On Jan 27, 3:58*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. *Not the just the IFR flying part. *The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.

That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. *Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots?

Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. *In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. *In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation.

If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. *On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. *On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. *Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved.

But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. *What I care about is safety. *And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. *This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). *I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. *But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? *I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. *New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. *This rule is out of date.

The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. *Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. *We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. *In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. *I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. *I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. *What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank?

Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? *I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. *Let me know.

Read rule 6.6.1
Also note that flying in cloulds is an FAR violation and obviously it
makes no sense to permit equipment in competition that wouls have the
purpose of making it possible to cloud fly.
The cloud flying that I'm talking about is climbing within the cloud
as a tactical part of the flight.
If we fly legally, there is no significant liklihood of needing an
artificial horizon.
Do you want to be circling up in a cloud with half a dozen of your
friends?
Pilots can always report unsafe flying. I am aware of several cases
where pilots spent too much time in the rags of the clouds and were
reported to the CD. A little wood shed action broughtthat to a halt.
This is also why CD's are encoraged to put the maximum start height
500 feet below cloud base.
UH