On Feb 9, 10:32*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.

Andy (GY, CFII)

The rules committee position is the rules:

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

If a garmin 496 or LK8000 has a useable AH, then it is against the
rules to carry it in US competitions. Expect a complaint from your CD
if he notices, or a protest from a fellow competitor. If you want to
carry them without breaking the rules, follow the new procedures John
Godfrey just posted.

A bit of explanation on this rule. I'm sure an individual pilot, who
knows he's never gong to cheat, might like to have an AH "just in
case." Alas, there have been lots of instances of cheating and
dangerous behavior in the past. If we allow AH, somebody is going to
be heading up in to clouds.

Now, you might say, so what? But when piltos get the idea that other
people are cheating it poisons the sport. Going to contests becomes
less fun, just if you suspect that some big shot made it over that
tough blue hole with a cloud climb.

Then, lots of pilots feel justified in cheating because "you know,
everyone is doing it." Next thing you know, we have fleets of gliders
all heading up in to the clouds, and the "safety" advantage of having
an AH "just in case" evaporate with a fleet of gliders out there doing
illegal cloud flying in a gaggle.

So far, I think the opinions of most pilots are that they would rather
forego the questionable individual advantage of having an AH to keep
this scenario from breaking out. You, who would never cloud fly
intentionally, give up having an AH, so that you know that those crazy
bozos around you won't cloud fly and beat you in the race by doing
something both illegal and dangerous.

This is really not a rule imposed from above. It's a gentleman's
agreement among pilots. If pilots would rather have it the other way,
so be it -- make a fuss at the next rules cycle, we'll put it on the
poll, and see if a large majority votes for artificial horizons.

I doubt this project is going very far. *Pilots just strongly voted to
keep the *ban on cockpit weather instruments intact, though the costs
of letting everyone else have them are a lot lower.

When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John Cochrane

....and I thought economics was the dismal science! Do I have to add
Finance to that too?

I couldn't disagree with John more on this. Firstly, the problem in
contests is not deliberate flying through clouds, but the frequent
close approach and occasional infraction that occurs to all of us -
both recreational and contest pilots. Every pilot I know is going to
squeeze the last few hundred feet out of a thermal, too often going
very close to cloud base. Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
work to control this. I have been in and around enough contests to
see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
pilots will fess up! I have seen more than one of the names high on
the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!

The RC is going to have to face the reality that more and more
instruments are going to have weather data and many flight computers
are going to add some sort of horizon. Maintaining a rule that is out
of step with technology isn't going to work, in my opinion.

I can certainly agree that keeping contest pilots away from clouds is
a worthwhile safety goal, but I disagree that restricting the
capability of their instrumentation is the best way of achieving
this. If you want to keep pilots away from clouds, you have to come
up with a method of monitoring this. At least one instrument
manufacturer has an idea how to do this. Yep, more work for the
scorer!

Mike (a non-dismal physicist!)