US Rules Committee to ban XC Soar in US soaring competitioneffective immediately? - Ahh the "genius!"

Evan:

It's degraded and slow to update if the gps source is 1 hz (as most are), also assumes zero sideslip and assumes pitch is related only to difference between TE vario and vertical speed.
Despite those limitations, I would consider that it would be possible (but not recommended) for a pilot of average skill to cloud fly with such an algorithm.

Gps derived attitude is used in autopilots in low cost uavs.

There are also more capable gps-only attitude systems that use three gps receivers, the phase differences yielding attitude at high accuracy and high rate.

You can see now why I shudder when gyros are singled out as the evil component that supposedly enables cloud flying.

This is all such a distraction.
Why not ban FLARM? After all, if you're in a contest and considering
climbing into a cloud what better time is there to do it then when you
know that every other glider around
has FLARM so you can tell if there is one already in that cloud above
you?
FLARM is the ultimate safe cloud flying instrument for sailplanes in a
contest!
(Also makes sure no one else is nearby to see you.)

On Feb 24, 3:01*pm, wrote:
Evan:

It's degraded and slow to update if the gps source is 1 hz (as most are), also assumes zero sideslip and assumes pitch is related only to difference between TE vario and vertical speed.
Despite those limitations, I would consider that it *would be possible (but not recommended) for a pilot of average skill to cloud fly with such an algorithm.

Gps derived attitude is used in autopilots in low cost uavs.

There are also more capable gps-only attitude systems that use three gps receivers, the phase differences yielding attitude at high accuracy and high rate.

You can see now why I shudder when gyros are singled out as the evil component that supposedly enables cloud flying.

I think -- with respect to modern sailplanes -- you are
optimistic :-). I've flown simulated instrument in Cessnas on riotous
soaring days. I actually did a 45 minute check flight in a new type
that way, all under the hood, from 500 agl on take off, to 1000 agl in
the pattern one time. Made me green as all get out. But the point
is, the effective bandwidth of a real gyro horizon is probably on the
order of 20 or 30 Hz. I am certain I could not cloud fly in
turbulence on 1 Hz. I might be able to keep wings level on an
emergency letdown (flaps & spoilers out) in reasonably smooth air.
I'm hoping our RC interpretation is similar because it leads to a
simplification in the rules interpretation for guys with older (1 Hz)
equipment and modern softwa "No gyros / No 3G/4G / No problem". QT
says otherwise in one of these threads, but I have had private
conversation with one of the other RC guys that sounded amenable to
this in principle. I think it's defensible for the short term, if not
preferred for the medium or longer term. The contest season is upon
us, we need solutions, pretty much right now.

On Feb 24, 11:22*am, wrote:

To be fair, there are others within the XCSoar group who are more
inclined to help work this out so pilots can have complying software.
Hopefully they will succeed.

To be very clear, it would be trivial for a programmer to disable the
artificial horizon feature (which is a very tiny info box that I'd
find barely useable even as a get-out-of-jail safety feature).

Once the rules have been clarified, and as long as there are no
requirements that an application cannot technically implement without
major difficulties, some people either related or unrelated to the
XCSoar project will step forward and will make an Android version
available on the Android market that is "ready for competition". This
would have the info box removed or permanently disabled, and it would
display the fact that it rules-compliant loud and clear in the splash
screen. The IGC log file would carry evidence of the software used.

It's open source and licensed as free software, and there is no
unsurmountable difficulty in doing this. It may be difficult to
convince Max K to spend his time on this, but that does not mean that
nobody else would step forward.

So, relax.

On Feb 24, 1:15*pm, David Reitter wrote:
Once the rules have been clarified, and as long as there are no
requirements that an application cannot technically implement without
major difficulties, some people either related or unrelated to the
XCSoar project will step forward and will make an Android version
available on the Android market that is "ready for competition". *This
would have the info box removed or permanently disabled, and it would
display the fact that it rules-compliant loud and clear in the splash
screen. *The IGC log file would carry evidence of the software used.

It's open source and licensed as free software, and there is no
unsurmountable difficulty in doing this. *It may be difficult to
convince Max K to spend his time on this, but that does not mean that
nobody else would step forward.

What prevents yet another individual from compiling another Android
version that reproduces the "rules-compliant" splash screen, and
produces the same evidence in the IGC file, but nonetheless implements
the AH capability (with a stealth interface, of course). I do have to
agree with others that, at least with a 1 Hz GPS, the capability is
probably worthless in a modern glider in a real cloud. So, why is
this even being discussed?

Marc

Is there an assumption being made that an AH is required to cloud fly?

It is completely possible to cloud fly without an AH or XC Soar or a
Bohli compass or T&B with existing instruments in our cockpits, just not
as easily.

By disallowing XC Soar, all we are doing is just making it less easy to
cloud fly only and not solving a thing.

On 2/24/2012 12:52 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
Ok EVERYBODY JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND RELAX!

This is getting blown way out of proportion, IMO.

Fact: Cloud flying is prohibited in contests. Period. Anybody caught
intentionally doing it should be immediately kicked out of the
contest.

Fact: While it is easy to prohibit old school gyro AH and T&Bs from
cockpits, it is becoming practically impossible to ban newer devices
and/or software that would have some capability to allow cloud flying,
such as PNAs/droid phones, etc.

Fact: Many glider pilots like having some sort of attitude indicator
available - especially if they have personally experienced the need
for one and not had it available. BTDT, for example on a late evening
final glide in Illinois, heading West into the sun - there was
ABSOLUTELY NO HORIZON VISIBLE, even though it was technically still
VMC. I basically used the position of the sun on the canopy to stay
shiny side up while cruising, and while thermalling, when the sun was
out of sight behind, had literally no way to maintain pitch attitude.
That was scary...and I sure would have liked to have had a simple AH
display!

Fact: PowerFlarm is pretty soon going to be "required" at contests.

So - I suggest we change the enforcement of the cloud flying ban from
the prohibition of any device that would allow it, to the use of
"sportmanship", coupled with the ability of PowerFLARM to show what
other gliders around you are doing. If I'm circling 500' below
cloudbase, and see a PF track 2000' above me and climbing, and I look
up and see nothing but cloud - then I'm going to report that glider,
and it should be pretty easy to find out who it is via the turned in
logger traces.

Then stop worrying about it and race!

Kirk
66
No gyros - yet...

PS - I don't understand all this drivel about smartphones. Unless you
are down in the weeds, good luck getting any signal from a carrier,
and if you are dicking around with your phone trying to get the AH app
to work as you are getting sucked into a clout, I doubt you will be
much of a racing threat! Give it a rest.

On Feb 24, 5:00*pm, Marc wrote:

What prevents yet another individual from compiling another Android
version that reproduces the "rules-compliant" splash screen, and
produces the same evidence in the IGC file, but nonetheless implements
the AH capability (with a stealth interface, of course).

Absolutely nothing.

You can make things a little more tamper-proof, just like hardware in
loggers can be made somewhat tamper-proof.

The software itself could be signed digitally, and distributed with a
non-public key used to sign IGC logs, though verification of the
digitally signed software would have to be done using separate
(technical) means rather than a splash screen, and perfect protection
of the secret IGC signature key that has to come with the software is
impossible.

However, building (compiling) a fake XCSoar version is technically
somewhat involved. That is where the rules committee may come up with
a solution that will make it more difficult, but not impossible to
cheat.


I do have to
agree with others that, at least with a 1 Hz GPS, the capability is
probably worthless in a modern glider in a real cloud. *So, why is
this even being discussed?

With the present hardware, that is probably true.

On Feb 24, 12:57*pm, stephanevdv wrote:

By the way: if you favour an "honor" system to control compliance of
the AH rule, you could just as well believe a pilot when he tells you
he won't go / hasn't been going IMC. The same people (if any) will try
to cheat...

This is so true we are still relying on honor system.

I have a real problem banning LK8000 just because it has a screen that
shows estimated angle of bank based on GPS position. I think this
clarification needs to be changed a bit. I am all for RC efforts but
banning a screen like this would be too much. We are talking about
processing GPS data not sensors signals. Please think about this you
have the same data by zooming into your moving map display.

I hope Evan is going to sort all of this with RC before this thread
reaches 200 entries.

Andrzej

LK8000 will not "put much work into it" as well.
If XCSoar delivers a stripped version, we shall do the same.
If XCSoar does not deliver a stripped version, and shall be put on the black
list, LK8000 will be there too.

Paolo , for LK8000

"Max Kellermann" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
wrote:
This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max

On Feb 24, 8:35*pm, "PCool" wrote:
LK8000 will not "put much work into it" as well.
If XCSoar delivers a stripped version, we shall do the same.
If XCSoar does not deliver a stripped version, and shall be put on the black
list, LK8000 will be there too.

Paolo , for LK8000

"Max Kellermann" ha scritto nel . de...

wrote:
This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.

No, no, you are now being very inaccurate. *To remind you of how it
really was, here's what you replied to:

*"As I mentioned earlier, we could publish a stripped version, but
*unless anyone can prove how this will be useful to catch cheaters, we
*won't put much work into it."

Can you?

Max

I will not use the stripped down version of LK8000. I will use the
full version (even though I have that screen disabled) because the
full version does not provide any support for gyro sensors therefore
it shows the same information as moving map on high zoom level. I
think these interpretations are going too far. I understand true Gyros
but we are talking about software that does not use any gyro sensors.