Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing > Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014_Rules_Meeting_Minutes.pdf

If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.

For the Committee,
John Godfrey (QT), Chair

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing > Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014_Rules_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
>
> If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.
>
> For the Committee,
> John Godfrey (QT), Chair

"Rules Committee plans to remove the prohibition on electronic devices in the cockpit in 2016. Comments are welcomed."

The context implies that this includes artificial horizon tools of all sorts, comm gear of all sorts (real time flight location and data for instance), satellite links... basically anything anyone wants to pay for. Is that what is actually intended here?

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Mike the Strike]

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing > Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.
> >
> > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014_Rules_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
> >
> > If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.
> >
> > For the Committee,
> > John Godfrey (QT), Chair
>
> "Rules Committee plans to remove the prohibition on electronic devices in the cockpit in 2016. Comments are welcomed."
>
> The context implies that this includes artificial horizon tools of all sorts, comm gear of all sorts (real time flight location and data for instance), satellite links... basically anything anyone wants to pay for. Is that what is actually intended here?
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

They are just embracing the reality that it is impossible to prohibit such devices in the days of pocket computers (often masquerading as telephones) that have apps that can do much of what a dedicated instrument can. Having live weather data is a safety benefit for everyone and I could make a similar case for gyro instruments. Remember when varios and then GPS were not allowed?

Mike

[Tango Eight]

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 5:57:01 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 2:34:35 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > > The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing > Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.
> > >
> > > http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014_Rules_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
> > >
> > > If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.
> > >
> > > For the Committee,
> > > John Godfrey (QT), Chair
> >
> > "Rules Committee plans to remove the prohibition on electronic devices in the cockpit in 2016. Comments are welcomed."
> >
> > The context implies that this includes artificial horizon tools of all sorts, comm gear of all sorts (real time flight location and data for instance), satellite links... basically anything anyone wants to pay for. Is that what is actually intended here?
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> They are just embracing the reality that it is impossible to prohibit such devices in the days of pocket computers (often masquerading as telephones) that have apps that can do much of what a dedicated instrument can. Having live weather data is a safety benefit for everyone and I could make a similar case for gyro instruments. Remember when varios and then GPS were not allowed?
>
> Mike

I am simply trying to clarify what it is that is (provisionally, comments invited) being embraced. You must admit, that *is* a little surprising in view of the positions that have been articulated over the last few years.

I'm one of the guys that helps put the toys in your panel, I'm no luddite.

-Evan

[Mark628CA]

Hooray! Ed Kilbourne's prediction will now come true!

"Have you heard the news, that the LS-22s will have nothing on their panel but a screen.
That give the latest views from the satellite you choose and display the sink in red, the lift in green.
There's no stick upon the floor, no rudders anymore, just two wires that you plug into your brain.
A computer reads your mind through a fiber optic line and with this information flies the plane."

From "The New Glider Blues" copyright 1988 Ed Kilbourne

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

And speaking of the Law of Inintended Consequences, by the new planned definition from 3.23 "Living Will for Dying Nationals", the 2014 Open Class Nationals would not have been permitted? The contest had 9 people entered. Everyone flew every day. Last place at the end of the contest had 63.5% of the winners score. Valid Nationals requires at least 8 people to have greater than 40% of the winners score at the end of the contest. Requirement met. Now, there is a proposal to not let a contest start unless you have at least 10 (minimum that will get at least 40% of the winners score plus 2) or maybe as low as 7 (if everyone entered has a 92 or above ranking)?

I guess I missed something. If we are combining contests at a given site, why are we also bumping up the minimum number of people required to even start the contest? BB, I see this listed as your request. Would you be willing to explain, here or in private?

Thanks,
Steve Leonard

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

My Bad. I see "no change". But, I would still be interested in knowing why, if you have a moment, John.

Thanks for all you guys do!

Steve

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The issue with the current system: If you start with the minimum number of pilots, then there is a danger of it all falling apart if one guy has problems -- equipment breaks, small damage, so on. Also, a weird thing has happened where the whole rest of the fleet has to devote themselves on the last day to making sure the last guy on the scoresheet doesn't land out, and finishes with the required 40%. So the idea was to build a buffer in to starting a contest.

The RC wisely decided not to implement it.

There is a larger question. What do we do with slowly diminishing classes? Having contests fail, as standard did at Hobbs last year, is not a great way to run a railroad.

On electronics. Yes, the whole business of policing turn and banks in iPhones was getting out of hand. But technology changes in both ways. Now that we have flight recorders, we can detect serious cloud flying. A ban on carriage is much more important when you have no idea what people are doing out there. If you circle up a few thousand feet over cloudless, expect a long hard talk with the CD. If you do it often and start winning contests expect longer and harder talks.

There is also a big philosophical push towards making rules simple. Please keep that in mind when making requests.

John Cochrane BB

[Jim White[_3_]]

I note that the rules committee felt that UK style Handicap Distance Tasks
did not give enough benefit to warrant the difficulty of scoring.

In the UK we ran handicap distance tasks in several regional contests last
season and the feedback was almost universally good. Some high handicap
(fast) gliders didn't like it as they found that that they had to work
harder to stay ahead!

To overcome the scoring difficulties, we wrote some software and worked
with Naviter to make it easy to use See You Competition to score the tasks.
This has worked well.

If you use some other software then it could be harder although the process
is simple for those that complete. In theory all gliders flown equally well
will complete in the same elapsed time. Compare the handicapped speed of
each glider to the winners' for speed points. Distance points are the
same.

The difficulty comes with determining distance points for land outs. In the
UK we accept that there are some anomalies between handicaps on the grounds
that the point is to get round.

I am keen to facilitate universal acceptance of this exciting new format as
I believe that it will attract more pilots into competition. If I can help
please give me a shout.

For more information or to download the software go to
www.boffins.co.uk/gliding

Jim

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 11:58:11 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> The issue with the current system: If you start with the minimum number of pilots, then there is a danger of it all falling apart if one guy has problems -- equipment breaks, small damage, so on. Also, a weird thing has happened where the whole rest of the fleet has to devote themselves on the last day to making sure the last guy on the scoresheet doesn't land out, and finishes with the required 40%. So the idea was to build a buffer in to starting a contest.
>
> The RC wisely decided not to implement it.
>
> There is a larger question. What do we do with slowly diminishing classes? Having contests fail, as standard did at Hobbs last year, is not a great way to run a railroad.
>
> On electronics. Yes, the whole business of policing turn and banks in iPhones was getting out of hand. But technology changes in both ways. Now that we have flight recorders, we can detect serious cloud flying. A ban on carriage is much more important when you have no idea what people are doing out there. If you circle up a few thousand feet over cloudless, expect a long hard talk with the CD. If you do it often and start winning contests expect longer and harder talks.
>
> There is also a big philosophical push towards making rules simple. Please keep that in mind when making requests.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Thank you for the reply, John. I am well aware of watching the numbers drop as a contest goes on. And it is often due to things outside of the contest that has people leaving. Guess it is the risk we will have to keep if we fly in a minimally subscribed class.

Suggestion (tongue in cheek) to a CD that has to have "the talk" with someone for climbing above cloudbase. "Next time you do that, how about you record the climb "along the edge of the cloud" for all to see at the pilot's meeting."

I had the rare fortune to do a climb up the side of a cu at a contest at TSA. In the cylinder, before the task opened. Got about 1000 feet higher than anyone else. On that day, 2 knots was a good climb, so I had 5 minutes on them at the start! Too bad that by the time I got to the "correct" side of the start cylinder, I was back down with them. But, you should have seen them searching down below me out in the blue!

Steve Leonard

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

We've talked about this format, and the Houston club has experimented with it and found they like it.

In the US we frequently use turn area tasks and MAT (modified assigned) tasks. A popular form of the latter is the "long MAT" where everyone goes to the same turnpoints but the lower performance gliders can turn for home sooner.

These aren't exactly the same, I know. The handicap distance task removes the strategic question of how far to go into turn areas, and the strategic flexibility of going a bit more into one and a bit less into the other. But overall, like turn areas, you're going in roughly the same directions and the lower performance can turn around sooner. In the "long MAT" the high performance guys can't get behind the low performance gaggle on every turnpoint.

Still, we have two task types that accommodate racing between gliders of dissimilar performance. We have a lot of confusion by pilots on how these two work, and a strong demand from pilots to keep rules simple. So for the moment the US is "watch and wait" on this task type.

If a contest wants to try it by waiver that would be great.

John Cochrane BB

[Mike the Strike]

It's certainly possible to end up above cloudbase without flying in the cloud or breaking rules. Years ago, I flew from southern Arizona over the Chiricuhua Mountains into New Mexico to find myself over the tops of cumulus clouds on the other side of the hill! On another occasion, I flew out of the top of a thermal into wave that took me well over clouds that day.

Having said that, if someone is using instruments to cloud fly to get an advantage, it will be readily noticeable.

Mike

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:32:46 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:

> Having said that, if someone is using instruments to cloud fly to get an advantage, it will be readily noticeable.
>
> Mike


If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.
>
>
> Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.
> >
> >
> > Evan
>
> Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.
>
> John Cochrane

JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
FWIW
UH

[Dan Marotta]

I haven't heard anyone mention reporting cloud flying contestants to the
FAA and disqualifying them from the contest. This is a clear violation
of the FARs without an IFR flight plan. Or will the violator say that
he was inadvertently "sucked up" into a cloud? Not likely given FAR
cloud clearance requirements.


On 1/12/2015 3:42 PM, wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>>> If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.
>>>
>>>
>>> Evan
>> Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.
>>
>> John Cochrane
> JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
> While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
> Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
> If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
> My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
> While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
> Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
> FWIW
> UH

--
Dan Marotta

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.

VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.

No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.

As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.

BB

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 18:51 12 January 2015, Steve Leonard wrote:

>> On electronics. Yes, the whole business of policing turn and banks in
>iPh=
>ones was getting out of hand. But technology changes in both ways. Now
>that=
> we have flight recorders, we can detect serious cloud flying.

Really? How does that work?

[Richard[_9_]]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.
>
> VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.
>
> No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.
>
> As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.
>
> BB

John,

I have been to 4 contests since the wildly complex rule about disabling the AHRS in flight was adopted. I complied with the rule at all 4 contests.

Although the CD's had no idea what I was talking about or doing when I showed them and disabled the Butterfly Vario AHRS.

I agree that we should simplify the rules.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Mike the Strike]

Firstly, it's impossible to keep glider pilots away from or out of clouds even in contests. Let's be honest here - we all fly into wispies and under the higher convex cloudbase of strong growing cumuli that requires us to lose some visibility as we depart through the lower cloud wall. As a colleague said: "it's a good job clouds aren't shown on igc files"!

For those of us who learned to fly in countries where cloud flying is legal (and often required), this is no big deal. My first training was done in a gyro-equipped two-seater and my first glider (Jantar-1) had a gyro turn and bank that I occasionally used. One of my UK colleagues opined that Americans were pussies being so afraid of clouds! However, I know many cross-country colleagues here in the USA who are definitely not pussies!

However, rules are rules! I try and stay mostly away from clouds when on task and I know most others do too. For contests where I fly, I could very likely interpret an igc file that showed any useful use of lift inside clouds. Climb rate typically increases dramatically inside active clouds (don't ask me how I know!) and we generally know where cloudbase is on a given task. I've seen no evidence of that to date.

As a final note, I have observed that the really good and fast pilots don't need clouds to win. They are just good and don't need to cheat.

I support the rule change.

Mike

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> I note that the rules committee felt that UK style Handicap Distance Tasks
> did not give enough benefit to warrant the difficulty of scoring.
>
> In the UK we ran handicap distance tasks in several regional contests last
> season and the feedback was almost universally good. Some high handicap
> (fast) gliders didn't like it as they found that that they had to work
> harder to stay ahead!
>
> To overcome the scoring difficulties, we wrote some software and worked
> with Naviter to make it easy to use See You Competition to score the tasks.
> This has worked well.
>
> If you use some other software then it could be harder although the process
> is simple for those that complete. In theory all gliders flown equally well
> will complete in the same elapsed time. Compare the handicapped speed of
> each glider to the winners' for speed points. Distance points are the
> same.
>
> The difficulty comes with determining distance points for land outs. In the
> UK we accept that there are some anomalies between handicaps on the grounds
> that the point is to get round.
>
> I am keen to facilitate universal acceptance of this exciting new format as
> I believe that it will attract more pilots into competition. If I can help
> please give me a shout.
>
> For more information or to download the software go to
> www.boffins.co.uk/gliding
>
> Jim

The RC continually looks at innovations in racing formats that can up the competitiveness and enjoyment of the sport and/or broaden its appeal to more pilots. We had a very interesting racing/OLC discussion the evening following this year's RC meeting. There are discussions underway to try some informal experiments at Nephi this year (thanks Bruno!).


Handicapped distance task is an interesting format. There are several questions/issues that made it challenging for use in sanctioned contests, particularly in the immediate future.

1) Scoring - there is only so much capacity to integrate new features into our scoring infrastructure. Experimental task formats that require lots of coding end up low on the priority list until/unless there is known strong demand from pilots. Conversely, manual scoring, we have learned form experience, is simply too much to ask of over-taxed contest organizers, so we don't see a lot of eagerness to try new formats that would prove out the appeal.. Catch-22.

2) One of the concerns with the format that I have heard is the requirement that lower handicap pilots have to fly farther than high handicap pilots. In non-flatland flying in particular this can mean out of good lift bands, into thunderstorms, etc. The format has a bit less courseline flexibility than an AAT or MAT, so it's a potential fairness issue.

3) We already have two variable distance tasks that don't exactly mimic this format, but serve the same basic purpose.

4) The rules are already filled with complexity - this is one more change in mindset that pilots have to get their heads around in terms of mastering strategy and tactics. We get a lot of feedback that introducing changes that don't address a part of the sport that is demonstrably broken drives pilots up the wall.

If there is a big groundswell of local contests that start using this format and/or organic pilot demand, it'll certainly get more attention.

9B

[Sean Fidler]

:-)

:-)

:-)

!!!

Sensible, intelligent decision. Bravo. Golf clapping...

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.
> > >
> > >
> > > Evan
> >
> > Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
> While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
> Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
> If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
> My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
> While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
> Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
> FWIW
> UH


With JJ's help I took a look at the flights in question (thanks JJ!). There is some reason to believe that with advances in technology we will be able to detect, with increasingly reliability, egregious and/or repeated excursions into IFR-land. Steve's point about climbing up the face of a cu (I've done it myself) remains one of several complications that need to be considered.

More broadly, the RC, like King Canute, understands that we are kidding ourselves when we stand at the shore and command the incoming tide to retreat. Technology marches on relentlessly. Once it becomes affordable and pervasive we need to face that reality - and we have. Tasking contest organizers with onerous "stop and frisk" responsibilities has never been broadly practical so it is at best a fig leaf - and a wilting one at that.

The prohibitions on cheating by getting outside help and on busting FARs remain in place and violations should be handled in the harshest possible terms short of lethal injection. Means to improve detection of violations is in my view worthwhile. $50 cockpit video recorders anyone? They are out there.

9B

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Firstly, it's impossible to keep glider pilots away from or out of clouds even in contests.

Mother Nature does a pretty good job of this given prevailing pilot skills. If they enter cloud, they'll spiral dive out the bottom in a few seconds - and they won't be anywhere near the top of the score sheet. Absent instrument training, currency and competency, gyro gizmos won't help.

From the scoring standpoint, the only guy one has to worry about is a highly competent instrument pilot who has jumped through all the hoops to get glider instrument trained - the CD will probably know who these are and keep a close watch.

[Mike the Strike]

I am sure few pilots don't spend much time in cloud, but a lot do get closer than they should. At a recent contest I watched two contestants 500 feet above me as they disappeared in and out of cloud along a cloud street. Closer than I was comfortable with!

I like Andy's idea of the cockpit camera!

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 2:56:23 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> I am sure few pilots don't spend much time in cloud, but a lot do get closer than they should. At a recent contest I watched two contestants 500 feet above me as they disappeared in and out of cloud along a cloud street. Closer than I was comfortable with!
>
> I like Andy's idea of the cockpit camera!
>
> Mike

Like an "ankle tracking bracelet" for pilots on probation! I love it!

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 14 January 2015 06:53:47 UTC-7, Richard wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.
> >
> > VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.
> >
> > No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.
> >
> > As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.
> >
> > BB
>
> John,
>
> I have been to 4 contests since the wildly complex rule about disabling the AHRS in flight was adopted. I complied with the rule at all 4 contests.
>
> Although the CD's had no idea what I was talking about or doing when I showed them and disabled the Butterfly Vario AHRS.
>
> I agree that we should simplify the rules.
>
> Richard
> www.craggyaero.com

At least one in UT understood!

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.
> >
> > VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.
> >
> > No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.
> >
> > As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.
> >
> > BB
>
> John,
>
> I have been to 4 contests since the wildly complex rule about disabling the AHRS in flight was adopted. I complied with the rule at all 4 contests.
>
> Although the CD's had no idea what I was talking about or doing when I showed them and disabled the Butterfly Vario AHRS.
>
> I agree that we should simplify the rules.
>
> Richard
> www.craggyaero.com

Wildly complex defined as disabling the AHRS feature through available software and being prepared to show it is disabled if asked.
Butterfly has the feature and has provided a way to comply. They worked with the US RC and the result is a good one in my view.
When I started racing, an official went around and checked that the gyros were out. We're a lot more trusting these days. Fortunately sportsmanship seems to prevail.
UH

[Tom Kelley #711]

> Wildly complex defined as disabling the AHRS feature through available software and being prepared to show it is disabled if asked.
> Butterfly has the feature and has provided a way to comply. They worked with the US RC and the result is a good one in my view.
> When I started racing, an official went around and checked that the gyros were out. We're a lot more trusting these days. Fortunately sportsmanship seems to prevail.
> UH

>>>>Way below is copied from the last worlds rules.<<<<<<

Since our contests are used to choose US Team members to race on the World level, should not we train to the World level and use their rules where reasonable? Some may claim several of our current rules are not enforceable, but again some have not witnessed that. Sportsmanship is displayed by many, but not by all. Some have witnessed the highest seeded pilots say if they aren't caught for the rule violation, by contest personal, they sure aren't going to turn themselves in. Yes, some contests have been won by rule violations that are known with no action taken.

Not only are contest management responsible for rule enforcement, but the entrants are also charged with this, as its an agreement between the FAI, SSA, entrants and contest management that the contest shall be held according to the rules.

On one hand, some wish to conform to IGC rules, then change ours, for whatever self serving needs. This has been going back and forth for some time. Yes, change is needed. Hopefully, it will be in the proper direction. Not from extreme views but from reasonable discussions.


33rd World Gliding Championships
www.wgc2014.eu
Central Gliding School tel: +48 65 529 24 00 Page 4
ul. Szybowników 28
64-100 Leszno www.wgc2014.eu
Poland www.cssleszno.eu

D. Technical requirements
Glider avionics (including flight recorders, navigation and anti-collision devices) must be firmly mounted to the
glider. Any instruments, accessories nor baggage cannot limit pilot's vision nor interfere with glider controls.

Use of FLARM anti-collision devices is mandatory.

D.1. Mandatory additional equipment
In addition to the mandatory equipment listed in the rules (see Bulletin no 1), pilot shall possess:
a. cellular (GSM) or satellite phone to be carried on board,
b. glider anchoring equipment (for gliders not stored overnight in hangar or trailer) - see par. D.5,
c. hardware and software for downloading his/her flight recorders,
d. for Team Captains: GSM cellular phone with SIM card of Polish operator.

D.2. Instruments that must be removed from the sailplane
Bohli, Schanz, KT 1 and other gimballed compasses, turn indicators, artificial horizons and any other devices allowing
to fly without ground reference must be removed from the glider.
Software artificial horizons integrated with FR must indicate in their IGC files that AH function is disabled.
Doubts about eligibility of other devices will be discussed with Stewards.

Best. Tom #711.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

The pilots suspected of logging a little unauthorized IFR were all commercial pilots with current instrument ratings.
I believe this can be controlled with a stern warning given at all mandatory pilot meetings and a 2 year suspension of racing privileges for anyone found guilty.
The RC is checking with the NWS to see if archived data can be used to prove flights into known cloud areas.
We need to put a stop to this right now,
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> The pilots suspected of logging a little unauthorized IFR were all commercial pilots with current instrument ratings.
> I believe this can be controlled with a stern warning given at all mandatory pilot meetings and a 2 year suspension of racing privileges for anyone found guilty.
> The RC is checking with the NWS to see if archived data can be used to prove flights into known cloud areas.
> We need to put a stop to this right now,
> JJ

The SSA Sailplane Tracker archives weather data every thirty minutes. Visible satellite is one of the data streams depicted. Play back the Tracking data from that date. Make sure you have the WX tab checked and the image of choice selected. Watch the track move and the weather sequence. You can upload the particular IGC as a private file for better track resolution within the SSA Sailplane Tracker. Granted this does not show cloud bases but it will give you an idea if it is even worth pursuing better data.

Lane

[Mike the Strike]

I don't believe weather data alone will enable IFC scofflaws to be identified. Cloudbase is a highly variable parameter, both in time and space. Also, as we've said before, thermals and wave sometimes enable you to climb higher than cloudbase quite legally. (I did this in Moriarty last year).

So, unless you are going to introduce an arbitrary maximum height rule, this approach is doomed to failure. If you don't like Andy's idea of a cockpit camera, perhaps we should learn from other sports and introduce umpires or referees to follow the field around!

Mike

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

I think it's important to meditate on just how much of a problem there is, and therefore how complex our procedures need to be to stop it.

Just how much actual, sustained, undetected, artificial-horizon-enabled, and contest-winning cloud flying is going on in US contests? How much more of it will there be if we abandon the current largely unenforced rules about carrying cell phones or disabling the AH features of flight computers? How much less of it will there be if we dream up some complex verification scheme involving satellite loops and traces?

We're not talking about VFR pilots going up in the wispies. That happens, and banning AH doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the kind of sustained cloud flying that could potentially win a contest. You need to go up at least 2000' in some pretty thick clouds for that to work. Or you need to penetrate the wall of thunderstorm keeping the others from going in to the turnpoint. We're talking about really big, blatant, and monstrously illegal behavior.

My view, is that this sort of thing is rare; if it did start happening we could see it with an informal and case by case review of flight traces; and if so we can afford to lower the boom after the fact.

To Tom's post, it makes perfect sense for a tighter standard at the worlds. People care more, are more willing to do crazy stuff, and it's appropriate to impose greater costs on organizers and teams.

I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. If you are carrying, expect a little more careful look at your logs.

The complex rule has a long list of forbidden equipment, a procedure that CDs actually follow to check said equipment, surprise inspections, a complex trace evaluation procedure, and so forth. That is more ironclad, yes. But is ironclad worth it, in the real world of contest flying (not in the infinitesimal probability speculation we do on ras over the winter)?

So, when you ask for the latter, recognize you are asking for a rule book that is longer and denser than the current one. We all need to think whether problems really are problems before fixin' them, and think about the costs of the fix.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

John,

I appreciate the direction you advocate. It is important to remember that it unsportsmanlike conduct is a pilot issue and not a technology issue. To address it from a technological angle is like trying to stop the sunrise.

Lane

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/15/2015 2:47 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
> I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.
>
> The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.

Thank you John and the rest of the RC, I think this is the right move.

Luke Szczepaniak

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing > Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014_Rules_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
>
> If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.
>
> For the Committee,
> John Godfrey (QT), Chair

As an "on again/off again" contest pilot in the US (for 30 years in regional & national contests), I agree that a "fat rulebook" either means people won't read it, or, will go for "shades of gray".

For the first, it can be daunting.
For latter, they're always "looking for a way".

In general, my biggest gripe (not that I can point a finger at anyone) is that, if, "Someone spirals out of a cloud and hits someone else (while illegally cloud flying), I feel bad for the "hit party"."

Yes, I will admit "flying way up in a dome under a strong CU" or "ridge soaring the face of a CU", both were likely "in violation of US FAR's (related to cloud clearance)", but I have never flown or seen "cloud flying".

While this does not make it correct, I also see a major difficulty in enforcing a rule against it.
I can foresee a case where the "FAR rules" were met but a "Monday morning quarterback" may see info that looks different.
Not to slight on anyone, just commenting.

Have at it guys........

[Craig Funston]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:47:09 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> I think it's important to meditate on just how much of a problem there is, and therefore how complex our procedures need to be to stop it.
>
> Just how much actual, sustained, undetected, artificial-horizon-enabled, and contest-winning cloud flying is going on in US contests? How much more of it will there be if we abandon the current largely unenforced rules about carrying cell phones or disabling the AH features of flight computers? How much less of it will there be if we dream up some complex verification scheme involving satellite loops and traces?
>
> We're not talking about VFR pilots going up in the wispies. That happens, and banning AH doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the kind of sustained cloud flying that could potentially win a contest. You need to go up at least 2000' in some pretty thick clouds for that to work. Or you need to penetrate the wall of thunderstorm keeping the others from going in to the turnpoint. We're talking about really big, blatant, and monstrously illegal behavior.
>
> My view, is that this sort of thing is rare; if it did start happening we could see it with an informal and case by case review of flight traces; and if so we can afford to lower the boom after the fact.
>
> To Tom's post, it makes perfect sense for a tighter standard at the worlds. People care more, are more willing to do crazy stuff, and it's appropriate to impose greater costs on organizers and teams.
>
> I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.
>
> The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. If you are carrying, expect a little more careful look at your logs.
>
> The complex rule has a long list of forbidden equipment, a procedure that CDs actually follow to check said equipment, surprise inspections, a complex trace evaluation procedure, and so forth. That is more ironclad, yes. But is ironclad worth it, in the real world of contest flying (not in the infinitesimal probability speculation we do on ras over the winter)?
>
> So, when you ask for the latter, recognize you are asking for a rule book that is longer and denser than the current one. We all need to think whether problems really are problems before fixin' them, and think about the costs of the fix.
>
> John Cochrane

Thanks John & the Rules Committee. We already have rules against cloud flying & suitable penalties may be imposed within these rules. Spending an inordinate amount of effort enforcing an issue that appears to exist at the fringes seems like a poor use of our collective energy.

Craig
7Q

[Tom Kelley #711]

This was polled just recently and below are the results.

""""October 29, 2012 12:28 PM
Percentages usually do not add up to 100% because multiple selections can be made on many questions. Also, some questions
are not answered by all survey submitters.
Analysis Categories All
Summary of detailed data representing All respondants. 187
Part I. Equipment
1. Cloud flying instruments
For many years we have prohibited gliders from "carrying any instrument which: Permits flight without
reference to the ground." (6.6.1) In practice, this has meant that gliders may not carry gyros or Bolhi
compasses.
Now several navigation instruments sold to the glider market include artificial horizon displays. Some
cellphones and tablet computers also include such displays, though of questionable reliability. An
artificial horizon is now essentially a software switch on existing instruments rather than a whole new
instrument.
This year there was a substantial discussion about this rule. Briefly, advocates of removing the rule
feel that there is a safety advantage of allowing artificial horizons as a precaution in case of
inadvertent loss of visual reference. Supporters of the current rule feel that truly inadvertent loss of
visual reference is unheard of in contest flying, and the temptation to intentionally fly in or through
clouds or rain too strong with such instruments present. Allowing such instruments would also lead to
greater suspicion that others are cheating and foster an "I have to do it to keep up with the
competition" mentality.
All
a Do you favor removing the ban on artificial horizons?
RemoveBan 31%
LeaveBanInPlace 68%
b The RC has developed a protocol, whereby if a computer or vario with artificial horizon option is
installed, it must be possible to verifiably disable that option for the duration of the contest. (Please see
Restricted Device Policy) This policy requires some programming from manufacturers, and some
manufacturers have been reluctant to do it.
Do you support this policy? (If not, suggest an alternative!)
Yes 71%
No 27%"""""

Best. Tom #711.

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:51:48 UTC-7, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> This was polled just recently and below are the results.
>
> """"October 29, 2012 12:28 PM
> Percentages usually do not add up to 100% because multiple selections can be made on many questions. Also, some questions
> are not answered by all survey submitters.
> Analysis Categories All
> Summary of detailed data representing All respondants. 187
> Part I. Equipment
> 1. Cloud flying instruments
> For many years we have prohibited gliders from "carrying any instrument which: Permits flight without
> reference to the ground." (6.6.1) In practice, this has meant that gliders may not carry gyros or Bolhi
> compasses.
> Now several navigation instruments sold to the glider market include artificial horizon displays. Some
> cellphones and tablet computers also include such displays, though of questionable reliability. An
> artificial horizon is now essentially a software switch on existing instruments rather than a whole new
> instrument.
> This year there was a substantial discussion about this rule. Briefly, advocates of removing the rule
> feel that there is a safety advantage of allowing artificial horizons as a precaution in case of
> inadvertent loss of visual reference. Supporters of the current rule feel that truly inadvertent loss of
> visual reference is unheard of in contest flying, and the temptation to intentionally fly in or through
> clouds or rain too strong with such instruments present. Allowing such instruments would also lead to
> greater suspicion that others are cheating and foster an "I have to do it to keep up with the
> competition" mentality.
> All
> a Do you favor removing the ban on artificial horizons?
> RemoveBan 31%
> LeaveBanInPlace 68%
> b The RC has developed a protocol, whereby if a computer or vario with artificial horizon option is
> installed, it must be possible to verifiably disable that option for the duration of the contest. (Please see
> Restricted Device Policy) This policy requires some programming from manufacturers, and some
> manufacturers have been reluctant to do it.
> Do you support this policy? (If not, suggest an alternative!)
> Yes 71%
> No 27%"""""
>
> Best. Tom #711.

Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

[Tom Kelley #711]

>
> Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Good job! Only a sharp CD would of ever of caught that!

Best. #711.

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:22:58 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Yeah, but when you're as old as Tom, seems like just minutes ago ;-)

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 4:42:04 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:22:58 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> > Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's
>
> Yeah, but when you're as old as Tom, seems like just minutes ago ;-)

Etymology
From "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!", a famous order issued by Admiral David Farragut during the Battle of Mobile Bay, a paraphrase of the actual order, "Damn the torpedoes! Four bells. Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!"

Start charging them batteries Nadler, will see you @ the Seniors.............#711.

[Dan Marotta]

Just wondering - did you maintain the required horizontal (and vertical)
cloud separation for the altitude and class of airspace? I know you can
do that while following one of our wonderful shear lines.


On 1/15/2015 11:55 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> <snips> thermals and wave sometimes enable you to climb higher than cloudbase quite legally. (I did this in Moriarty last year).
>
>
>
> Mike

--
Dan Marotta

[Mike the Strike]

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:24:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Just wondering - did you maintain the required horizontal (and
> vertical) cloud separation for the altitude and class of airspace?*
> I know you can do that while following one of our wonderful shear
> lines.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/15/2015 11:55 AM, Mike the Strike
> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snips> thermals and wave sometimes enable you to climb higher than cloudbase quite legally. (I did this in Moriarty last year).
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan Marotta

Yep - I used my 500-foot retractable tape measure!

Mike

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 7:11:08 PM UTC-8, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:24:53 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Just wondering - did you maintain the required horizontal (and
> > vertical) cloud separation for the altitude and class of airspace?*
> > I know you can do that while following one of our wonderful shear
> > lines.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/15/2015 11:55 AM, Mike the Strike
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > <snips> thermals and wave sometimes enable you to climb higher than cloudbase quite legally. (I did this in Moriarty last year).
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dan Marotta
>
> Yep - I used my 500-foot retractable tape measure!
>
> Mike

Isn't it easier to drop a 500' (or 1,000') plum line, mark that point in the sky and then dive down and fly there?

[WaltWX[_2_]]

It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:

Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/83/2/10.1063/1.3685252

Here's another article

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz9bwzh/BalloonBorneRadiometerForCloudDetection.pdf?dl=0

Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.

Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.

Walt Rogers WX

[WaltWX[_2_]]

Actually... I like the $50 cockpit camera idea. It's simple and commercially available. Place 10 real ones in cockpit ... and the rest look-a-likes. I think it would be easy to detect more than 20 secs of IMC flying, at which point you would be busted.

Walt Rogers WX

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 6:13:29 PM UTC-8, WaltWX wrote:
> Actually... I like the $50 cockpit camera idea. It's simple and commercially available. Place 10 real ones in cockpit ... and the rest look-a-likes. I think it would be easy to detect more than 20 secs of IMC flying, at which point you would be busted.
>
> Walt Rogers WX

I took a look. There are a boatload of inexpensive HD cameras available with a variety of interesting features - they can run on external power, shoot time lapse, record to SD cards of various capacities so you get get 12+ hours of recording, loop recording, multiple mounting options, etc. Turns out car cameras (kind of like police car cameras it seems) are all over the place in addition to sports cameras, FPV cameras, surveillance cameras. Lots to choose from.

I bought a couple of interesting candidates to play with in 2015 to see what might be practical if it comes to the need to verify adherence to FARs and racing rules.

Hopefully people aren't making a habit out of this as a tactic - it is unsportsmanlike, in violation of FARs and potentially a risk to life and property as gliders are not generally equipped for for flight into instrument conditions and certainly not designed for flight into icing conditions. CDs are within their authority to deal with violations in the harshest terms.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:
>
> Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/83/2/10.1063/1.3685252
>
> Here's another article
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz9bwzh/BalloonBorneRadiometerForCloudDetection.pdf?dl=0
>
> Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.
>
> Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.
>
> Walt Rogers WX

I don't think we need another device installed that then has to be checked by contest officials.
The current long standing prohibition of instruments that allow true instrument flight, as well as compliance and, sportsmanship on the part of competitors, has made this a non issue for decades.
Permitting true instrument flying tools installed has the real potential to change this. It also retains the strong position against flying non VFR in contests.
It is true that some devices have features that may make flight without reference to the horizon possible, however whether they are good enough for continuous instrument flight in thermals is of some question. You need a very good instrument to do this, particularly with modern slippery gliders. use of the turn rate features in some GPS displays is good enough in a 1-26, if you know how to do it, but now way will it work with any degree of reliability in my '29.
The enforcement argument has a real degree of truth. We can't practically enforce this rule if someone wants to sneak something into their ship. That said, we don't need to outright permit it.
Voluntary compliance and sportsmanship have proven to be adequate. Why add the potential temptation to instrument fly by expressly allowing the needed equipment?
Most changes in the rules come about because there is a need identified by pilots. This proposed change is done in the "cause" of simplification. In my view, and that of many I've talked to, it is not needed and adds a real risk of negative consequences.
Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?
Under my desk now
UH

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

At a regionals last year 3 pilots said they 'iced up' on the last day and one of them won 4 days in a row, beating the second-place handicapped speed by 10 mph on most days. Guess who won the contest? I submit that a few are already venturing into short bursts of IFR flight and we have no way to catch them short of someone seeing another glider enter or exit a cloud. On at least one occasion, the winner sought out and then deliberately flew under storm clouds, exchanging lift into speed. Not illegal if you stay VFR, but the chance of being forced into the cloud is always present. This 2-place ship had 'fat' cell phones stuck to the canopy in both seats. Does anyone believe they weren't accessing near real-time radar WX and artificial horizon app installed?

Lets give the CD a couple of recording cameras. I believe just showing the camera along with a stern warning at the mandatory pilots meeting would bring this unauthorized IFR flight, to a screeching halt!

Oh, the shame of being asked (forced) to wear the CD's ankle bracelet!

JJ

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 6:10:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
> > It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:
> >
> > Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection
> >
> > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/83/2/10.1063/1.3685252
> >
> > Here's another article
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz9bwzh/BalloonBorneRadiometerForCloudDetection.pdf?dl=0
> >
> > Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.
> >
> > Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.
> >
> > Walt Rogers WX
>
> I don't think we need another device installed that then has to be checked by contest officials.
> The current long standing prohibition of instruments that allow true instrument flight, as well as compliance and, sportsmanship on the part of competitors, has made this a non issue for decades.
> Permitting true instrument flying tools installed has the real potential to change this. It also retains the strong position against flying non VFR in contests.
> It is true that some devices have features that may make flight without reference to the horizon possible, however whether they are good enough for continuous instrument flight in thermals is of some question. You need a very good instrument to do this, particularly with modern slippery gliders. use of the turn rate features in some GPS displays is good enough in a 1-26, if you know how to do it, but now way will it work with any degree of reliability in my '29.
> The enforcement argument has a real degree of truth. We can't practically enforce this rule if someone wants to sneak something into their ship. That said, we don't need to outright permit it.
> Voluntary compliance and sportsmanship have proven to be adequate. Why add the potential temptation to instrument fly by expressly allowing the needed equipment?
> Most changes in the rules come about because there is a need identified by pilots. This proposed change is done in the "cause" of simplification. In my view, and that of many I've talked to, it is not needed and adds a real risk of negative consequences.
> Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?
> Under my desk now
> UH

Agreed - more stuff for pilots to manage and for CDs to deal with is not the goal of glider racing.

The issue was raised at the specific request of a CD in response to his belief that pilots might have been racing in violation of the prohibition on cloud flying - or at least acting at significant risk of getting sucked into cloud by flying under CBs. It was believed that this was done by carrying cell phone A-H, and other apps, mostly as backup, but maybe not. This is all happening under the current rules of course. GPS also facilitates that sort of flying by allowing the pilot to more easily hold a course line under IMC. Does it happen a lot? Maybe not. Does it win contests - maybe on rare occasions. But we are glider pilots and it is winter so it's easy to get wound up about what might be happening.

Rather than prohibit GPS and phones (which is overkill and impractical) the primary alternative is to maintain the prohibition on illegal behavior and make a judgement as to whether there is adequate deterrent via credible means of detection, rather than try to detect the thing that might allow the pilot to pursue the risky behavior if he decided to (a lot of conditional logic and complexity in that approach). The equipment inspection stuff IMHO is silly at this point. It has been - or very shortly will be - overtaken by the relentless march of technical innovation. They said phones would never be any good for doing computing tasks ('they' includes me and 'they' were wrong). It won't be long before we see a whole bunch of things you couldn't even imagine a few years ago and a lot of it will be amazing. What's in your cellphone could well be better (and certainly cheaper) than what was considered a sophisticated instrument not long ago.

Speaking personally, it would be of some additional comfort to me, in the event that I get inadvertently sucked into a cloud someday, to not have the thing that could save my glider and maybe my life deliberately disabled.

Also of interest and worthy of discussion are other apps like the smartphone based sailplane trackers (that offers significantly enhanced position reporting vs Spot) and apps for obtaining weather information. Do we need app inspections and prohibitions in the rules for these? If so, how would it be enforced? What would it be intended to stop? Apps are cheap and most people already own the hardware. Flight computers are getting Bluetooth to the integration is just software. So, is it good or bad for pilots to have available on their phones - or on their flight computers within a year or so - the locations of embedded thunderstorm, microburst and rain activity? Is it better to fly into the gloom without this information?

Out from under the desk Hank - back to the keyboard! ;-)

9B

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?

Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!

Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.

Nice daydream though.

T8

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:15:48 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?
>
> Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!
>
> Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.
>
> Nice daydream though.
>
> T8

To really simplify you have to start nearly from scratch - typically because of interdependencies and accumulation of rules on top of rules. This is not without its perils.

It wasn't just onboard technology where simplification held sway this year. Simplification came up in the discussion of the interplay between having to land to restart a task (or not), the requirement to land at the airport post-finish (or not) and the ability to use the finish point as a MAT turnpoint (if it is designated a turnpoint). There is also a lot of complexity in creating special rules to accommodate motorgliders without conferring an unfair advantage (an eye of the beholder topic for sure). Maximum number of tows allowed, what and where a motorglider/sustainer can do an engine test run. It's a lot of figuring out the principle at stake and all the different scenarios that can occur that meet or violate the principle you're aiming for. In all of the above cases the RC opted for simplification after a boatload of analysis and discussion. Take a look and see what you think. Right direction or wrong direction to take provisions out.

More radical surgery is a more time-consuming task with even more tradeoffs.. Taking the sliding scale penalty off the finish has come up. The dirt-simple version is you either finish above MFH or you don't. In theory you could eliminate MFH altogether - 0 foot finishes at a mile or two - I guess that is literally dirt-simple. Not sure who would go for it. The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

9B

[[email protected]]

Please! Please! don't make us carry surveillance cameras in the cockpit. How I long for the days when everyone had to go to specific points in the sky and a good finish was landing anywhere on the airport. Having said that, many of the changes in recent years are excellent and have no significant down side. Some of the changes, however, seem to be fixes for problems that have not yet occurred. Simplification is a commendable goal and I applaud the rules committee for attempting to do so.
Dale Bush DLB

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:12:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

The reason for this is that Sports Class doesn't have that option and it makes sense that all concurrent classes are using the same finish.

90% of our contests include a Sports Class, so effectively the finish line is history.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/20/2015 2:20 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:12:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.
>
> The reason for this is that Sports Class doesn't have that option and it makes sense that all concurrent classes are using the same finish.
>
> 90% of our contests include a Sports Class, so effectively the finish line is history.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8
>
Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

[WaltWX[_2_]]

I agree that adding a device to detect cloud flying (camera or specialized sensor) add unnecessary complication to U.S. Contest rules. It was mentioned only as a potential solution to high end competition such as World Championships.

Walt WX

[Sean Fidler]

I once witnessed a glider far above me while exiting the same cloud. I was leaving the cloud at cloud-base. The glider in question was much, much higher (2000 ft +) and was on the same heading towards the next "turn." I was quite shocked. How did that guy get that high? What did I miss? I was impressed to be honest, but also knew what I "might" have been witnessing. I kept a very close eye on this glider for as long as I could (another hour). I did not see that behavior again and just could not be certain. I never saw that glider enter (or exit) the cloud. I only saw it well above me exiting (I assume) the same cloud. I really didn't give it much thought at the time. I let it go. I spoke to the pilot and mentioned being surprised at his altitude. The pilot changed the conversation... The cloud was large, mature, fully developed. The thermal was very, very strong... Could it have been cloud flying? Maybe. Actually, if I had to put cash on the table, probably. But I cannot not be certain. Perhaps that pilot come up the front or side of the cloud. Perhaps there was a less developed portion of the cloud somewhere. Intentional cloud flying (cheating) is a very, very difficult thing to actually "prove."

I guess I have not experienced the feeling of losing a competition to someone I thought was cloud flying. I empathize with those who have (speak up and be heard if anyone has). That said, I strongly agree with the very intelligent removal of this long obsolete rule from our already portly US rule book. If preventing cloud flying is an important problem worthy of a specific rule, why have we so obviously not been enforcing it? That, to me, is the real litmus test.

Has anyone ever been caught cloud flying? Where, When and How? Please expound and detail the (many) incidents where contest pilots have been accused and proven to have been cheating by cloud flying? In the US? The World?

Others here have "noted" (hearsay really) that they have suspected (as recently as last year) other US contest pilots of cloud flying (under the OLD rule by the way). This may or may not be true. If the suspicion of cloud flying last year is true (iced wings), this proves that the OLD rule is NOT a meaningful deterrent for the competitor that is willing to cheat by cloud flying. Were these pilots disciplined? Why not? Clearly, the old rule was not effective in this case.

The only meaninful deterrent capable of preventing cloud flying is aggressive ENFORCEMENT and the likelihood of getting caught. Pilots are, apparently, still cloud flying in US contests (and it is influencing the results). If you simply reinstate the OLD rule (inconveniencing all honest pilots), you will, apparently, still have the cheating. The OLD rule clearly does nothing to prevent it even when "clear evidence" exists that it occured. If we really want to eliminate cloud flying from contests, we need to introduce a reliable, iron clad means of being able to prove that it occurred. The presence of the modern instruments and devices outlawed in the OLD rule, apparently, does little or nothing to stop cloud flying by pilots determined to cheat by cloud flying. This is a fact.

If you (the ones who want the ineffective, unenforced OLD rule reinstated) are TRULY serious about preventing illegal cloud flying, you are going need onboard cameras. Pilots would need to provide a flight trace along with "access" to a clear, reliable video file for each contest flight (primary and backup camera ;-)). This is simple to do really. Actually, its quite fun! But, most importantly and in addition to the cameras, the competing pilots would need to be vigilant in calling out others who they feel are cloud flying. Then the CD can easily check the incident in question and verify. Only this kind of PROOF will be truly effective in preventing cloud flying by pilots sophisticated enough to do so under the old rule. Only this level of proof would make it too risky for the sophisticated cloud flying US contest pilot to continue cheating in US contests.

The old rule, in the modern age, became a complete waste of time and paper. If cloud flying was occurring last year, then by definition the old rule was not preventing it. We need the will to ENFORCE and a mechanism that provides clear proof that cloud flying has occurred. Anything else is not going to deter, prevent or prove it happened. No broad analysis software technology exists or will exist in the foreseeable future that can PROVE cloud flying occurred.

If we are serious about this, we need video. If not, then its a ghost that can never be caught or proven to exist.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
> it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
> should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
> all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
> the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...
>
> Cheers
> Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout.

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>
> Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.
>
> John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.
> >
> > John Cochrane.
>
> By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?
>
> And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.
>
> Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.
>
> Steve Leonard

It's an interesting question about where, and how high, you want to congregate traffic. In the end, if you intend to finish at the airport you are going to have a bunch of gliders coming together at whatever the finish height is (maybe zero if it's a gate). If it's a line with anything but a basically perpendicular final course line you will be concentrating that traffic at the close end of the gate and at the finish height. I was squeezed up against that point a few times 30 years ago. I still remember the experience vividly - including the other pilots. It works decently well on an AST (Fidler - you listening?) because you are all lined up on final glide and know who you are going to be dealing with at the finish 20-30 miles out. With modern tasks (TAT and MAT) I think you need a steering turn at least 20-30 miles out where people are at altitude and cruising, rather than on final glide where they all hit the turn on final glide at the same altitude. I'd still take converging traffic to a 1-mile cylinder at altitude over converging traffic to the edge of a gate at zero feet. In fact I'm not even sure how you'd do it on a MAT without a mandatory final turn where gliders could be trying to hook the gate going opposite directions at redline and zero feet - ouch!

9B

[Luke Szczepaniak]

The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!

Luke

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:28:27 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
> > it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
> > should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
> > all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
> > the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...
> >
> > Cheers
> > Luke Szczepaniak
>
> The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.
>
> A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout..
>
> Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.
>
> Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?
>
> John Cochrane.

I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
Very few pilots think they need, or care about, being able to have AHRS available to them.
I suspect this initiative is more about making smartphones legally usable in the cockpit, in no small part due to the potential attractiveness of tracking systems that might use them. If so, let's get it out and talk about that.
I'll go first with my position. It is that a phone has it's place which is stowed in a safe place by the pilot(maybe on his chute harness and turned OFF.
Back under the desk
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 9:16:06 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:28:27 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
> > > it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
> > > should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
> > > all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
> > > the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Luke Szczepaniak
> >
> > The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.
> >
> > A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout.
> >
> > Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.
> >
> > Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?
> >
> > John Cochrane.
>
> I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
> Very few pilots think they need, or care about, being able to have AHRS available to them.
> I suspect this initiative is more about making smartphones legally usable in the cockpit, in no small part due to the potential attractiveness of tracking systems that might use them. If so, let's get it out and talk about that.
> I'll go first with my position. It is that a phone has it's place which is stowed in a safe place by the pilot(maybe on his chute harness and turned OFF.
> Back under the desk
> UH

UH is exactly correct - the stuff about allowing AHRS is not related at all to a perceived need to have AHRS.

The issues being addressed is one of doing something to help boost interest in racing by making it possible observers to "watch" a race in nearly real time. To do this requires something like fast InReach (expensive) or a smartphone app (Sailplane Tracker).

Let me repeat this, the removal of limits on electronic equipment is meant as a way to enable better real time tracking and hopefully boost interest in racing.

The side effect however is that it opens a lot of doors once the smart phone is on (two way data, weather, monitoring of competitors position/progress, AHRS).

The fact that some pilots are currently being unsportsmanlike in their use of the technology anyway and the fact that this is very hard to police also figures in.

But again, this is an effort to utilize tracking to promote interest.

QT, RC Chair.

[Mark628CA]

In cockpit cameras? OK, let's say we have a contest with 40 entries and they are equipped with 10 actual cockpit cameras and 30 dummies, which is supposed to scare people into compliance. The day's task is 3 hours. Who is going to sit there and review 30 hours of video, trying to find that elusive 30 seconds of cloud flying? And if you run it in fast-forward speed, you will probably miss it if you blink. Just thought I would point out that cockpit cameras are an empty threat unless all of the video is reviewed daily. Sounds like the most boring job in the world.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:02:12 AM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote: > The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!
> > Luke

Trouble is, Luke, at least in the US, the "steering turn" for a MAT task, by our rules, cannot be more than 10 miles out (10.3.2.2.5). And I really see no need for a "Steering turn" on a TAT. You have defined where they are coming from, so why force them all close together just short of the finish and then keep them together for the short run home? Boggled my mind that at the Sports Nationals at TSA, they used a final turnpoint at 5 miles out with a one mile radius to a one mile radius finish cylinder on every task. MAT, TAT, and AST.

And, Andy, no matter what type of finish you use, you have converging traffic to a specific point (closest point on the line or cylinder, and minimum altitude), so you really can't choose one or the other (converge at the finish or converge at a final steering turn). You always have convergence at the finish, and the smaller your turn area, the more convergence you have there. But at intermediate turns, you have a greater chance of altitude spread.

Steve Leonard

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
...> UH

The thing pilots tell us most of all is that the rules are too complicated. If you'll look at the minutes, nobody said we should remove the equipment limits because pilots wanted to bring equipment. Quite the opposite. Removing the limitations chucked out pages and pages of rules that nobody was paying attention to because this just isn't a real-world problem. And if we're ever going to simplify rules, we have to be willing to make some line between pages and pages of rules to address hypothetical maybe someday problems and actual problems.

On the steering turn, let's recall there was a midair at Uvalde involving a steering turn. The FAA AIM advice that lots of traffic arrive at an airport at a decent altitude and then follow a standard pattern isn't all that bad.

John Cocharne

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:02:12 AM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote: > The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!
> > > Luke
>
> Trouble is, Luke, at least in the US, the "steering turn" for a MAT task, by our rules, cannot be more than 10 miles out (10.3.2.2.5). And I really see no need for a "Steering turn" on a TAT. You have defined where they are coming from, so why force them all close together just short of the finish and then keep them together for the short run home? Boggled my mind that at the Sports Nationals at TSA, they used a final turnpoint at 5 miles out with a one mile radius to a one mile radius finish cylinder on every task. MAT, TAT, and AST.
>
> And, Andy, no matter what type of finish you use, you have converging traffic to a specific point (closest point on the line or cylinder, and minimum altitude), so you really can't choose one or the other (converge at the finish or converge at a final steering turn). You always have convergence at the finish, and the smaller your turn area, the more convergence you have there. But at intermediate turns, you have a greater chance of altitude spread.
>
> Steve Leonard

I agree with your geometric assessment Steve. I'd rather not have a MAT with no steering turn to a gate finish. Not sure if that's what you were arguing for. The 10 mile steering point may be too close to get a good altitude spread however.

9B

[BobW]

<Snip...>
>
> On the steering turn, let's recall there was a midair at Uvalde involving a
> steering turn. The FAA AIM advice that lots of traffic arrive at an
> airport at a decent altitude and then follow a standard pattern isn't all
> that bad.

Not being a contest pilot, I have no dog in this "fight" but a couple of the
comments and observations have come close to triggering my "kneejerk response
mode."

One was the point made that the writer would hate to be sucked up into a cloud
under the circumstances his phone-based AHRS would be turned-off-by-rule.
While I understand the stated position, it simultaneously tends to support the
truism: "A person can rationalize anything if s/he tries hard enough."

Another thought relates to the truism (supported by FAA statistics) that most
mid-airs occur in the airport traffic pattern...which to me is something of a
"Duh!" statistic. (It wouldn't surprise me if someone could also tease out a
strong correlation between the above stat and altitude IN the pattern, with
the preponderance of collisions being closer to the ground [as in, in the
narrowing portion of the approach cone].) In any event...

....when viewed in the above "normal pattern statistical light," an argument
can be made that a large portion of contest soaring's angst centered on this
aspect of contest finishes might accurately be restated as, "Which approach
pattern has the lowest overall (collision, off-field-landing,
high-stress-related) risks?"

Musingly...

Bob W.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> I agree with your geometric assessment Steve. I'd rather not have a MAT with no steering turn to a gate finish. Not sure if that's what you were arguing for. The 10 mile steering point may be too close to get a good altitude spread however.
>
> 9B

I am not arguing for a MAT with a gate finish. If you use a MAT, for goodness sake just use a finish cylinder and keep it high enough and in close enough so there is time to sort out who lands first. Pretty sure we agree on this.

However, if I am forced to pick between two evils, I would rather have a MAT with a finish line and set direction, let the pilot choose if he wants to use a last turn that requires a gate hook or not than have a MAT with a mandatory last turn that is within 10 miles of the finish (as would be required for a steering turn under the present rules). Why? If I am setting myself up for a hook the end of the gate finish, I personally will add another 2-300 feet to my finish energy to be able to make the turn. I won't do it on the deck. I will be outside the area of the opposite direction traffic and probably above what they will get on their pull up when we might pass. And my eyes will be in the direction they will be coming from. I won't likely pick a final turnpoint that requires the gate hook, either. I would rather not have the chance of driving to a point and then heading home with someone driving for that same point, opposite my heading, at my altitude (I tend to fly final glides with more margin than most).

But just to be doubly clear. If I am flying a MAT, I want a finish cylinder, not a gate finish.

I am of the opinion that a final turnpoint in very close is something that should be avoided whenever possible, with the US finish rules.

The lesson learned from that terrible accident at Uvalde is to not do a near 180 degree course reversal close to home (even 20 miles out), as the altitude difference inbound to outbound and fat to squeaking is so little that you will almost assure near head on passes at minimal altitude separation. And it has been interesting to watch as a Task Advisor how this can be applied in the middle of a task to the point where the CD is on some days afraid to have a large direction reversal even with a large turn area. And other days, it never seems to enter his mind. Human Nature, I guess.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

FWIW - I am very new to contest flying and have little expertise - so I am confident I can give you the view from a newbie/non competitive older guy.

I flock to any thing that allows people on the ground (primarily my wife) to watch where I am - if something new allows (my crew (my wife)) to see how high I am , I load that - if it shows more - I load that app - all in an attempt to bring the people who care about me and give me the space/time to fly, to feel more apart of my experience and stay engaged in the sport. Tracking is a good thing :)

I also use the Financially Efficient means of navigation (XCSOAR/Top Hat) on a tablet and backed up by my smart phone. I carry spare batteries and have them hooked to their own external batteries, so they work without a drain on the glider batteries.

I feel it is impossible to stop tech gadgets in the cockpit - hopefully pilots use them wisely and they add to safety, rather than become a huge distraction. (same can be said for FLARM displays, I think)

I would not want to be the CD who has to figure our which dive can do what - I am pretty sure we all would have a problem knowing what apps are on any device and what they do, how they are disabled and how hard it is to enable and disable them on the fly.

VFR has pretty clear definition - and if you cheat, you know it and probably everyone else does to. So you may win a few but you don't make friends and you do not share the experience, so........

i would not worry about tech stuff in the cockpit other than the poor instructors who have to ensure their student keep their eyes where they belong - looking out the canopy.

WH1

[Sean Fidler]

Yep, listening. Interesting discussion.

My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) and less conversation about these silly, rule intensive "compromise tasks." We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).

You called MAT and AAT tasks, "modern tasks." I almost fell off my chair. Please! "Modern" is a very poor choice of words for AAT/MAT tasking. AAT//MAT tasks are diluted, compromised tasks created to allow CD's to deal with poor weather, broad handicap range classes and/or perhaps broad pilot skill level within a single class. I still cannot believe that some pilots actually PREFER to do "compromise tasks" vs pure/clean/simple assigned tasks. As soaring pilots, we only get a few contests a year (if we are lucky). Does anyone really wake up in the morning at a contest and WANT to do a TAT tasks? I hope not.

Furthermore, the skill level required to effectively "time" AAT turns or choose the correct sequence of free MAT turnpoints is quite high. These complex "compromise tasks" are actually difficult for beginners both in terms of rules and strategy. I would expect that both novice and experienced pilots would strongly prefer AT's. Assigned Tasks have (by far) the lowest amount of complexity. A pilot could EASILY fly an AT with a cheap GPS ($150) and have little or no need for expensive flight computers.

As for the AHRS/smart phone rule discussion, if we are serious about stoping this behavior we should do cameras. Here is how it could work. Pilots would be required to produce a flight trace AND a clear video file of their flight (clear view out of the canopy). Suitable cameras are available for $100. If (and only if) a cloud flying protest is made, the CD would ask the "protested" pilot to produce the video file. The CD could then easily go to the portion of the flight the protest identifies without having to watch the entire video. If you are not protested (99.99999% of the time), you still have great video library to share. CD's (and protesters) would have PROOF if cloud flying occurred. No playing around. I think its a good idea IF we really think cloud flying is actually influencing results often (ice on wings story from last year?). Maybe it is. Only thing I know for sure is the OLD RULE was not preventing it AT ALL!


On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:03:15 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane.
> >
> > By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?
> >
> > And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.
> >
> > Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others..
> >
> > Steve Leonard
>
> It's an interesting question about where, and how high, you want to congregate traffic. In the end, if you intend to finish at the airport you are going to have a bunch of gliders coming together at whatever the finish height is (maybe zero if it's a gate). If it's a line with anything but a basically perpendicular final course line you will be concentrating that traffic at the close end of the gate and at the finish height. I was squeezed up against that point a few times 30 years ago. I still remember the experience vividly - including the other pilots. It works decently well on an AST (Fidler - you listening?) because you are all lined up on final glide and know who you are going to be dealing with at the finish 20-30 miles out. With modern tasks (TAT and MAT) I think you need a steering turn at least 20-30 miles out where people are at altitude and cruising, rather than on final glide where they all hit the turn on final glide at the same altitude. I'd still take converging traffic to a 1-mile cylinder at altitude over converging traffic to the edge of a gate at zero feet. In fact I'm not even sure how you'd do it on a MAT without a mandatory final turn where gliders could be trying to hook the gate going opposite directions at redline and zero feet - ouch!
>
> 9B

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

If your flying in clouds and its working, you should be in the top three, right? Why not issue the top three a camera, right after we weigh them? These cameras can be set to take photo every minute, so a 3 hour flight would only have 180 frames...........not a burden to review, only looking for an all grey shot, right? Ice is not the only thing that one can find inside a cloud.
Trust, but verify!
JJ

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 22 January 2015 07:40:07 UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> If your flying in clouds and its working, you should be in the top three, right? Why not issue the top three a camera, right after we weigh them? These cameras can be set to take photo every minute, so a 3 hour flight would only have 180 frames...........not a burden to review, only looking for an all grey shot, right? Ice is not the only thing that one can find inside a cloud.
> Trust, but verify!
> JJ

Requiring cameras is as ridiculous as weighing gliders. Let's see I finish in the top 3 for the day so I get weighed the next day. HMMMM wonder how that is proving anything

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 12:09:23 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
> ..> UH
>
> The thing pilots tell us most of all is that the rules are too complicated. If you'll look at the minutes, nobody said we should remove the equipment limits because pilots wanted to bring equipment. Quite the opposite. Removing the limitations chucked out pages and pages of rules that nobody was paying attention to because this just isn't a real-world problem. And if we're ever going to simplify rules, we have to be willing to make some line between pages and pages of rules to address hypothetical maybe someday problems and actual problems.
>
> On the steering turn, let's recall there was a midair at Uvalde involving a steering turn. The FAA AIM advice that lots of traffic arrive at an airport at a decent altitude and then follow a standard pattern isn't all that bad.
>
> John Cocharne

The portions of the rules associated with the equipment limitation we are talking about involve about 6 paragraphs in the rules. The primary areas I have been discussing relate to AHRS(pretty much one paragraph) and 2 way information exchange( a few places given that phones are addressed). The simplification canard is really, in my view, and confirmed by QT, a way to open the door to 2 way information transfer via cell phone. This is potentially, and I'll say likely, to make a huge change when tactical information can come into the cockpit from any source, including crews.
The argument that the prohibition can't be enforced, therefore it should go, is self serving. We don't enforce parachute repacking, or program letters, or inspections, yet we believe we have compliance. I see no reason to think we have to go beyond that with phones. We can make it clear what the rule is, and only go to checking and enforcement if there is thought to be a reason to do so.
Another option is specification that the phone carried be a cheap track phone. I hear the yells that "you will only take my phone from my cold dead hand" now.
The RC is intrigued by possibilities of "near real time" contest display. I wonder how many people will actually be interested in watching this. Obviously it will attract a few distracted office workers, but is it worth the potential, and strongly likely(my view) change top our sport? I seriously doubt that it will attract many new participants.
Re steering- occasionally a steering cylinder can be an added safety tool. Harris Hill uses one commonly to get returning traffic to stay off the departure and arrival tracks coming out of the adjoining class D airspace. So far, the funneling effect appears to be limited and acceptable.
UH

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

That clarifies the issues pretty well.

I don't think it would be practical to require pilots to buy a second, dedicated phone with a wireless plan and all the attendant hassles just for soaring. Alternatively, I doubt very many people will volunteer to give up their current phones to move back to the 1990's in their daily lives - even if the RC says so.

I think it's silly to have a prohibition in the rules that everyone knows we are not serious about and gets ignored routinely (kind of like the Italian tax code). People aren't routinely tempted to not repack their parachutes and it generally doesn't alter your approach to flying. I'd need to know more, but I am open to the idea that having weather radar available on a glide computer would be a good thing for racing and safety. I like the possibilities that real time tracking opens up - not just entertainment for bored office workers.

No one is proposing ending the prohibition on getting help from the ground. As a practical matter the number of people on the ground in a position to provide material help is pretty limited these days - though anything is possible in theory I suppose. Even the most primitive phones can receive text messages so the potential will always be there.

The future is coming for all of us - at a rate of one day every 24 hours.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:10:21 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> That clarifies the issues pretty well.
>
> I don't think it would be practical to require pilots to buy a second, dedicated phone with a wireless plan and all the attendant hassles just for soaring. Alternatively, I doubt very many people will volunteer to give up their current phones to move back to the 1990's in their daily lives - even if the RC says so.
>
> I think it's silly to have a prohibition in the rules that everyone knows we are not serious about and gets ignored routinely (kind of like the Italian tax code). People aren't routinely tempted to not repack their parachutes and it generally doesn't alter your approach to flying. I'd need to know more, but I am open to the idea that having weather radar available on a glide computer would be a good thing for racing and safety. I like the possibilities that real time tracking opens up - not just entertainment for bored office workers.
>
> No one is proposing ending the prohibition on getting help from the ground. As a practical matter the number of people on the ground in a position to provide material help is pretty limited these days - though anything is possible in theory I suppose. Even the most primitive phones can receive text messages so the potential will always be there.
>
> The future is coming for all of us - at a rate of one day every 24 hours.
>
> 9B

It would seem to me that, given the RC says we should not have a rule we can't enforce, like the rule that does not permit equipment that allows flight without reference to the ground, they will obviously next allow 2 way communication and data handling via cell phone because they will say they can't enforce a rule against that.
When it gets to that point, it seems to me that pretty much anything goes, limited only by imagination and resources. I see a time that cockpits will have virtually real time tracking and display of all competitors, as well as comprehensive weather information, and additional ground support communication.
Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
We all need to decide if that is really where we want to go with our sport. I'm sure there will be some that do. I expect there will be some(many I think)that will not.
The obvious question is whether the people we think we may attract will exceed those we can expect we will lose.
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:06:50 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:10:21 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > That clarifies the issues pretty well.
> >
> > I don't think it would be practical to require pilots to buy a second, dedicated phone with a wireless plan and all the attendant hassles just for soaring. Alternatively, I doubt very many people will volunteer to give up their current phones to move back to the 1990's in their daily lives - even if the RC says so.
> >
> > I think it's silly to have a prohibition in the rules that everyone knows we are not serious about and gets ignored routinely (kind of like the Italian tax code). People aren't routinely tempted to not repack their parachutes and it generally doesn't alter your approach to flying. I'd need to know more, but I am open to the idea that having weather radar available on a glide computer would be a good thing for racing and safety. I like the possibilities that real time tracking opens up - not just entertainment for bored office workers.
> >
> > No one is proposing ending the prohibition on getting help from the ground. As a practical matter the number of people on the ground in a position to provide material help is pretty limited these days - though anything is possible in theory I suppose. Even the most primitive phones can receive text messages so the potential will always be there.
> >
> > The future is coming for all of us - at a rate of one day every 24 hours.
> >
> > 9B
>
> It would seem to me that, given the RC says we should not have a rule we can't enforce, like the rule that does not permit equipment that allows flight without reference to the ground, they will obviously next allow 2 way communication and data handling via cell phone because they will say they can't enforce a rule against that.
> When it gets to that point, it seems to me that pretty much anything goes, limited only by imagination and resources. I see a time that cockpits will have virtually real time tracking and display of all competitors, as well as comprehensive weather information, and additional ground support communication.
> Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
> We all need to decide if that is really where we want to go with our sport. I'm sure there will be some that do. I expect there will be some(many I think)that will not.
> The obvious question is whether the people we think we may attract will exceed those we can expect we will lose.
> UH

Well said UH. The implications of opening the door are a real sea change to the sport. We're putting this out now so that the vigorous debate has adequate time to occur and be reflected upon, so that the decision can be made with our eyes open.
QT

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:48:09 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
>... My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) ...
>... We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).

Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:

10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/23/2015 10:41 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:
>
> 10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...


This is in the sports class rules not in the FAI rules, sports class did
not support AST tasks untill now. FAI classes still have AST.

Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

And so the advantage will go to a well-practiced crew in a two-seater. The driver in front and the electronics whizz in the back seat driving all of the "stuff" and acting as captain. Should be invincible in sports and open.






On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 6:35:19 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing > Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014_Rules_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
>
> If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.
>
> For the Committee,
> John Godfrey (QT), Chair

[Sean Fidler]

Pure AT's are almost as rare as ridge soaring unicorns in the United States today: http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/09/13/unicorn.jpg?x=648&y=429&crop=1

As only 3% of SSA sanctioned contest tasks (all classes <sports, FAI, 15, 18, Standard & Open> in both regionals and nationals) were AT's in 2013. THREE PERCENT! The 2014 "numbers" are coming soon. Anyone care to wager what the 2014 AT % will be?

Link to the 2013 SSA Task Spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NO7073Z6J-r77aUbR1oOEKrusXwfYf4amtaem_Rw-E4/edit?usp=sharing

It is waste of printer ink to include a rule forbidding ASTs in sports class. Why bother? The likelihood of getting as AST at a sports class regional or nationals (only the US has a "sports class") is almost zero. AST's have been criminalized and *******ized by the US/SSA into the MAT. Most MAT's in 2013 were the DREADED "one turn" MAT aka OLC task. I won't even speak about the 1 turn MAT other than to say that nothing justifies OLC contests better.

The MAT is a poor task in my opinion. It only exists in the USA (SSA) I believe. If that is true, I think it is for very good reason. As the prominent feature of a MAT (much like the TAT) is a minimum time, it is not a racing task by definition. The complexity that is inherently introduced at the end of the long MAT (the only reasonable MAT) often screws up the leaders great performance (to that point) as a mistake in choosing the extra turn point(s) often results in another pilot "getting lucky." Timing/task speed is also critical. If the first pilot to the final "called" MAT point is 5-10 minutes early, they really have no time to hit another point. They may be forced to simply give up that time. The alternative is to "take a chance" in adding another free turn point while the trailers do not have to take this risk to finish over the minimum time. What a mess! This is not a satisfying way to win a task (luck) and is simply unfair to the top pilots. MATs should almost never be called in pure classes or at Nationals. If you can call a long MAT, why bother? Call an AST!!!! MATs should mainly be called in sports class which has now formally OUTLAWED (nice catch YO) the AST! That is pretty funny really. I am not in the least surprised.

Pure AT's should be called on any contest flying day when the weather is good or great. If its a great forecast, call an AT, simple! Pure assigned tasks are easy, clean tests of flying skill. They have the fewest variables of all other tasks BY FAR. They should be further enhanced with 30-60 minute start windows (I would prefer 20)! The other SSA tasks are "compromise tasks" that should only be called when the CD absolutely must in order to deal with less than ideal circumstances (weather, handicap range, broad pilot skill). We should have at least 25% AT's in the USA, not 3%. MAT's are NOT ATs! They stink! We should outlaw them in pure classes just as the AST was OUTLAWED in sports!

I understand why sports class CD's (with its large handicap range and varied pilot skill level) would have a difficult time getting a real task called.. And this is probably why the sports class is fading away. Its not a very good means of competing. It is certainly my (and probably most others) last choice for a competition class. SSA sports class (only in the USA) is a compromise class to use when not enough gliders are available to have club, 15, 18, Open, Standard or FAI classes.

I would suggest that sports class should be broken into smaller groups (as small as 5) of similar handicap ranges in order to further avoid having to call so many of these compromise tasks. More small classes would also mean more chances to compete fairly and more trophies! That is a great thing IMO. A class with many gliders from 126 to ASG29 and tasks to accommodate that range is, very, very undesirable.

Now, I'm off to put together 2014 tasking numbers!



On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:48:09 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> >... My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) ...
> >... We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).
>
> Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:
>
> 10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...

[Craig Reinholt]

Sean,
You are absolutely correct that there are very few AST's called in US contests each year. However, perhaps you could improve the validity of your research by factoring in for each day the handicap range of the class flown, daily weather conditions, and perhaps landout opportunities over the projected course (add any other factors you think might be pertinent). Just shouting 3% AST's in 2013, while it may be an accurate gross percentage, does not include the variables that would come into play for a CD to remove that option for a give day.
After more than 25 years as a professional buyer listening to sales personnel sling statistics at me to prove a point, it never failed to amaze me on how often they neglected to add or subtract data that gave a true picture of how a product may perform.
I'm very interested in what you come up with.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
> UH

Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.

I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.

It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?

There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.

I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Sean:

There is a reason CDs and task advisers call so few ATs. In the winter on RAS ATs sound great. At 10 AM running a real contest they don't.

ATs necessarily use a small fraction of the soaring day. If a 70% speed pilot can finish, that means the top pilot left 30% of the soaring day on the table. A few days of flying 3 hour tasks on 5-6 hour days (4 hours for slow pilot to finish task, 1 hour to lanuch, 15 minutes to open gate, 15 minutes to get everyone going) and people start grumbling that OLC lets them do a lot more flying.

Or, the CD sets long tasks and the beginners land out day after day. Then they go home and don't go back.

That's on great days with predictable weather. Your CD and task advisers notice quickly that not every day is perfect. Thunderstorms, and the whole fleet lands out at turnpoint 1, while the sky is booming everywhere else. This just isn't fun.

But the rules allow AT! This is not a rules question. Volunteer to be task adviser. Run an all AT contest at Ionia. See if people want it so bad to show up. Lobby task advisers at your contests to run more ATs -- and to persuade all the other pilots that it's a great idea. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping anyone from running an all -AT contest. If they want to do it.

John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

I see two principled reasons to restrict technology in the cockpit. One is if it represents a direct threat to safety that outweighs any beneficial use. The second is if it is both a source of significant competitive advantage AND prohibitively expensive for a significant number of pilots. In both cases being certain about the magnitude of these effects is critical as versions of both arguments have been used against GPS, flight computers, Flarm, Spot/InReach, motorgliders and I'm guessing even electronic variometers and parachutes way back before my time.

The one argument I occasionally hear that I don't give much weighting to is the concern that new technology might give an advantage to pilots willing to learn how to use it over pilots who don't like to learn new things. This argument to me is an argument to kill innovation in a sport that really needs innovation to help it remain vibrant.

Modern cellphones with data communications are ubiquitous and cheap. The technology components have helped make flight computers much more affordable. There are beneficial uses for these innovations in our sport that we are only beginning to understand. I think attempts to stamp them out are both impractical and ultimately a drag on the appeal of the sport.

As John said - if people in reality experience widespread problems with any specific technology we'll hear about it right quickly. We already know that people have weather radar apps on their phones plus a lot of other things.. There's plenty of good that can come of it, but we can also watch for warning signs. We already do - a lot.

9B

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 7:59:47 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> ...versions of both arguments have been used against GPS, flight computers,
> Flarm, Spot/InReach, motorgliders and I'm guessing even electronic
> variometers and parachutes way back before my time.

See: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.aviation.soaring/technification$20AND$20striedieck/rec.aviation.soaring/Mdg3ZiuBapk/SdoUYMeeCjQJ

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Nice stroll down memory lane Dave!

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 1:52:03 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
>
> Nice stroll down memory lane Dave!

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.aviation.soaring/Mdg3ZiuBapk/_H-c9Blf55sJ

[Sean Fidler]

John,

I think most would agree that US rules and our general US tasking "policy" is deeply intertwined. Some very strongly held opinions on tasking are held in certain "area's of influence." I believe that many US and Canadian "contest" pilots are very interested in this discussion about the near US extinction of Assigned Tasks.

The facts are that the USA/SSA ran only 4 (thats right, FOUR aka 2%) ASTs in 2014. This is down almost 50% from 7 in 2013. We ran only 2 ASTs in 2014 US National Contests (down 60% from 2013). Ironically, the only 2014 US Nationals AST (two classes, same day) was held for the "US?" Club Class! So its really one 1 AST in US Nationals in 2014.

I can't imagine too many pilots getting excited to go fly contests that consist mainly of wide turn radius TAT and zero and one turn point MAT.

Well, at least we have the Sailplane Grand Prix to dream about...

Sean


On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Sean:
>
> There is a reason CDs and task advisers call so few ATs. In the winter on RAS ATs sound great. At 10 AM running a real contest they don't.
>
> ATs necessarily use a small fraction of the soaring day. If a 70% speed pilot can finish, that means the top pilot left 30% of the soaring day on the table. A few days of flying 3 hour tasks on 5-6 hour days (4 hours for slow pilot to finish task, 1 hour to lanuch, 15 minutes to open gate, 15 minutes to get everyone going) and people start grumbling that OLC lets them do a lot more flying.
>
> Or, the CD sets long tasks and the beginners land out day after day. Then they go home and don't go back.
>
> That's on great days with predictable weather. Your CD and task advisers notice quickly that not every day is perfect. Thunderstorms, and the whole fleet lands out at turnpoint 1, while the sky is booming everywhere else. This just isn't fun.
>
> But the rules allow AT! This is not a rules question. Volunteer to be task adviser. Run an all AT contest at Ionia. See if people want it so bad to show up. Lobby task advisers at your contests to run more ATs -- and to persuade all the other pilots that it's a great idea. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping anyone from running an all -AT contest. If they want to do it.
>
> John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 2:06:42 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> John,
>
> I think most would agree that US rules and our general US tasking "policy" is deeply intertwined. Some very strongly held opinions on tasking are held in certain "area's of influence." I believe that many US and Canadian "contest" pilots are very interested in this discussion about the near US extinction of Assigned Tasks.
>
> The facts are that the USA/SSA ran only 4 (thats right, FOUR aka 2%) ASTs in 2014. This is down almost 50% from 7 in 2013. We ran only 2 ASTs in 2014 US National Contests (down 60% from 2013). Ironically, the only 2014 US Nationals AST (two classes, same day) was held for the "US?" Club Class! So its really one 1 AST in US Nationals in 2014.
>
> I can't imagine too many pilots getting excited to go fly contests that consist mainly of wide turn radius TAT and zero and one turn point MAT.
>
> Well, at least we have the Sailplane Grand Prix to dream about...
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Sean:
> >
> > There is a reason CDs and task advisers call so few ATs. In the winter on RAS ATs sound great. At 10 AM running a real contest they don't.
> >
> > ATs necessarily use a small fraction of the soaring day. If a 70% speed pilot can finish, that means the top pilot left 30% of the soaring day on the table. A few days of flying 3 hour tasks on 5-6 hour days (4 hours for slow pilot to finish task, 1 hour to lanuch, 15 minutes to open gate, 15 minutes to get everyone going) and people start grumbling that OLC lets them do a lot more flying.
> >
> > Or, the CD sets long tasks and the beginners land out day after day. Then they go home and don't go back.
> >
> > That's on great days with predictable weather. Your CD and task advisers notice quickly that not every day is perfect. Thunderstorms, and the whole fleet lands out at turnpoint 1, while the sky is booming everywhere else. This just isn't fun.
> >
> > But the rules allow AT! This is not a rules question. Volunteer to be task adviser. Run an all AT contest at Ionia. See if people want it so bad to show up. Lobby task advisers at your contests to run more ATs -- and to persuade all the other pilots that it's a great idea. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping anyone from running an all -AT contest. If they want to do it.
> >
> > John Cochrane

That is appalling, I fully agree with you, Sean.
When moving to the Chicago area I found out about the NISC or Northern IL Soaring Contest that John Cochrane and Mike Shakman are running for our area.. The goal of the contest is to provide tasks and challenges that are similar to Regional Contests and to provide training for those (those goals must have been set in the last century). Tasks are pilot-called and consist of picking turnpoints and a minimum flight time (has to be >= 2 hours. TP radius is of course 1 mi. In 2013 for example I turned in 21 flights, at least 90% of them AST type tasks (with min. time). Unfortunately, we started allowing area TP some 2-3 years ago and I don't like them. The discipline required to "make" a turnpoint is an important skill to hone. When flying an OLC camp in UT last year I found myself collecting real turnpoints rather than bouncing only along the lift lines, cost me quite a few OLC points.. Habit is a strong thing to overcome, I guess. Have a look at our NISC and emulate at will:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/index.htm
John, I hope you don't mind me posting this link to your web site.

Herb Kilian

[Sean Fidler]

Thank you Herb.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:26:26 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
> > UH
>
> Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.
>
> I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.
>
> It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?
>
> There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.
>
> I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.
>
> John Cochrane

My point is that it is the responsible thing to look at the potential negative aspects of any change and seriously consider them. There are unintended consequences tied to almost any significant decision and they should be properly addressed. I don't thing playing the Geezer card is a proper way to do this.
Some negatives that I see:
Real AHRS will end up in cockpits. There is little doubt in my mind that, while it may save a few situations, it will lead to more risk taking and quite possibly bad outcomes.
Telephony and data handling in the cockpit will undoubtedly result in more heads down time as pilots try to take advantage of information that could come in. If you doubt this, look around you on your daily commute.
The fundamental character of the sport will change from pilot/glider/sky to pilot/glider/sky/internet resource. Some will say that is a cool thing. Many will not.
If you say this is going to happen anyway, I say it is your duty to manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport.
I understand that this is mostly driven by a vision that flight tracking will create some significant new interest in contest flying. My experience is that watchers and spectators generally aren't participants. If we want more young participants, we need to do a much better job of getting the ones we already have into a contest cockpit. The internet won't do it, mentoring and sponsorship can and will.
My many years experience is that it is much easier to get a bad idea in than it is to get it out later.
The doors on these technologies were knowingly closed many years ago, when much of what is now a reality was foreseen. The philosophical change being contemplated is likely the most profound since the variometer. It certainly potentially far exceeds the impact of GPS.
I'm sure there will be more debate on this. I hope that this topic is polled in a fair and honest way, and not just done to sell the idea. Past experience leads me to believe it will be hard to get all points of view equally represented.

UH

[Bill D]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:20:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:26:26 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
> > > UH
> >
> > Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.
> >
> > I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.
> >
> > It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?
> >
> > There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.
> >
> > I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> My point is that it is the responsible thing to look at the potential negative aspects of any change and seriously consider them. There are unintended consequences tied to almost any significant decision and they should be properly addressed. I don't thing playing the Geezer card is a proper way to do this.
> Some negatives that I see:
> Real AHRS will end up in cockpits. There is little doubt in my mind that, while it may save a few situations, it will lead to more risk taking and quite possibly bad outcomes.
> Telephony and data handling in the cockpit will undoubtedly result in more heads down time as pilots try to take advantage of information that could come in. If you doubt this, look around you on your daily commute.
> The fundamental character of the sport will change from pilot/glider/sky to pilot/glider/sky/internet resource. Some will say that is a cool thing. Many will not.
> If you say this is going to happen anyway, I say it is your duty to manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport.
> I understand that this is mostly driven by a vision that flight tracking will create some significant new interest in contest flying. My experience is that watchers and spectators generally aren't participants. If we want more young participants, we need to do a much better job of getting the ones we already have into a contest cockpit. The internet won't do it, mentoring and sponsorship can and will.
> My many years experience is that it is much easier to get a bad idea in than it is to get it out later.
> The doors on these technologies were knowingly closed many years ago, when much of what is now a reality was foreseen. The philosophical change being contemplated is likely the most profound since the variometer. It certainly potentially far exceeds the impact of GPS.
> I'm sure there will be more debate on this. I hope that this topic is polled in a fair and honest way, and not just done to sell the idea. Past experience leads me to believe it will be hard to get all points of view equally represented.
>
> UH

AHRS, (gyro instruments) are already almost universally installed in airplane cockpits. Has this led to increased risk taking? Sure, some have illegally nosed their airplanes into clouds with one of two outcomes. (for those who survived) One group was so scared they never did it again and the other group promptly began training for an instrument rating. If attitude instruments ever saved anyone not trained to use them, the number of such incidents is vanishingly small.

So, how do we," manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport"? (I really like that quote) One is to make it clear that blind flying without extensive and very necessary training usually leads to an early grave.

The real problem is with those who have that training, experience and competency using their advanced skills to gain advantage over those without it. First we must acknowledge that, in a way, it happens all the time - highly skilled glider pilots usually beat those with lesser skills. But, instrument rated pilots flying a glider equipped in a way to allow them to exploit those skills is a special case that could confer an overwhelming advantage. How would we prevent this?

First is to look for the concurrence of skills and equipment. An instrument rated pilot with no gyro instruments is no issue nor is a non-instrument rated pilot with gyros. For those with both, one asks how well they are scoring relative to the pack. Only the top two or three pilots with both need be watched closely. My bet is the incidences where a pilot with both is at the top of the score sheet with several hundred points separating them from #2 will be very rare. I'd also bet it would be very hard to hide cloud flying when everyone turns in their GPS logs.

[Mike the Strike]

My first glider had a gyro turn and bank that I practiced with enough so that I could fly straight and level if I ever needed to get out of clouds - I didn't deliberately fly into them. This circumstance happened to me a year or so later when cold air outflow from a frontal line suddenly produced a layer of stratus below me that completely blocked the ground. I was able to descend under control through the cloud layer with the aid of the turn and bank. I learned a good lesson that day and I'm sure I won't get caught again the same way.

The argument for not having instruments in the cockpit is the same as that for motorcyclists not to wear helmets or motorists to use seat belts - namely that they encourage risky behavior! Bull****!

Yes, and I'll continue to use radar, satellite and lightning data in the cockpit too, as will many others. The RC better figure out how to adapt to the changing world!

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

They have! And many of us applaud them for doing so under relentless political pressure. The old rule, clearly, was not enforced and was therefore useless. If we don't want cloud flying, we should require cameras. I am more than happy to fly with one. Or, develop another technology to identify IMC occurrences. If your not willing to argue equally for an effective means of cloud flying enforcement (vs just an unenforced rule), aren't you really saying that it's not a real problem? That's how I see it.

Now, back to the fact that only 4 assigned tasks (count them with me...one, two, three...........three and a half..........three and three quarters...........FOUR!!!) were flown in the United States in 2014. Are we the first country to adopt OLC as our basic model for competition flying? Sadly, that it not really a joke. It's a serious question. A strong argument can be made that we (the USA/SSA) are the worlds OLCs largest adopter! So much so that our contest tasking is mimicking OLC more and more every year.

Compare our 4 assigned tasks to -----> 31 <----- ONE turn or ZERO turn HATs (MATs). These (HATS) are really OLC tasks. They have absolutely nothing to do with assigned tasks. We ran 8 times as many OLC tasks as AST tasks! Eight times!!!!!!!!

The weather cannot be that bad. Can it? I'll have data on the speeds and land out percentages soon. Most of our contests were out west last year! Wouldn't you think we would get more ASTs? The problem is that the powers that be no longer value pure ASTs.

One reason that Assigned Tasks are a land out concern for the US may be because very few of our pilots are used to flying to assigned turnpoints anymore. Our pilots never try them. It's becoming all about flying wherever one wants. Making it easier. "Maximizing the day" of flying only were the flying is easiest!!! What challenge is that again? That is the whole point of assigned tasking. It's harder!

The art, the challenge of flying effectively thru less then ideal conditions is being lost (in the US) with the ever easier tasks. Hey, there are some nice clouds over there! Oh wait, now it looks better over there! Or, where is the best cloud in that general direction? Let's head to that one! That's not competition soaring, it's sightseeing. It's vactioning. Touring. :-). It's also basically all we do in US contests anymore. Go wherever we want...after weather guy struggles to set the "task" the area with the best weather (assuming the "task" has any assigned turnpoints or turn areas at all).

Who else wants a few more racing tasks and a few less OLC tasks? Remember, I'm not arguing for ALL assigned tasks. I am arguing for "some" ASTs in our competitive contest on solid weather days. I'm arguing that we need to fly far more than 2%. 5x more would be 10% (16 in 2014). Why is that so terrible and frightening?

How is that for hijacking a thread? :-)

[[email protected]]

Hey, there are some nice clouds over there! Oh wait, now it looks better over there! Or, where is the best cloud in that general direction? Let's head to that one! That's not competition soaring, it's sightseeing. It's vactioning. Touring. :-).
This is why I stopped going to contests. I can fly like this at my home airport for far less $$.
Mark

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Mike,
The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.

I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
:>) JJ

[Dan Marotta]

Sorry, but I find that scenario hard to swallow. It would be hard to
miss a developing thunderstorm simply by looking out the window. If it's
so far away that you can't see it, I doubt, you'd change course and fly
into the gloom just because your so-called "smart phone" (it's only as
smart as the idiots who wrote the software) told you there was lift in
that direction. Note: I put my phone in airplane mode and clip it to
my belt before takeoff.


On 1/27/2015 8:04 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Mike,
> The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.
>
> I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
> :>) JJ

--
Dan Marotta

[Papa3[_2_]]

I've said this in the past and I'll say it again. Let's not think of "smart phones" as in: I picked up my iPhone or Galaxy S4 and looked at the radar app. Then opened up the artificial horizon app. etc.

As long as we allow connectivity for real time communications in the cockpit, it's absolutely trivial for even a halfway talented developer to create a really, really slick interface on a larger format tablet (something like a Nexus) with GPS and wireless data inputs. Wanna overlay the Radar and Satellite pictures over the task area 40 miles out. No sweat. Pull in all of the latest surface observations for current wind data and depict that as wind vectors. Got it. And while we're at it lets overlay a better user interface to create a tactical leaching tool off of Flarm data. Put some additional tapes and markers on the UI, and just eliminate that annoyance of having to look out the window.

I'm not necessarily "against this", but I do think that one of the reasons you have rules is to decide what technology we do or don't want. The 1960 Lightning that I used to sail would certainly have been "better" using more modern rigging and carbon fiber spars, but the folks in the ILCA decided this wasn't what was wanted.

If we decided we DON'T want this, can we guarantee with 100% certainty that someone isn't violating the letter or the spirit of the rules? Maybe, maybe not. But if it were clear that any form of connectivity was verboten and that all pilots were subject to post flight ramp checks of all devices immediately upon rollout, it would at least send a message. COTS devices all log their usage of data and services, so it would take someone actively cheating to hide this. Point being, let's first decide what we really want, then let's decide if/how we can eforce "the rules".

P3



On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Sorry, but I find that scenario hard to swallow.* It would be hard
> to miss a developing thunderstorm simply by looking out the window.*
> If it's so far away that you can't see it, I doubt, you'd change
> course and fly into the gloom just because your so-called "smart
> phone" (it's only as smart as the idiots who wrote the software)
> told you there was lift in that direction.* Note:* I put my phone in
> airplane mode and clip it to my belt before takeoff.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/27/2015 8:04 AM, JJ Sinclair
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike,
> The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.
>
> I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
> :>) JJ
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan Marotta

[Sean Fidler]

I do not believe that a smart phone AH app would be anywhere close to reliable or accurate enough for any sane person to fly efficiently in IMC (let alone cloud fly). Especially if there was any turbulence (thndr, etc). Personally, I would never risk my life to do this kind of thing, EVER! I have yet to play Russian Roulette with a thunderstorm. A few extra points in a glider contest is not that important to me and I imagine 99.9% of us feel exactly the same way.

To the .1%, if you can pull cloud flying off with an iPhone and still and stick the landing.....I say let you have your day! :-). I'll even buy you a beer at dinner and pat you on the back! It would be a kind of farewell beer however because you will probably be dead soon.

The other side of this debate has a "small" point about the fixed gyro, far more reliable "LX 9000" type AHRS. Sure, that would work for IMC moments and even cloud flying (I run an SN10/Oudie with iGlide/iPhone backup btw). But the key point with the old rule is that anyone with the "will" to cloud fly (cheat) was almost certainly doing it anyway. Reason, CDs did not know (or care) what disabled AHRS meant and never bothered to verify that pilots were in compliance. No spot checks were regularly conducted, etc. The idea was (as I understood it) that when you checked into a contest, just as you must show your insurance forms and other documents, you must also show that your firmware update to disable AHRS was properly installed. Furthermore, on the grid each day, CDs would be spot checking for smart phones and for "UN"disabled LX9000 type AHRS! If this happened MANY PILOTS would have been penalized in 2012/13/14! If this happen the rule would have been woethwhile. But this never, ever happened. Nobody really cared or bothered. That is a fact.

We simply do not have the collective will, or organizational skills to effectively enforce these rules. If people suspect this is happening, where are the protests? Show me a single one?

If people are cheating, it's not going to be a pleasant thing. Pilots and CDs must have to have the guts to call them out and try to catch them. You can't be nice about it while you call someone a cheater! It doesn't work. You have to be willing to break a few eggs.

Again, specific rules weren't the issue here. ENFORCEMENT was. This is why the rule has been trashed. If we are not going to enforce rules (zero protests or "convictions" I believe) then it it's not worth inconvienencing the 99.9% of honest pilots to jump thru hoops in order compete in a regional (or national) contest.

How about a rule that says if a pilot is suspected of cloud flying, a camera can be required? Do we have the guts to do that? I don't think so but I'll toss it out there...that would be a good rule. I would see it as a badge of honor actually :-).

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 11:26:04 UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I do not believe that a smart phone AH app would be anywhere close to reliable or accurate enough for any sane person to fly efficiently in IMC (let alone cloud fly). Especially if there was any turbulence (thndr, etc). Personally, I would never risk my life to do this kind of thing, EVER! I have yet to play Russian Roulette with a thunderstorm. A few extra points in a glider contest is not that important to me and I imagine 99.9% of us feel exactly the same way.
>
> To the .1%, if you can pull cloud flying off with an iPhone and still and stick the landing.....I say let you have your day! :-). I'll even buy you a beer at dinner and pat you on the back! It would be a kind of farewell beer however because you will probably be dead soon.
>
> The other side of this debate has a "small" point about the fixed gyro, far more reliable "LX 9000" type AHRS. Sure, that would work for IMC moments and even cloud flying (I run an SN10/Oudie with iGlide/iPhone backup btw).. But the key point with the old rule is that anyone with the "will" to cloud fly (cheat) was almost certainly doing it anyway. Reason, CDs did not know (or care) what disabled AHRS meant and never bothered to verify that pilots were in compliance. No spot checks were regularly conducted, etc. The idea was (as I understood it) that when you checked into a contest, just as you must show your insurance forms and other documents, you must also show that your firmware update to disable AHRS was properly installed. Furthermore, on the grid each day, CDs would be spot checking for smart phones and for "UN"disabled LX9000 type AHRS! If this happened MANY PILOTS would have been penalized in 2012/13/14! If this happen the rule would have been woethwhile. But this never, ever happened. Nobody really cared or bothered. That is a fact.
>
> We simply do not have the collective will, or organizational skills to effectively enforce these rules. If people suspect this is happening, where are the protests? Show me a single one?
>
> If people are cheating, it's not going to be a pleasant thing. Pilots and CDs must have to have the guts to call them out and try to catch them. You can't be nice about it while you call someone a cheater! It doesn't work. You have to be willing to break a few eggs.
>
> Again, specific rules weren't the issue here. ENFORCEMENT was. This is why the rule has been trashed. If we are not going to enforce rules (zero protests or "convictions" I believe) then it it's not worth inconvienencing the 99.9% of honest pilots to jump thru hoops in order compete in a regional (or national) contest.
>
> How about a rule that says if a pilot is suspected of cloud flying, a camera can be required? Do we have the guts to do that? I don't think so but I'll toss it out there...that would be a good rule. I would see it as a badge of honor actually :-).

Sean, your facts are wrong. At the Nephi regionals pilots identified that they had AHRS equipment and they either disabled them in front of me or showed that they were disabled for xx days that covered the contest. I spot checked once with a single pilot. I am not pointing this out not to pat myself on the back as I am sure other CD's did the same. Do I understand everything about every instrument and whether is can be reset? Not by a long shot.

Much of competition soaring is based on trust and personal integrity. Rules and/or enforcement techniques will never be effective as pilots who want to cheat will figure out how to do it. IMO peer pressure and enforcement is the best avenue.

Regarding smartphones I agree with you that they can never be policed. No contest personnel can check a every cockpit nor should they be expected to. Phones are stored in all locations within a cockpit and many times for safety.

The rule to require a camera if suspected of cloud flying is as ludicrous as weighing the top three finishers the following day at National events.

Ron Gleason

[Sean Fidler]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 11:26:04 UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > I do not believe that a smart phone AH app would be anywhere close to reliable or accurate enough for any sane person to fly efficiently in IMC (let alone cloud fly). Especially if there was any turbulence (thndr, etc). Personally, I would never risk my life to do this kind of thing, EVER! I have yet to play Russian Roulette with a thunderstorm. A few extra points in a glider contest is not that important to me and I imagine 99.9% of us feel exactly the same way.
> >
> > To the .1%, if you can pull cloud flying off with an iPhone and still and stick the landing.....I say let you have your day! :-). I'll even buy you a beer at dinner and pat you on the back! It would be a kind of farewell beer however because you will probably be dead soon.
> >
> > The other side of this debate has a "small" point about the fixed gyro, far more reliable "LX 9000" type AHRS. Sure, that would work for IMC moments and even cloud flying (I run an SN10/Oudie with iGlide/iPhone backup btw). But the key point with the old rule is that anyone with the "will" to cloud fly (cheat) was almost certainly doing it anyway. Reason, CDs did not know (or care) what disabled AHRS meant and never bothered to verify that pilots were in compliance. No spot checks were regularly conducted, etc. The idea was (as I understood it) that when you checked into a contest, just as you must show your insurance forms and other documents, you must also show that your firmware update to disable AHRS was properly installed. Furthermore, on the grid each day, CDs would be spot checking for smart phones and for "UN"disabled LX9000 type AHRS! If this happened MANY PILOTS would have been penalized in 2012/13/14! If this happen the rule would have been woethwhile. But this never, ever happened. Nobody really cared or bothered. That is a fact.
> >
> > We simply do not have the collective will, or organizational skills to effectively enforce these rules. If people suspect this is happening, where are the protests? Show me a single one?
> >
> > If people are cheating, it's not going to be a pleasant thing. Pilots and CDs must have to have the guts to call them out and try to catch them. You can't be nice about it while you call someone a cheater! It doesn't work. You have to be willing to break a few eggs.
> >
> > Again, specific rules weren't the issue here. ENFORCEMENT was. This is why the rule has been trashed. If we are not going to enforce rules (zero protests or "convictions" I believe) then it it's not worth inconvienencing the 99.9% of honest pilots to jump thru hoops in order compete in a regional (or national) contest.
> >
> > How about a rule that says if a pilot is suspected of cloud flying, a camera can be required? Do we have the guts to do that? I don't think so but I'll toss it out there...that would be a good rule. I would see it as a badge of honor actually :-).
>
> Sean, your facts are wrong. At the Nephi regionals pilots identified that they had AHRS equipment and they either disabled them in front of me or showed that they were disabled for xx days that covered the contest. I spot checked once with a single pilot. I am not pointing this out not to pat myself on the back as I am sure other CD's did the same. Do I understand everything about every instrument and whether is can be reset? Not by a long shot.
>
> Much of competition soaring is based on trust and personal integrity. Rules and/or enforcement techniques will never be effective as pilots who want to cheat will figure out how to do it. IMO peer pressure and enforcement is the best avenue.
>
> Regarding smartphones I agree with you that they can never be policed. No contest personnel can check a every cockpit nor should they be expected to. Phones are stored in all locations within a cockpit and many times for safety.
>
> The rule to require a camera if suspected of cloud flying is as ludicrous as weighing the top three finishers the following day at National events.
>
> Ron Gleason

Ron, I commend you for making the effort. Im sure that there were a few other CDs who tried to enforce the rule. But I think most CD's are not as sophisticated. This is not a personal snub at them at all, its just the reality.

[Tim[_11_]]

Well said P3!!!

As I have always said, for any rules to work, there has got to be enforcement. If there is no enforcement, then why have rules at all. As a CD, if there is a rule in effect, I am more than willing to enforce it. Any CD who is not is not doing his or her job. This is how our sport has been conducted, successfully for many many years.

Unless they are the laws of nature and physics, rules are an artificial construct to create a system or "game" - in our case it is glider racing. Rules define the very nature of all sport.

As an artificial construct, the rules of sport are by definition a CHOICE! Maybe the choice is to grow the sport by allowing all technology into the cockpit. But maybe the choice is to restrict and enforce certain technology in the interests of the sport.

If all glider racing turns into a technology free for all in the name of simplification and some imaginary gentlemen's code of conduct holding sway, then I do not know how long I will stomach the sport I love so much.

Respectfully,
Tim EY

[Dan Marotta]

I've no doubt all of that can be done but doesn't it just take the fun
out of soaring? If winning is all that matters, have fun. Those who fly
for the joy of it won't be there any more.


On 1/27/2015 10:52 AM, Papa3 wrote:
> I've said this in the past and I'll say it again. Let's not think of "smart phones" as in: I picked up my iPhone or Galaxy S4 and looked at the radar app. Then opened up the artificial horizon app. etc.
>
> As long as we allow connectivity for real time communications in the cockpit, it's absolutely trivial for even a halfway talented developer to create a really, really slick interface on a larger format tablet (something like a Nexus) with GPS and wireless data inputs. Wanna overlay the Radar and Satellite pictures over the task area 40 miles out. No sweat. Pull in all of the latest surface observations for current wind data and depict that as wind vectors. Got it. And while we're at it lets overlay a better user interface to create a tactical leaching tool off of Flarm data. Put some additional tapes and markers on the UI, and just eliminate that annoyance of having to look out the window.
>
> I'm not necessarily "against this", but I do think that one of the reasons you have rules is to decide what technology we do or don't want. The 1960 Lightning that I used to sail would certainly have been "better" using more modern rigging and carbon fiber spars, but the folks in the ILCA decided this wasn't what was wanted.
>
> If we decided we DON'T want this, can we guarantee with 100% certainty that someone isn't violating the letter or the spirit of the rules? Maybe, maybe not. But if it were clear that any form of connectivity was verboten and that all pilots were subject to post flight ramp checks of all devices immediately upon rollout, it would at least send a message. COTS devices all log their usage of data and services, so it would take someone actively cheating to hide this. Point being, let's first decide what we really want, then let's decide if/how we can eforce "the rules".
>
> P3
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:25:20 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Sorry, but I find that scenario hard to swallow. It would be hard
>> to miss a developing thunderstorm simply by looking out the window.
>> If it's so far away that you can't see it, I doubt, you'd change
>> course and fly into the gloom just because your so-called "smart
>> phone" (it's only as smart as the idiots who wrote the software)
>> told you there was lift in that direction. Note: I put my phone in
>> airplane mode and clip it to my belt before takeoff.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2015 8:04 AM, JJ Sinclair
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>> The problem is that some have used their smart phone app to access the latest radar wx, and headed straight for a developing thunderstorm, then ran under the storm exchanging lift for speed. This tactic is legal, but very foolish and dangerous because you always run the chance of being sucked into the storm...................but wait, the smart phone also has an app that provides an artificial horizon, problem solved! This tactic works best in a 2 place sailplane with instrument rated pilots. The GIB (guy in back) directs the show while the nose gunner flies instruments.
>>
>> I fear allowing unrestricted smart phone use has unlocked the candy store, but failed to activate the security cameras.
>> :>) JJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan Marotta

--
Dan Marotta