2011 USA Proposed Competition Rules Changes Posted.

On Dec 27, 9:43*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 27, 6:18*pm, wrote:





On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" wrote:

"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in ...

Discussion invited.

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

John Godfrey (QT)
SSA Competition Rules Committee

After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"

I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
the complete APRS function?

If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
functionality is commercially available?

Andy

Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
some homebuilt device
that someone my claim is equivalent.
Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
that outside information is limited to that
which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
additional information that is useful tactically, such as
gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
under the current rules philosophy.
What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
opinions.
UH

Ok, let's get specific. *I have ordered PowerFLARM. *I am also an
alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
computer software. *Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know a lot of detail about the LK8000, but what I understand
is that it may embody the
kind of processing and display of information that is not addressed in
the text of the rules but is outside
the scope of what has been the philosophy of the rules intent.
One of the reasons we are not black and white is it has not been clear
how quickly useful tactical devices
will appear.
It is quite possible that we will end with rules that do not permit
the exporting of tactically useful information such as climb
rate from PowerFlarm.
In fairness to those who may be contemplating buying new devices to
get an advantage over the other guy, they
should know that they may well not be permitted.
As to exactly what will be available for 2010, that is one element of
the debate.
UH

Is there a conflict between rule 10.9.5.3 and rule 11.2.2.4?

10.9.5.3 says the safety finish is only valid if no more points were
claimed after the finish fix:

"10.9.5.3 When a Safety finish is active, a pilot may (using a Task
Claim form - Rule 10.5.1.3.1) claim a finish by obtaining one fix
within the Safety finish cylinder, provided the slope from the claimed
fix to the Projected Finish Location is not less than 200 feet per
mile and no claimed turnpoint was achieved after the time of the
claimed fix."

But 11.2.2.4 is intended to allow a new task attempt after finishing:
What happens if a pilot make a valid safety finish then waits for the
weather to clear, restarts, and makes a second task attempt that is
abandoned after the first turnpoint? *It appears that the the first
task attempt is invalidated because a claimed turnpoint was achieved
after the safety finish fix.

Does there need to be some language in 10.9.5.3 that allows a second
task attempt?

I think it's pretty clear that "no claimed turnpoint" refers to the
first task attempt. After all, under the old rules you could land,
takeoff again and restart, and we understood the new task was not an
additional turnpoint per safety finish. All we're doing now is
changing things so you don't have to land.

John Cochrane

Good to see you put back the "finish" call, but wouldn't it be a good
idea to also make a call entering the pattren? With the 4-mile call,
finish, and entering down-wind for runway X, a clear flow progression
would be shown and spacing for pattern entry would be enhanced.
Calling entry to the pattern is
good airmanship and should be included in the rules. As observed at
Parowan this year, only about half the pilots were making a pattern
entry call. If I don't know who else is trying to land I can't make
adjustment to accomodate them.
Food for thought,
JJ

On Dec 28, 7:06*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Is there a conflict between rule 10.9.5.3 and rule 11.2.2.4?

10.9.5.3 says the safety finish is only valid if no more points were
claimed after the finish fix:

"10.9.5.3 When a Safety finish is active, a pilot may (using a Task
Claim form - Rule 10.5.1.3.1) claim a finish by obtaining one fix
within the Safety finish cylinder, provided the slope from the claimed
fix to the Projected Finish Location is not less than 200 feet per
mile and no claimed turnpoint was achieved after the time of the
claimed fix."

But 11.2.2.4 is intended to allow a new task attempt after finishing:
What happens if a pilot make a valid safety finish then waits for the
weather to clear, restarts, and makes a second task attempt that is
abandoned after the first turnpoint? *It appears that the the first
task attempt is invalidated because a claimed turnpoint was achieved
after the safety finish fix.

Does there need to be some language in 10.9.5.3 that allows a second
task attempt?

I think it's pretty clear that "no claimed turnpoint" refers to the
first task attempt. After all, under the old rules you could land,
takeoff again and restart, and we understood the new task was not an
additional turnpoint per safety finish. All we're doing now is
changing things so you don't have to land.

John Cochrane

I think the significant difference between the old and new rules is
that the log file for the first attempt will now be the same log file
as for the second attempt. Under the old rules the first flight log
had to be submitted before the next attempt and was therefore
completely separate from the second attempt log file.

As long as the CD has the same interpretation and Winscore handles it
properly then no issue.

Andy

"Andy" wrote in message news:7205138d-41a2-401d-bc7b-

.... Snip ...

Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should
have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like
hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent
for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK


I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. However the ZAON MRX
is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. It does
not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
section.

There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
communication devices. Maybe also need a separate section for
position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
reception of APRS reports is allowed.

The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a 2m amateur
band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.

Andy

I guess I was reading 6.6.3 a bit differently. The allowed devices type "A air-to-ground position reporting device" to me would include an APRS system. I didn't consider the fact it used the 2 meter frequencies and equipment a disqualification.

Wayne

On Dec 28, 8:47*am, "Wayne Paul" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message news:7205138d-41a2-401d-bc7b-

... Snip ...



Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should
have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like
hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent
for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK

I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. *However the ZAON MRX
is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. *It does
not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
section.

There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
communication devices. *Maybe also need a separate section for
position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
reception of APRS reports is allowed.

The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a *2m amateur
band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.

Andy

I guess I was reading 6.6.3 a bit differently. *The allowed devices type "A air-to-ground position reporting device" to me would include an APRS system. I didn't consider the fact it used the 2 meter frequencies and equipment a disqualification. *

Wayne

It may be prohibited because the transceiver used for the APRS radio
downlink is a 2 way communication device that is not an aircraft band
VHF radio and it provides in flight communication capability other
than the APRS position reporting function.

Maybe that obstacle can be overcome by making it impossible for the
voice communication capability to be used in flight.

However you may still not be permitted to use an APRS system that was
made up of multiple modules since that is not "a commercially
available model". I suppose you could always offer to sell copies of
your favorite system

As I said earlier, position reporting needs a separate rules section.

Andy

Careful, some clarification might be in order for APRS. APRS can be
set up with different types of devices. There's the 1-way 'dumb'
trackers that just send position reports (a la SPOT), then there's a
full up HAM in the cockpit. So it's the equipment capability, not a
frequency thing. Look at it this way, you have a choice of what
equipment to use: a 1-way tracker that just broadcasts and doesn't
receive, a 2-way device, and also a 2-way device that is setup in a 1-
way mode.

We should encourage position reporting by whatever means.
Britton

Andy,

There are commercially available systems on the market. Here is an example.
http://wa8lmf.net/aprs/TH-D71.htm Kenwood makes a couple other APRS models, but none as compact as the TH-D71. ICOM D-STAR series are also off-the-shelf APRS options.

BTW, this is my last comment on the APRS issue.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK

"Andy" wrote in message ...
On Dec 28, 8:47 am, "Wayne Paul" wrote:
"Andy" wrote in message news:7205138d-41a2-401d-bc7b-

... Snip ...



Back to APRS, they are commercially available. Maybe I should
have said the off the shelf components are available. (It is kind of like
hooking up a Garmin 12xl to a EW Model D.) The tall pole in the tent
for many is the Amateur Radio license requirement.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK

I think 6.6.3 needs some work but maybe that won't happen for 2011.
6.6.3 relates to the prohibition of 2 way communications devices but
it also includes anti collision devices. These were probably included
in this section because FLARM is a 2 way device. However the ZAON MRX
is a passive receiver and not a two way communication device. It does
not belong in this section, or in the appendix that qualifies this
section.

There seems to be a case for moving anti-collision devices to a new
section and not including them under the prohibition of two way
communication devices. Maybe also need a separate section for
position reporting devices so that APRS can be either allowed or
prohibited. The section on APRS would need to address whether in air
reception of APRS reports is allowed.

The current rule appears to prohibit the carrying of a 2m amateur
band transceiver whether it is used for APRS or not.

Andy

I guess I was reading 6.6.3 a bit differently. The allowed devices type "A air-to-ground position reporting device" to me would include an APRS system. I didn't consider the fact it used the 2 meter frequencies and equipment a disqualification.

Wayne

It may be prohibited because the transceiver used for the APRS radio
downlink is a 2 way communication device that is not an aircraft band
VHF radio and it provides in flight communication capability other
than the APRS position reporting function.

Maybe that obstacle can be overcome by making it impossible for the
voice communication capability to be used in flight.

However you may still not be permitted to use an APRS system that was
made up of multiple modules since that is not "a commercially
available model". I suppose you could always offer to sell copies of
your favorite system

As I said earlier, position reporting needs a separate rules section.

Andy

As I said earlier, position reporting needs a separate rules section.

Andy

Boy, I hope not. A lot of pain went in to current rules. It's next to
impossible to write broad rules that encompass all the equipment that
people might use now or invent in the future.

Instead, if you have a piece of equipment you really want to use, just
ask the CD for permission. If the CD isn't clear on what to do, ask
for a waiver. Explain why you want to use it and how it works. If the
function is reasonable and consistent with the philosophy of what is
currently allowed -- if, for example, it's there to help crew find you
if you land out -- the answer will probably be yes. If the equipment
is useful for others it will make its way into the rules. That's how
spot evolved. Ham could evolve the same way.

If the function violates the intent of the rules -- if the equipment
can be used as a two-way data link to your ground command station, two-
way video sharing to your teammate, etc. -- the answer will probably
be no.

There is also a reasonable demand to keep rules simple!

John Cochrane

On Dec 28, 6:59*am, wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:43*pm, Andy wrote:



On Dec 27, 6:18*pm, wrote:

On Dec 27, 8:00*pm, Andy wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:54*pm, "Wayne Paul" wrote:

"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in ...

Discussion invited.

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

John Godfrey (QT)
SSA Competition Rules Committee

After reading through the rules it is my assumption that both SPOT and APRS systems are allowed.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"

I wondered about that. *What commercially available device performs
the complete APRS function?

If the intent of the rule is to deny use of prohibited functionality
why does it matter if a device or system that provides permitted
functionality is commercially available?

Andy

Wording is specifying commercially produced devices ie. Flarm and not
some homebuilt device
that someone my claim is equivalent.
Limit of functionality can be used to ensure , if this path is chosen,
that outside information is limited to that
which satisfies the anti collision objective, without providing
additional information that is useful tactically, such as
gaggles, climb rates, possibly energy paths that are not permitted
under the current rules philosophy.
What and how all this nay be done will be a long topic with many
opinions.
UH

Ok, let's get specific. *I have ordered PowerFLARM. *I am also an
alpha and beta tester for, and user of, LK80000 tactical flight
computer software. *Do the proposed 2011 rules allow me to interface
PowerFLARM with LK8000 and to use any FLARM information presented by
LK8000 during SSA sanctioned contests?

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know a lot of detail about the LK8000, but what I understand
is that it may embody the
kind of processing and display of information that is not addressed in
the text of the rules but is outside
the scope of what has been the philosophy of the rules intent.
One of the reasons we are not black and white is it has not been clear
how quickly useful tactical devices
will appear.
It is quite possible that we will end with rules that do not permit
the exporting of tactically useful information such as climb
rate from PowerFlarm.
In fairness to those who may be contemplating buying new devices to
get an advantage over the other guy, they
should know that they may well not be permitted.
As to exactly what will be available for 2010, that is one element of
the debate.
UH

I understand the problem you are facing with PowerFLARM data usage,
but please be careful that any constraints that may be imposed on
PowerFLARM transmitted data, or on the usage of the data, are not
incompatible with the apparent move towards allowing team flying in
SSA sanctioned contests.

One could perhaps implement a contest mode in which climb rate data is
suppressed except between pilots that have each entered a prearranged
team code. That would presumably require PowerFLARM to transmit the
team code and the receiving unit would only display climb rate (or
other restricted use data) if its team code was the same. A public
team code would allow all users to see everyone's data when not flying
in a contest.

Andy