If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On 2/10/2012 8:03 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Feb 10, 5:54 am, wrote: On Feb 10, 7:26 am, wrote: What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ? That's his checkbook register. After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. The fear of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-). -T8 (slipping, one bubble off center) Eric - the issue is not whether or not you need a particular instrument but whether, since they are going to be included in an increasing number of multi-use instruments, these should be prohibited. In nearly 2,000 hours of glider flying, I have only found the need for a horizon on two occasions, but I was glad to have one! Your argument could be used for parachutes too - I have never needed or used mine. I'm not which Eric you are answering, but parachutes have been used a few times in contests, but I'm not aware of any accidents that would have been avoided in contests if a horizon had been installed. So, pragmatically, requiring parachutes seems like a good idea. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 10, 8:39*pm, Bart wrote:
On Feb 9, 10:48*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote: What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device. If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as follows: 1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others. Remember rule 6.1 2. Very nice! See 1 3. Even nicer! See 1 4. See 3 5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver 6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver Hmmmm. It seems that if I ever make such a device and write two firmware versions (AH and no AH), then, in order to fly in a contest, I will have to - load the version without AH support, AND - never mention the existence of the other one. Safety considerations aside, I think that many contributors to this thread are concerned about devices that COULD, at least in theory, act as an AH. For example, XCsoar is open source and runs on Android phones, some of which have gyros. Lousy rate gyros, but gyros nevertheless. Anyone with the necessary skills can modify the application to display some sort of AH. I guess what I am getting to is that you either trust the pilot or you don't. If the rules are tightened enough to prevent any sort of AH in the cockpit, then there may be no pilots willing to compete. I am certainly not flying, competition or not, without my Android phone. Bart Just curious- what is so critical to your flying that you won't fly without your phone? UH |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwinism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentioned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into these conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-)
Craig |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 11, 4:31*pm, wrote:
Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwinism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentioned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into these conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-) Craig Nice post Craig. Maybe some of the younger pilots who didn't grow up in the bad old days of soaring and want to embrace modern technology will rip their in-experienced wings off and die as their gliders lawn darts into the ground. Just think how happy you'll be to not have to read their trolling posts anymore. Brilliant, simply brilliant. Brad |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 11, 7:52*pm, (Alan) wrote:
In article 26927612.551.1329006666807.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbmq9 writes: Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwin= ism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentio= ned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into thes= e conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart = material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-= ) * If they are IFR pilots, they have had training, and some level of experience, rather far more than a newly minted glider pilot without other ratings. * I seem to recall folks telling how strong gliders actually were. * Now this *is* part of a pretty good answer to the claims that new pilots should learn to fly gliders before power. *Clearly, it is not so, as the casual attitude of the gliding community towards busting clearance minimums from clouds, not knowing how to set their altimeters legally, etc., is a demonstration that pilots should start with power with a good instructor, so by the "principle of primacy" they would learn the proper habits first, and retain them. Speaking of "trolling", I've seen no suggestion by anyone on this thread that they want to have their high tech artificial horizon so that they can go cloud flying when they feel like it, nor are they suggesting that prohibition against cloud flying in US contests should be eliminated. Some, rightly or not, want such a device in case they find themselves in a cloud unintentionally. Others, like myself, wonder whether requiring changes to one device before allowing its use in contests make any sense in a world where just about every new phone is or will soon be capable of implementing a fully functional artificial horizon using a $5 off the shelf app. Meanwhile, people find plenty of ways to kill themselves without entering IMC at all... Marc |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
Back to being serious on a serious subject... the problem truly resides in the glider pilot's abilities. I'm a power pilot as well as glider pilot. One of the most dangerous power pilots around is an IFR rated pilot that flys under the hood once in a blue moon to keep current and then goes into nasty conditions thinking they have the skills to handle it. Now just imagine a glider pilot that isn't IFR rated entering zero visibility having read the instrument manual with little to no practical experience (Condor or flight sims don't count). Tragedy is just around the corner. The point is to not get into that situation. This is the safest course of action. Follow the rules and be safe.
Craig |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On 2/11/2012 7:52 PM, Alan wrote:
Now this *is* part of a pretty good answer to the claims that new pilots should learn to fly gliders before power. Clearly, it is not so, as the casual attitude of the gliding community towards busting clearance minimums from clouds, not knowing how to set their altimeters legally, etc., is a demonstration that pilots should start with power with a good instructor, so by the "principle of primacy" they would learn the proper habits first, and retain them. Gliding instruction does not include a casual attitude to cloud clearances, anymore than power instruction includes scud running. Both of those usually happen after the pilot is licensed. "Primacy" usually applies to reflexive reactions to aircraft attitude, not conscious decisions over several minutes or longer, as climbing to cloud base or scud running involve. My observations as a glider instructor indicate it's easier to teach people to fly a glider in this order, with the easiest first: 1) hang glider pilots 2) very low time power pilots (barely soloed) 3) people with no piloting experience 4) experienced GA power pilots (I'm excluding groups like aerobatic pilots) The power pilots may eventually be very good glider pilots, but the "law of primacy" was very obviously interfering with their glider airmanship. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
Arrogant ass.
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On 2/11/2012 8:18 PM, Marc wrote:
Speaking of "trolling", I've seen no suggestion by anyone on this thread that they want to have their high tech artificial horizon so that they can go cloud flying when they feel like it, nor are they suggesting that prohibition against cloud flying in US contests should be eliminated. Some, rightly or not, want such a device in case they find themselves in a cloud unintentionally. Others, like myself, wonder whether requiring changes to one device before allowing its use in contests make any sense in a world where just about every new phone is or will soon be capable of implementing a fully functional artificial horizon using a $5 off the shelf app. Meanwhile, people find plenty of ways to kill themselves without entering IMC at all... Marc makes a good point about the "hard trends" for the communicators (aka smartphones) a lot of us now carry, and most will carry in the near future. I can think of several ways to reduce or eliminate cloud flying, but I'm not rating their practicality or likely acceptance. 1) The honor system: no panel mounted devices, and we trust the pilot not to sneak any device on board with the intent to use it in-flight. 2) Peer pressu allow or disallow devices, but encourage many pilots to routinely inspect the IGC files of the top 10 or so competitors, and anyone else they think might cheating. Noting a glider getting well above other flights in the same area could lead to some private discussions with the pilot about his "anomaly". 3) Committee assigned penalties: CD and some pilots chosen by the entrants examines IGC files for the the discrepancies mentioned under "Peer pressure". Anomalous height gains can be penalized by the committee. 4) CD sets maximum allowed altitude enforced like the 18K limit: simple, and could allow a 30 second excursion for unintentional busting. 5) IGC logger with secure imaging: the logger saves images of the view from the cockpit every 10 seconds, tagged with secure data to tie the picture to the GPS trace. Any anomalous altitude readings lead to examining the images of that period for cloud flying. This video logger might also be a real asset in accident reconstruction, especially fatal accidents. Video cameras with GPS logging are already widely available at cheap prices, but none are secure that I know of. The cheapest are generally the "car crash recorder" type, that also have 3 axis G sensors (search for SMARTY BX1000 on Amazon.com). There are cheaper video/GPS units without G sensors, too. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Butterfly iGlide | Reed von Gal | Soaring | 4 | May 2nd 12 06:00 PM |
WTB: 57mm Cambridge Vario/FS: 80mm Cambridge Vario | ufmechanic | Soaring | 0 | March 24th 09 05:31 PM |
TE vario | G.A. Seguin | Soaring | 8 | June 8th 04 04:44 AM |
WTB LD-200 Vario | Romeo Delta | Soaring | 0 | June 4th 04 03:08 PM |