On Dec 27, 3:06Â*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 27, 12:21Â*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

Discussion invited.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011...20Summary%2010...

John Godfrey (QT)
SSA Competition Rules Committee

"6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with
the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight
capabilities beyond those referenced below:
ï‚· An aircraft-band VHF radio
ï‚· An aircraft transponder
ï‚· A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
ï‚· A air-to-ground position reporting device
ï‚· An anti-collision device (Note: this is not meant to forbid the use
of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
device).

Appendix SPOT is an example of an air-to ground position reporting
device. Examples of anti-collision devices include Flarm and PCAS such
as the Zaon MRX unit. Though Flarm is not required, the Rules
Committee recommends the use of Flarm by every competition pilot. The
potential safety benefit is large. This could be a suitable topic for
a safety briefing"

Strictly speaking the SPOT units carried in a glider are not an "air
to ground reporting device". Â*While they are part of a system that
allows the glider position to be reported to a ground observer, the
unit itself relies on a satellite uplink. Â*It reports nothing to the
ground.

Why can't the text say "a position reporting device"? Â*This allows the
use of SPOT and also allows the position reporting capability of
FLARM.

The text will also need to be changed to allow reception and display
of data from position reporting devices since that is a capability of
FLARM that is more than required for collision avoidance and which
would violate "not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond
those referenced below"

If the rule is adopted exactly as proposed it would not be legal to
output the FLARM data stream to a display that provided glider
position and altitude when that display was not a required part of the
collision avoidance system.

Note also that the "list" is a list of device types, not a list of in-
flight capabilities.

Andy

The language wrt (Power)Flarm is very difficult at this point, simply
because we do not yet have specific knowledge of the details of what
operational modes it will have with and without external displays.

There are two philosophical positions, which remain to be reconciled:
1. Allowing display of who is out there and what their ROC is will
forever change the nature of the sport; and
2. It won't make any practical difference

Until we have the device much of the argument reduces to "If more than
50 morbidly obese angels fit on the head of a pin, do you need to file
a 337 to install the pin in your ship?"

How the potential for display of glider ids and ROC should be handled
(or if it matters) is worthy of thoughtful discussion.

In the end, I would like the rule(s) to read: "You can carry device X
and its knob must be in position B." We just don't have the required
info yet.

John Godfrey (QT)
Rules Committee