View Full Version : SSA Contest Rules and Waiver for Nationals Now Posted
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
February 29th 20, 09:58 PM
US Racing Pilots
2020 Rules are now posted on the SSA website and can be found here:
https://www.ssa.org/ContestRules
For pilots flying in FAI-class Nationals (that is all Nationals except Sports Class), please read the waiver found on the same page that describes which FAI paragraphs for tasking and scoring will be used this year at Nationals only. Links to the relevant FAI documents are also posted. Note that for Club Class Nationals we will be using the US Handicap list so please plan accordingly.
The Rules Committee encourages all US racing pilots to familiarize themselves with these important changes to minimize the potential for confusion and disappointment.
For the Rules Committee,
Andy Blackburn
9B
Shaun Wheeler
March 1st 20, 03:28 AM
Andy,
I'm not trying to instigate (really), this is just an honest noob question. In the rules I see a restriction on using any software that has an attitude indicator (or similar) in it.
Is it really that much of an advantage? I don't know nearly enough at this point to have an opinion one way or the other. I don't compete either so it's not going to influence my decision making in the near future. Maybe not ever.
I read some comments from Max Kellerman (who's programming I truly admire) on the topic but never got a real feel for why this is viewed as almost blasphemous.
Thanks for any insights. It seems like a safety advantage to me, but what do I know?
Tim Taylor
March 1st 20, 04:32 AM
Shaun,
The reason for the restrictions is having an artificial horizon would provide the potential for pilots to fly into clouds. This is both unsafe and unfair in contests.
Dan Marotta
March 1st 20, 04:24 PM
On 2/29/2020 9:32 PM, Tim Taylor wrote:
> This is both unsafe and unfair in contests.
.... And illegal in the US.
--
Dan, 5J
Shaun Wheeler
March 1st 20, 06:14 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the explanation.
Richard Pfiffner[_2_]
March 1st 20, 09:13 PM
On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:32:18 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Shaun,
>
> The reason for the restrictions is having an artificial horizon would provide the potential for pilots to fly into clouds. This is both unsafe and unfair in contests.
Every state of the art Vario, Flight computer & Cell phone has this option. Will he CD be checking all contestants instruments and phone? It may be time to get rid of this rule.
Richard,
On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 10:14:00 AM UTC+13, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:32:18 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > Shaun,
> >
> > The reason for the restrictions is having an artificial horizon would provide the potential for pilots to fly into clouds. This is both unsafe and unfair in contests.
>
> Every state of the art Vario, Flight computer & Cell phone has this option. Will he CD be checking all contestants instruments and phone? It may be time to get rid of this rule.
>
> Richard,
LX9000's and Air Avionics devices both log the deactivation of AH in the IGC file. Cell phone AHRS's are not practical for flight, try it for yourself - it doesn't really work, they rapidly get confused.
Richard Pfiffner[_2_]
March 2nd 20, 12:19 AM
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 10:14:00 AM UTC+13, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:32:18 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > > Shaun,
> > >
> > > The reason for the restrictions is having an artificial horizon would provide the potential for pilots to fly into clouds. This is both unsafe and unfair in contests.
> >
> > Every state of the art Vario, Flight computer & Cell phone has this option. Will he CD be checking all contestants instruments and phone? It may be time to get rid of this rule.
> >
> > Richard,
>
> LX9000's and Air Avionics devices both log the deactivation of AH in the IGC file. Cell phone AHRS's are not practical for flight, try it for yourself - it doesn't really work, they rapidly get confused.
So which IGC files must you use in the contest. I have a S80, Air-Avionice and a NANO. Two can have AHRS. I chose to submit the NANO. How will you control this and make sure contestants do not use the AHRS. Again time to change the rules.
Richard
On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 1:19:05 PM UTC+13, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 2:07:55 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 10:14:00 AM UTC+13, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:32:18 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > > > Shaun,
> > > >
> > > > The reason for the restrictions is having an artificial horizon would provide the potential for pilots to fly into clouds. This is both unsafe and unfair in contests.
> > >
> > > Every state of the art Vario, Flight computer & Cell phone has this option. Will he CD be checking all contestants instruments and phone? It may be time to get rid of this rule.
> > >
> > > Richard,
> >
> > LX9000's and Air Avionics devices both log the deactivation of AH in the IGC file. Cell phone AHRS's are not practical for flight, try it for yourself - it doesn't really work, they rapidly get confused.
>
> So which IGC files must you use in the contest. I have a S80, Air-Avionice and a NANO. Two can have AHRS. I chose to submit the NANO. How will you control this and make sure contestants do not use the AHRS. Again time to change the rules.
>
> Richard
The onus is on you (the contestant) to prove that you did not use it, a process is typically specified in the local rules, i.e. from the most recent JWGC, where penalties were applied to a pilot due to cloud flying(!):
AHRS compatible IGC FRs are allowed if the AHRS is turned off for the competition period,
and this is logged to the IGC file. e AHRS compatible device must be the primary FR. In case
the FR does not support disabling AHRS than it must be removed. e Organizers shall be
informed of any change of equipment including the designation of the primary Flight Recorder
(in case it is an AHRS compatible IGC FR). All AHRS compatible FR’s files must be handed
over on all competition and training days.
A couple of years ago, I found an app for my phone that "simulated" a Heads Up Display (HUD). It showed all the neat stuff you would see in a real HUD- altitude tape, heading, speed tape and attitude. Cool! Or so I thought. Just for jollies, I tried it during a soaring flight. It turned out that the data provided from the phone's accelerometers assumed you were sitting on the ground, with a gravity vector directed downward. In the air, a coordinated turn tilted the attitude line to the apparent gravity vector, i.e. 45 degrees off while in a 45 degree bank.
A real AHRS uses more sophisticated sensors to give an accurate horizon. I doubt there are phone apps that can do the same. I could be wrong, but from what I've seen so far, AHRS phone apps are amusing toys, and nothing I would rely on in flight. If you know of an app that is better, let us know. Not that I would use it in IMC flight, but cool apps are, well....COOL!
I distinctly recall my second flying lesson because we ended up in the clouds! A front blew in and there was STRONG convergence lift everywhere. We flew just below VNE with full airbrakes and the vario was pegged up. Clouds quickly formed around and below us. Suddenly, we found ourselves in the soup.. 20 years later, it remains my most terrifying aviation experience. I'm currently putting together a panel for my new ship and it will absolutely have AHRS.
Pretty much every modern VFR airplane has AHRS and the FAA requires all private airplane pilots to log 3 hours of instrument training. This isn't all for ****s and giggles; unintended flight in IMC is one of the leading causes of GA accidents.
I recall that just a few years ago, an ASW-27 came out of the clouds in pieces over Reno. That pilot survived thanks to his parachute, but others have perished.
In this day and age, we really ought to encourage AHRS installation and teach our students how to use it. I understand the desire to reduce cheating, but I feel that banning common safety equipment is going too far. Besides, as others have mentioned, every cell phone and tablet is a potential AHRS device, so it has become impossible to enforce.
I'd rather risk losing a race to a cheater than losing my life to inadvertant IMC. In any event, I will have AHRS enabled for every flight and it will be really unfortunate if this prevents me from participating in contests.
Richard Pfiffner[_2_]
March 2nd 20, 02:51 AM
US Rules do not address the issue sufficiently.
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument that:●Permits flight without reference to the ground.
Approved Instruments with Aritifical Horizon or T&B Features, the only approved instrument in the USA is the Butterfly Avionics Vario. Many other instrument have these features and are not approved.
I competed in a National Contest several years ago. I showed the officials my Air Avionics had been disabled. I also asked the official how he was going to ensure all AHRS were locked out. The CD announced at a pilots meeting that no checks will be made for AHRS disabled in the contest. Again if you are not going to enforce the rules get rid of them.
Richard
Tony[_5_]
March 2nd 20, 03:37 AM
Why did the weight adjustment formula in 11.4.1.5.6 change between 2019 and 2020? Which formula is right? 2019 uses addition in the parenthesis, 2020 subtraction.
Mark, you might be right about a stand-alone phones or tablets. However, I know that Foreflight provides a very nice AHRS display when plugged into a Status or Sentry. Dynon also makes a slick portable EFIS with AHRS. It measures 3.5" x 3.25" x 1" so you can easily hide it in a pocket. With so many cheap and affordable AHRS devices on the market, they're going to require cavity searches in order to actually keep them out of cockpits. Heck, it's getting pretty difficult to put together a modern panel without AHRS. As another member mentioned, he has 3 different AHRS devices.
I'm trying to imagine what would happen if a pilot deactivates AHRS to comply with contest rules... and then they have an accident involving IMC. I wouldn't want to be involved in that lawsuit.
Richard, after you've disabled the AHRS for a contest flight, how quickly can you enable it during flight in the event you encounter unexpected IMC?
I've heard from other folks that the AHRS rules aren't enforced. I completely agree that they need to use it or lose it.
By the way, I've been pricing out instruments for a new panel. I'm finding that an EFIS is now less expensive than steam gauges. For example, a GRT Mini-X EFIS starts at $1,395. In addition to ASI, Altimeter, and compass, it provides attitude indicator, synthetic vision, turn coordinator, vertical speed, wind vectors, voltmeter, g-mater, clock and timer. It's almost free since I'd no longer be looking at $830 to enable the AHRS on my S80.
Tango Whisky
March 2nd 20, 05:16 AM
Most cell phonew have gyros.
ixGyro pro works pretty well.
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 10:37:16 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Why did the weight adjustment formula in 11.4.1.5.6 change between 2019 and 2020? Which formula is right? 2019 uses addition in the parenthesis, 2020 subtraction.
There was an error in the published 2019 rules text that is corrected in the 2020 rues text. The calculator on the SSA site and used in the scoring system was and is correct.
UH
Tony[_5_]
March 2nd 20, 03:56 PM
Thanks, I hate it when that happens ;)
Now...if the 17m Kestrel and the ASW-20B have the same performance, why cant they both fly in club class? :D
For those who think it’s about time the SSA drop it’s restriction to instruments that allow flight without reference to the ground...............there are many things that can be found inside the clouds and all of them are bad:
1. Another sailplane!
2. Wing ice, Probe ice!
3.Hail, Lightening, Extreme turbulence!
4. The ground!
5. Joe Cessna on an IFR Plight plan!
It doesn’t happen very often, but on a thunderstorm day and a MAT is called, contests have positioned themselves in front of the storm and logged some high speed miles flying a constant heading at an altitude above cloud ceiling! On the last day of that contest, I saw a sailplane come out of the clouds and two other pilots told me they iced up! Contestants are very observant and if somebody’s doing it and nothings done to stop it, some will join the movement!
If you want to kill sailplane racing in the US, just let someone find an airliner in the soup!
JJ
Richard Pfiffner[_2_]
March 2nd 20, 05:18 PM
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 9:14:01 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Richard, after you've disabled the AHRS for a contest flight, how quickly can you enable it during flight in the event you encounter unexpected IMC?
>
> I've heard from other folks that the AHRS rules aren't enforced. I completely agree that they need to use it or lose it.
>
> By the way, I've been pricing out instruments for a new panel. I'm finding that an EFIS is now less expensive than steam gauges. For example, a GRT Mini-X EFIS starts at $1,395. In addition to ASI, Altimeter, and compass, it provides attitude indicator, synthetic vision, turn coordinator, vertical speed, wind vectors, voltmeter, g-mater, clock and timer. It's almost free since I'd no longer be looking at $830 to enable the AHRS on my S80.
You can set the number of days to disable the Air-Avionics AHRS. The AHRS cannot be enabled in this time period.
Richard
Dan Marotta
March 2nd 20, 05:29 PM
Damn right!* We certainly can't count on honesty any more...
On 3/1/2020 7:51 PM, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
> Again if you are not going to enforce the rules get rid of them.
--
Dan, 5J
JJ, nobody here supports soaring in clouds, besides, it's not allowed by the FAA. The problem is that pilots frequently find themselves in IMC by accident. The FAA reports that unintended flight in IMC is the 7th leading cause of accidents. These particular accidents are almost always fatal (86% fatality rate). This is the reason that you find AHRS in nearly every VFR airplane, and the reason why every VFR airplane pilot is required to receive instrument training. The FAA is working very hard to reduce these types of accidents and the soaring community is actively setting the stage for more accidents.
A far more rampant problem is that many (most???) pilots don't maintain legal VFR cloud clearance. How do ensure that contest pilots stay 500ft below cloud base? Topping off a few thermals is an easy way to gain thousands of feet of additional climb in above-average lift; a major competitive advantage for sure! For every 1ft of illegal climb inside clouds, I would guess there are mor ethan 1,000ft of illegal climb below clouds. It seems to me that we're banning safety equipment in order to minimize a tiny problem, while doing nothing to control a very large problem.
How about this for a solution? I'll install a Gopro in my cockpit and if anyone questions my flight, then I'll be happy to submit the video.
Heck, it would be really easy to develop a video analysis tool for contest directors. Basically, any areas of the image that never change are easy to identify as the sailplane cockpit. When most of the remaining area (>95%?) is white for an extended period of time (10 seconds?), the software would export a short video clip for manual review.
Tango Eight
March 2nd 20, 05:31 PM
Absolutely no one is arguing in favor of intentional cloud flying in competition. Jeeezus this gets frustrating.
Furthermore: anyone who knows anything about climbing on instruments in a modern glider knows that it's hard, it's dangerous, it's illegal, it'll fill your instrument lines with water and...
IT'S S L O W.
So there's not a lot of motivation to go cloud flying in a race that I can see.
I fly eastern waves with some frequency, I want the gyro toy in the panel when I do that, surprises sometimes happen. Often, avoiding the potential for cloud problems with 100% certainty comes at a big cost in lost adventure.. Many of us are willing to settle for 99.X% certainty, with a back up plan for the 0.X%.
It doesn't bother me to fly a thermal soaring contest with the instrument removed, I will never need it and never miss it for that. The annoyance comes the -next- time I get the glider out, the wave is cooking, the instrument is not installed and it's either impossible (20+ kts of wind) or very inconvenient to re-install. I have had this happen more than once, it just strikes me as really freaking dumb.
We should try to be less dumb. This is low hanging fruit on that ole tree of knowledge.
Not holding my breath on this one.
best regards,
Evan Ludeman / T8
Richard, that's really too bad. It would be great if you could enable the AHRS during an in-flight emergency, and have that recorded in the IGC file. That would allow us to score AHRS use as a landout, or similarly to engine use.
Richard Pfiffner[_2_]
March 2nd 20, 07:17 PM
On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 9:38:32 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Richard, that's really too bad. It would be great if you could enable the AHRS during an in-flight emergency, and have that recorded in the IGC file. That would allow us to score AHRS use as a landout, or similarly to engine use.
I don't believe any AHRS from Glider manufactures allow enable in flight.
Richard.
On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 12:30:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> The problem is that pilots frequently find themselves in IMC by accident.
Hmmm. I must be doing something wrong. Or right. I've been flying since 1965 and never found myself in IMC by accident. I agree pilots going up closer than 500' to cloudbase is an issue, but that practice certainly won't be eliminated by allowing attitude indicators.
I also agree there are times when another few hundred feet in a cloud could prove to be an advantage, because I've seen it. I was a young kid so I didn't make waves but it made the difference between that offender making it home that day and three guys landing 1 mile short. I would handle it differently now. Making that practice safer with an attitude indicator won't make it any more legal or sportsmanlike.
I also understand the desire to have a backup instrument when wave flying, because I've been on top watching the window shrinking and had to come down quickly. That's part of flying.
If the problem is that we aren't enforcing the rule, then we can fix that. If you show up at a contest with an instrument that has an attitude indicator, you should be required to provide evidence it's disabled each day. Yeah, it's a bother. We had to do something similar when Stealth mode was mandated for FLARM in the Elmira Nationals (15M & Std.) a few years ago. We all understood the rule and complied.
As it happens, I don't have an instrument with an attitude indicator (AFAIK). I don't want to feel like I have to go out and buy one just to stay competitive.
Chip Bearden
JB
FAA hazardous attitudes: Invulnerability “It won’t happen to me!” ;)
Your thinking is severely flawed.
R
Phil Chidekel
March 3rd 20, 04:00 AM
Thanks for the support, Tony.
Fortunately, all the D2/LS-8/ASW-28 pilots are offering big money for my glider—nothing says performance like 17 meters.
Tony[_5_]
March 3rd 20, 04:08 AM
Thank God if enough of them come up for sale maybe I'll be able to afford to move up to standard class lol
Jonathan St. Cloud
March 3rd 20, 01:26 PM
On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:00:05 PM UTC-8, Phil Chidekel wrote:
> Thanks for the support, Tony.
>
> Fortunately, all the D2/LS-8/ASW-28 pilots are offering big money for my glider—nothing says performance like 17 meters.
I disagree. NOTHING says performance like 26.5 meters!
Stephen Szikora
March 3rd 20, 01:47 PM
I’ve started using the Condor soaring sim and if anyone wants to see what flying in cloud is like, try it there. Especially on an alpine map!
Shaun Wheeler
March 4th 20, 01:53 AM
So....just to summarize, the lack of an attitude indicator is going to stop people hell bent on winning at all costs....from flying into clouds?
If only there were some other way for the scorer's to tell if somebody was circling in cloud and purposely braking the rules...and yet still leave the competitors with a horizon for emergencies.
What if we mandated everyone carry a GPS recorder and take a look at the traces at the end of the day?
On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 4:59:30 PM UTC+13, wrote:
> What if we mandated everyone carry a GPS recorder and take a look at the traces at the end of the day?
That's the solution we have, and cloud flying is happening. See JWGC2019 & EGC2019.
That's the solution we have, and cloud flying is happening. See JWGC2019 & EGC2019.
<I was being scarcastic. If cheating is known and nothing is being done the problem is not with the rules, it's in contest management.
Tango Eight
March 4th 20, 12:40 PM
On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 11:02:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> That's the solution we have, and cloud flying is happening. See JWGC2019 & EGC2019.
I did not follow those contests at all.
Let me guess: before the unlimited altitude start, right?
Employ stupid rules, get stupid results.
If there's any evidence or allegation of cloud flying on course, please point me to it. Reply to author is fine if you'd like to keep this private for some reason.
T8
More quick thoughts:
1) Competitions involve a lot of packs and gaggle flying. In this setting, it seems that repeat offenders will eventually be reported to the contest director. Although cloud flying "can" happen, I can't imagine that it will ever become a terribly common problem in our sport. It seems to be a more likely problem with lone record flights (no witnesses!). I don't believe that AHRS is banned from cockpits during state, regional, or national record flights. It seems strange to ban it when witnesses are likely, but allow it at other times.
2) IGC files can be flagged for suspicious behavior and this would be relatively easy to automate. For example, it would be suspicious when a particular pilot climbs significantly higher than the rest of the fleet on multiple occassions. While this wouldn't be difinitive proof of cloud flying, it would likely deter some from cheating. At the very lease, a suspicious flight could result in a stearn warning from the contest director. In other cases, it could be combined with other evidence to take firmer action.
3) Just as our criminal system maintains criminal records, maybe the SSA needs to maintain a formal database of contest violations. Maybe they already do this? This would seem to be another great deterrant.
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
March 6th 20, 05:08 AM
On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 2:07:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> More quick thoughts:
>
> 1) Competitions involve a lot of packs and gaggle flying. In this setting, it seems that repeat offenders will eventually be reported to the contest director. Although cloud flying "can" happen, I can't imagine that it will ever become a terribly common problem in our sport. It seems to be a more likely problem with lone record flights (no witnesses!). I don't believe that AHRS is banned from cockpits during state, regional, or national record flights. It seems strange to ban it when witnesses are likely, but allow it at other times.
>
> 2) IGC files can be flagged for suspicious behavior and this would be relatively easy to automate. For example, it would be suspicious when a particular pilot climbs significantly higher than the rest of the fleet on multiple occassions. While this wouldn't be difinitive proof of cloud flying, it would likely deter some from cheating. At the very lease, a suspicious flight could result in a stearn warning from the contest director. In other cases, it could be combined with other evidence to take firmer action.
>
> 3) Just as our criminal system maintains criminal records, maybe the SSA needs to maintain a formal database of contest violations. Maybe they already do this? This would seem to be another great deterrant.
There are many views (including on the Rules Committee - where this is a regular discussion topic) on the subject of permitting ARHS in contests, particularly as relates to:
1) Whether it is a safety feature that might save a pilot's life or glider OR a temptation that increases risky behavior,
2) The enforceability of a ban and the burden on contest personnel,
3) The degree to which cloud flying does or doesn't happen - or is beneficial under various rule regimes.
One thought that has occurred to me is a crowd-sourced approach: Photos taken with mobile phones are typically time and geo-tagged. This could be used in conjunction with the photographer's IGC file - and those of other contestants to positively ID a glider photographed flying in the wispies - even if the contest ID isn't readable. Imagine violations had the same penalty as busting airspace.
Just a thought. If I were CD and was presented with photographic and IGC evidence of a contestant busting FARs I'm pretty sure I know what I'd do.
Andy Blackburn
9B
When we find ourselves resorting to taking photos of fellow competitors flying in the cloud shreds to catch them busting a FAR, that sounds like we may be trending into a “nanny state” situation. Is this aspect worth all the effort to police?
I’m not worried about the guy skimming the whispies, however I think I would be interested in someone who is purposely entering a Cu and working it internally to get a few thousand more feet. Even in that situation, I don’t think I would even bother reporting it to officials. If some guy has to break the rules to get his points, thats his business. He’s a cheater, he knows it, I know it, and so do others. And I will definitely spread the word and evidence amongst my fellow competitors, just so all know what a fraud that guy is,.
Dan
I'd like to see ARHS allowed but an onboard camera required if you are consistently flying above cloud base.
That way, the safety feature is there, and if you can find a legal lift mechanism to get above cloud base you get to use it.
Having no camera footage would mean flying above cloud base is presumed cloud flying.
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 8:13:16 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I'd like to see ARHS allowed but an onboard camera required if you are consistently flying above cloud base.
>
> That way, the safety feature is there, and if you can find a legal lift mechanism to get above cloud base you get to use it.
>
> Having no camera footage would mean flying above cloud base is presumed cloud flying.
Let's consider this thought in light of what it takes to run, score, and administer a contest.
At this time, scoring and associated administrated activities require a scorer, sometimes located remotely, and the CD. Flight evaluation is done almost 100% by the scoring program, commonly once set up, with no action required by the scorer.
The exception is when the program flags log for evaluation. This could be related to starts, turns, finishes, or airspace. My best guess is this happens on less than 5% of flights, and commonly almost none.
Evaluating multiple camera recordings each day would require huge numbers of hours of volunteer time.
I doubt any contest organizer would agree with this concept.
UH
Is cloud flying prevalent in sailplane races? I don’t think so, I can only remember two instances in the last 45 years. Is it serious? Potentially, very serious! I have a snapshot seared into my memory of a sailplane going straight down with a parachute above it! My thought was, glad that guy got out, OK..........turned out the parachute was from the other ship involved in the midair , the ship going straight down still contained its pilot desperately trying to exit the ship! He didn’t make it! The two ships were working the vail under a Cu..............you can figure out the rest!
The other suspected cloud flying occurred 6 years ago in a regionals. Thunderstorm day with a MAT called. Cloud base 8000’ with 50% cloud cover (cu’s). I was flying with the suspected perpetrator, we took one turnpoint, then headed for Truckee. About 10 miles north, I decided Truckee looked to be too risky because it’s 6000’ MSL and cloud base was 8000’. I took White House and turned north. The suspect kept heading for Truckee who claimed It and then flew on south going around Mt.. Rose then to Carson City where his trace flew straight as an arrow to Minden then straight back to Carson City.........at an altitude well above cloud base of 8000’. Was he flying in clouds? Seems clear to me, but I couldn’t prove that cloud base was 8000’ south of Truckee.
So, what, if anything should we do? I believe that cloud flying should be given the same attention and scrutiny as violating controlled airspace and briefed by the CD as such.
Just my 2 cents worth,
JJ
I've seen cloud flying at contests but rarely. Up against the wisps, sure. But rarely in the clouds. I do recall very clearly an incident back in the '70s (that's 1970s for you kids) when five of us were working up to cloudbase about 20 miles north of Cordele on the edge of a giant blue hole. The top guy went right up into the cloud and popped out the side a minute or so later on the correct heading. He made it home. The three guys I was with rolled out on course when we got to cloudbase. I stayed with them for a mile or two but was unhappy that we were betting everything on finding lift on the way home in what felt like dead air. So I did a 180 behind them, went back, and climbed up again. By then, the wind had drifted me closer and I had glide path. On the way back I heard excited chatter from the three ahead of me. It was a great moment for a 20-something kid as I passed over them, all down in a plowed field about a mile short. I got lucky; I could have been slow. I never said much about the guy who went into the cloud; certainly not a protest. I'm pretty sure the three guys with me saw him, too, but they must not have said anything. The offender was a nice guy, popular, not normally in contention for the lead so I think we just all let it go. Today, I'm not sure what I'd do.
In the old days, I saw turnpoint films that clearly didn't meet the requirement (the TP and photo target both in the frame shot at a shallow angle). I never protested it but it rankled me. Another pilot did protest another's film one day and it was upheld, but everyone felt awkward.
I also knew of one pilot, quite famous, who was reputed to announce a phantom start a few minutes after his real start when he heard a crowd hit the IP, hoping that the gate would re-up his start time in the confusion rather than admit they missed him. Don't know if it was true but I heard it enough times to wonder.
Few really wish to be a jerk and face the choice of reporting a violation or just grumbling quietly.
I do think that if pilots had the tech to creep up into the clouds, some would be tempted to use it. I've done enough 0/0 final glides (sorry, BB) to know that sometimes a few hundred feet can make a huge difference. Saying we can't enforce a rule 100% of the time is no reason not to put measures into place to make it more difficult for pilots to break that rule, so long as it's not an undue burden on the organizers.
On that subject, when Elmira mandated the use of stealth in FLARM at the 15M/Std. Nats a few years ago, we all had to submit a flight log evidencing compliance in our config files. AFAIK, it worked well. Actually, I thought stealth worked quite well at that contest but this isn't the thread to raise that subject again. :)
Chip Bearden
JB
Dan Marotta
March 7th 20, 04:11 PM
Really?* It's the cheater who's the jerk, not the one who plays by the
rules.
On 3/6/2020 5:03 PM, wrote:
> Few really wish to be a jerk and face the choice of reporting a violation or just grumbling quietly.
--
Dan, 5J
Dan, I should have said "feel like a jerk." I think most of us would like Rules that insure fairness so we don't have to snap incriminating photos and forward them to the CD. Or file a formal protest against a competitor we might be having dinner with that night. I suspect that's one reason why the "Safety Box" at each contest allows anonymous complaints. On the other hand, many of us would have a problem with an anonymous complaint that we had ducked into a cloud affecting our score.
So we're back to the Rules again. I see at least two problems. First, a rule is unenforceable. Second, we have the means to enforce it but choose not to.
Maybe I'm just old school.
Chip Bearden
JB
WaltWX[_2_]
March 7th 20, 09:31 PM
Andy and all...
Here's a possible inexpensive hardware approach to detecting when an aircraft is in clouds or not... "Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection"
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3685252
It is used on Radiosonde balloon soundings to detects being in cloud. I handed the information over to one the stewards at the 2012 WGC Uvalde. The paper and detailed design is mostly behind a pay wall. This idea could be used to add information onto an IGC recorder. Not easy... trying to implement this into our gliding competition systems. But, it has the potential advantage to giving a measured metric for identifying when gliders are in clouds.
Walter Rogers WX
WaltWX[_2_]
March 8th 20, 04:22 AM
Here's another reference to inexpensive, light and disposable sensors designed to detect when radiosonde balloon packages ascend in clouds. They accurately detect the cloud boundaries:
Measuring cloud properties from meteorological radiosondes
https://ams.confex.com/ams/14CLOUD14ATRAD/webprogram/Paper250270.html
Walt Rogers WX
Richard Pfiffner[_2_]
March 8th 20, 02:50 PM
On Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 8:22:52 PM UTC-8, WaltWX wrote:
> Here's another reference to inexpensive, light and disposable sensors designed to detect when radiosonde balloon packages ascend in clouds. They accurately detect the cloud boundaries:
>
> Measuring cloud properties from meteorological radiosondes
>
> https://ams.confex.com/ams/14CLOUD14ATRAD/webprogram/Paper250270.html
>
> Walt Rogers WX
I found the instrument that may work. Low cost is relative but free shipping.
https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Light-PMA2140-NIST-Traceable-Digital/dp/B077Y88DPB
only $700 free it will fit on the instrument panel cover 1.8"X1.6".
Richard
Dan Marotta
March 8th 20, 05:04 PM
Thanks, Chip.* That makes better sense.
On 3/7/2020 11:29 AM, wrote:
> Dan, I should have said "feel like a jerk." I think most of us would like Rules that insure fairness so we don't have to snap incriminating photos and forward them to the CD. Or file a formal protest against a competitor we might be having dinner with that night. I suspect that's one reason why the "Safety Box" at each contest allows anonymous complaints. On the other hand, many of us would have a problem with an anonymous complaint that we had ducked into a cloud affecting our score.
>
> So we're back to the Rules again. I see at least two problems. First, a rule is unenforceable. Second, we have the means to enforce it but choose not to.
>
> Maybe I'm just old school.
>
> Chip Bearden
> JB
--
Dan, 5J
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.