2011 USA Proposed Competition Rules Changes Posted.

Discussion invited.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011...y%20101227.pdf

John Godfrey (QT)
SSA Competition Rules Committee

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". 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. It reports nothing to the
ground.

Why can't the text say "a position reporting device"? 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

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

"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in message ...
Discussion invited.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011...%20101227..pdf

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"

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

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

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

"Andy" wrote in message ...
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,

I also am on the PowerFLARM list and am testing LK8000. It provides a lot of information!! (http://www.LK8000.it) I have also noted that XCSoar version 6 has a nice PowerFLARM interface. I don't own SeeYou Mobile; however, I believe it also has an interface.

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

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

On Dec 27, 12:21*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
Discussion invited.

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:

"11.2.2.4 Task completion – The pilot has completed the task if all
turnpoints are valid, yield a scored distance (Rule 11.2.3) not less
than the Standard Minimum Task Distance, and the pilot obtained a
scored start time, a finish time prior to finish closing, and either
landed at the contest site or after finishing obtained a valid start
(10.8.5) and a subsequent fix at least 5 miles from the start fix.
Otherwise the task is incomplete.
Appendix This rule allows a pilot to finish a task and then make
another attempt without having to land and without jeopardizing the
results of the first attempt. The change also ensures that a pilot who
finishes so low that s/he fails to reach the airfield cannot claim s/
he was off on a second task attempt."


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?

Andy