight recorder
design. The manufacturer provides designated repair agents with key
reset hardware and/or software, which involves communication of
various one-time-only factors in both directions to set a valid
private key within the unit. In the rare event that the key pool is
exhausted, the VALI code can inform the user that a newer revision of
the software is needed. Including a manufacturer signed copy of the
public key in the G record has been proposed in the past, but there
are a number of flaws with that approach which make it unacceptable...

Marc

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:17:10 AM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> I think you are confusing having an AH with being allowed to cloud fly.
> Cloud flying in competition is permmitted in the UK as is the fitting of an
> AH. If the EASA rules are strictly complied with the removal of an AH is
> not a simple task. A lot of gliders in the UK are fitted with AH for very
> good reason, mine was although I took care to never deliberately set out to
> fly in cloud. An even larger number, possibly a majority have a turn and
> slip fitted. My point is simple, having a rule that says you cannot fly in
> cloud is fine and enforceable. A ban on having an AH is not enforceable,
> quite apart from the lash up that I built, my iPhone has an app that
> provides that instrument so enforcing that ban is not possible without
> draconian, and possibly unlawful measures, like searching every pilot
> before they get into the cockpit. A rule that cannot be enforced is better
> never made. Having an AH is not cheating, flying in cloud is (in some parts
> of the world). By all means enforce no cloud flying, but crippling
> technology is not the way to go about enforcing it. If someone wants to
> cheat they will find a way of fitting an AH that you cannot see. Someone
> who has no intention of cheating will not do so whatever instrument they
> happen to have fitted.
>
> I do not campaign against you right to bear arms so why should you campaign
> to have software crippled that would improve safety where clouds are more
> of a problem.

Don, I'm not confusing anything. If you don't compete in contests that have the no AH rule (all FAI or SSA sponsored races, for example), then by all means have an AH or T&B. But the rule is there, and it's pretty simple to enforce - look in the cockpit for AH or T&B, have pilot state on contest registration what software he is using on his moving map, and sign a statement that he does not have AH apps on his smart phone.

Most pilots wont cheat, and going to the effort to conceal AH software (or pull out and use your smart phone) is probably going to make that cheater more likely to take a chance and get caught - and booted.

And realize that this brouhaha is mainly from the US, where cloud flying is extremely uncommon - and AHs are rare in most glider cockpits, so it isn't a big handicap to not have one installed.

But leaving an AH up and running is just too much of a temptation to take that extra turn in 10 knots up into the cloud....and guys do that now without an AH!

So I don't see what the big panic is all about. Just comply with the bloody rules and have fun!

Cheers,

Kirk

[Guy Byars[_4_]]

> Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
> gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever


Enjoy....

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

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 17:22 20 April 2012, Guy Byars wrote:
>> Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
>> gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever
>
>
>Enjoy....
>
>http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airplane-gyroscope-attitude/id385491648?mt=8
>
Yes, and I know it works, so that will be a ban on mobile phones then.

[[email protected]]

I'm planning an updated glider panel with the intention of racing in the future in the US. In a thirty year old club class glider. I've found it very frustrating how little current, concise, useful information is available about what instruments are acceptable, what software is acceptable, etc.

-Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:

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

Butterfly is the only item on that list. Doesn't seem to be a very popular or effective "approval" process.

-The "restricted device policy" suggests a burner phone be carried as opposed to a functional modern phone. Is that the official policy of SSA in 2017?
-The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
-This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
-In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?

Everything but refrigerators now comes with a built in inertial platform. If you want to guarantee no one flies in cloud, mandate dashcams.

https://www.amazon.com/Btopllc-Recorder-Recording-Dashboard-Recorder-Black/dp/B06Y53PFJ9/ref=sr_1_4?s=car&ie=UTF8&qid=1494635202&sr=1-4&keywords=dash+cam

[[email protected]]

-Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
-The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
-This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
-In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?


Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?

The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....

[Renny[_2_]]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 4:32:23 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> -Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
> -The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
> -This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
> -In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?
>
>
> Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?
>
> The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....

One thought I have is that you may want to email your regional director, the SSA Secretary and/or contest committee members. If they cannot answer your questions hopefully, they can then forward your message to someone who may be able to answer your questions. Please go to the SSA.org site and then click on "The SSA" and then go to "About the SSA" and then go to "Governance." Once in "Governance" you will see at the bottom "Other Volunteer Committees." There you will find info and emails for your regional director, EXCOM members, state governors, contest committee folks, etc, etc....Good luck on your search for answers. Hopefully, someone will be able to answer your great questions! Renny

[jfitch]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:32:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> -Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
> -The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
> -This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
> -In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?
>
>
> Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?
>
> The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....

I do not fly in many contests so I am not an authority, but from what I can tell it is entirely up to the contest organizers to enforce this, and few (or none?) of them do. First, you would need to confiscate everyone's cell phone. I have seen no one using a cheap analog burner phone. Second, anyone with an LX system with the capability would need to demount it and leave it in the car. With an Air Avionics (Butterfly) there is the ability to disable the AHRS for a period of time to include the contest interval. This method has been approved by the SSA. The log generated by the Air Avionics ISU will state whether the AHRS is available for the scorer to see. This is ludicrously easy to defeat: simply turn in a log from another logger.

I have flown in SSA contest with the AHRS available, and made no secret of it. It isn't a piece of safety gear I will willingly defeat. If I use it to escape from a cloud and live to tell the tail, your damn right I am going to be telling the tail around the campfire that night!

[jfitch]

On Monday, April 23, 2012 at 12:53:05 PM UTC-7, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 17:22 20 April 2012, Guy Byars wrote:
> >> Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
> >> gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever
> >
> >
> >Enjoy....
> >
> >http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airplane-gyroscope-attitude/id385491648?mt=8
> >
> Yes, and I know it works, so that will be a ban on mobile phones then.

One more thing: before you use your iPhone or Android AHRS app for cloud flying, you better try it while you can still see the horizon. All of them I have seen are easily confused by simple accelerations and would be worse than useless - dangerous actually - flying through a cloud.

[[email protected]]

Thank you Renny and jfitch. That is all very helpful information! I will ask the SSA directly. Maybe I'll ask them what class to enter while I'm at it: I could not find any information at all about class selection for a beginner on the SSA website.

And I do appreciate that many of the apps available that provide attitude info are not worth betting your health on. My concern is that all the instruments I'm considering have the option and don't appear to be "approved" by the SSA. As does the flight computer (XCSoar) I'm most comfortable with. That one is definitely a joke.

[jfitch]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:42:03 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Thank you Renny and jfitch. That is all very helpful information! I will ask the SSA directly. Maybe I'll ask them what class to enter while I'm at it: I could not find any information at all about class selection for a beginner on the SSA website.
>
> And I do appreciate that many of the apps available that provide attitude info are not worth betting your health on. My concern is that all the instruments I'm considering have the option and don't appear to be "approved" by the SSA. As does the flight computer (XCSoar) I'm most comfortable with.. That one is definitely a joke.

Also, plenty of people flying in SSA contests using XCSoar.

[Sean Fidler]

This is not an official statement but it "may" be illegal although it is completely unenforceable and is entirely unenforced.

My original arguement (this thread) remains. I say that safety is an over-arching principle at all times.

The US RC saw things differently. They even went to the extent of calling up all the instrument manufacturers and requiring them to produce a "US contest mode." Nope, I'm not kidding. I still refer to it (US competition mode, aka AHRS disabled) as US RC suicide mode. This mode, of course, disables the safety purpose of AHRS, for a couple weeks, even if you have purchased it or own it. They even attacked XC Soar's tiny 1cm and useless AHRS box and had them produce a US contest version of XC Soar.

I say that if someone wants to cheat (cloud flying), let them. They will eventually be caught. And they will have to live with themselves.

I say that disabling potentially life saving safety equipment (see: powerFlarm stealth mode) is quite dangerous and is more likely to kill an innocent pilot who makes a mistake, rather than deter a pilot who wants to cheat using instruments restricted by rules which are entirely unenforced.

A guy crashed into downtown Reno a few years ago when he was sucked into wave clouds. I think AHRS is important stuff.

Finally, their "unwillingness" to answer your polite and simple question here is amusing and unsurprising. Don't feel alone. This is common place.

#goodoldboys

[[email protected]]

I would not get too frustrated. The available equipment is coming out so fast, I doubt anyone has time to review them all in detail. As someone said, it is difficult to enforce anyway, with all of the easy to access portable AHRS solutions available. LxNav had a contest mode that disabled the AHRS for 14 days last year, but they have gone to a much more simple solution whereby they just add a flag in the igc file that the CD can check if he suspects someone used AHRS. Of course, that doesn't help if the contestant used another portable AHRS solution or submits a file from a backup recorder.. It should be easy to see who might be cloud flying based on the altitude achieved compared to cloud base and whether the climb rates increase or decrease near the top of the climb.

I highly recommend the LxNav system.

Regarding contest entries and class. I highly recommend you go to a contest as crew or spectator and talk to the pilots. There are many out there that love to help new pilots. I did my first contest last summer and have had more that two dozen pilots offer to help me on a regular basis before, during, and after a contest. Many of the regions hold informal weekend contest too, which is a great way to get started.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> -Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
> -The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
> -This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
> -In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?
>
>
> Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?
>
> The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....

I have been away from my desk for a few days and am sorry for reply that is too slow for your needs.
The relevant information is available on the SSA web site.
Sailplane racing
Contest Rules and process
Important reading
You will find the applicable guidance documents there.
UH
RC Chair

[[email protected]]

esquival... I should have mentioned; while I like the LxNav systems, I would not recommend their AHRS option. I do not know the details, but there are apparently issues with it in freezing conditions like those encountered during wave flights. The Dynon portable solution is a much better approach for probably about the same money. The Dynon is easily installed on a ram mount for wave flights and then can be removed when flying in contest.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > -Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
> > -The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
> > -This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
> > -In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?
> >
> >
> > Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?
> >
> > The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....
>
> I have been away from my desk for a few days and am sorry for reply that is too slow for your needs.
> The relevant information is available on the SSA web site.
> Sailplane racing
> Contest Rules and process
> Important reading
> You will find the applicable guidance documents there.
> UH
> RC Chair

With all due respect sir I looked at all that information and then asked several specific questions (which you've just quoted) that are as near as I can tell unanswered by the documents on the SSA website. You'll notice I'm asking specific questions based on language in the documents you just suggested I read.

Meanwhile other racers have reassured me that the stuff I'm considering is commonly used, but technically illegal, and that doesn't exactly give me a warm feeling about buying instruments etc.

Thank you for the response. I reiterate that if you want to prove no one is flying in cloud there is a simple, cheap solution to that in 2017 that doesn't require all of this handwringing. I suspect that wouldn't be popular as it might call into question some folks measurement of 500 feet.

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:23:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:35:22 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > -Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
> > > -The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
> > > -This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
> > > -In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?
> > >
> > >
> > > Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?
> > >
> > > The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....
> >
> > I have been away from my desk for a few days and am sorry for reply that is too slow for your needs.
> > The relevant information is available on the SSA web site.
> > Sailplane racing
> > Contest Rules and process
> > Important reading
> > You will find the applicable guidance documents there.
> > UH
> > RC Chair
>
> With all due respect sir I looked at all that information and then asked several specific questions (which you've just quoted) that are as near as I can tell unanswered by the documents on the SSA website. You'll notice I'm asking specific questions based on language in the documents you just suggested I read.
>
> Meanwhile other racers have reassured me that the stuff I'm considering is commonly used, but technically illegal, and that doesn't exactly give me a warm feeling about buying instruments etc.
>
> Thank you for the response. I reiterate that if you want to prove no one is flying in cloud there is a simple, cheap solution to that in 2017 that doesn't require all of this handwringing. I suspect that wouldn't be popular as it might call into question some folks measurement of 500 feet.

500 ft below the cloud has always been measured by whether the top winglet was still visible. At least by me and a bunch of other pilots :).

[Dan Marotta]

On 5/16/2017 10:30 PM, jfitch wrote:
>
> 500 ft below the cloud has always been measured by whether the top winglet was still visible. At least by me and a bunch of other pilots :).
....Like back in the day when we were young studs, sitting on the ramp 50
feet from the farthest part of the jet, smoking cigarettes while they
were refueling it for our next hop...

I recall a cartoon in a safety magazine back then showing a Cessna,
tooling along just below a cloud and, overtaking from the rear, is a
landing gear truck from a C-5 hanging just below the cloud...
--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> Meanwhile other racers have reassured me that the stuff I'm considering is commonly used, but technically illegal, and that doesn't exactly give me a warm feeling about buying instruments etc.

Let's try this: "May I have a show of hands please? How many of you have been asked to disable your gyro instruments at a US contest?"

Will we get even one?

I speculate that in 2017 we are at, or close to 100% non-compliance on the part of organizers, which makes this a dead issue. Asking the RC to get rid of the rule may well still be futile due to 50 years inertia ("We're not about to ask the board to get rid of a rule that's worked for 50 years" is what I was told). I still pull my trutrak turn indicator out of the panel for contests (takes 5 minutes), but it feels silly to do so when there are so many AHRS capable instruments out there. The reason I do pull it out is a) that's what the rules require and b) there's no downside, other than 5 minutes wasted time.

-Evan Ludeman / T8