Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-5, JJ Sinclair wrote:
The pilots suspected of logging a little unauthorized IFR were all commercial pilots with current instrument ratings.
I believe this can be controlled with a stern warning given at all mandatory pilot meetings and a 2 year suspension of racing privileges for anyone found guilty.
The RC is checking with the NWS to see if archived data can be used to prove flights into known cloud areas.
We need to put a stop to this right now,
JJ

The SSA Sailplane Tracker archives weather data every thirty minutes. Visible satellite is one of the data streams depicted. Play back the Tracking data from that date. Make sure you have the WX tab checked and the image of choice selected. Watch the track move and the weather sequence. You can upload the particular IGC as a private file for better track resolution within the SSA Sailplane Tracker. Granted this does not show cloud bases but it will give you an idea if it is even worth pursuing better data.

Lane

I don't believe weather data alone will enable IFC scofflaws to be identified. Cloudbase is a highly variable parameter, both in time and space. Also, as we've said before, thermals and wave sometimes enable you to climb higher than cloudbase quite legally. (I did this in Moriarty last year).

So, unless you are going to introduce an arbitrary maximum height rule, this approach is doomed to failure. If you don't like Andy's idea of a cockpit camera, perhaps we should learn from other sports and introduce umpires or referees to follow the field around!

Mike

I think it's important to meditate on just how much of a problem there is, and therefore how complex our procedures need to be to stop it.

Just how much actual, sustained, undetected, artificial-horizon-enabled, and contest-winning cloud flying is going on in US contests? How much more of it will there be if we abandon the current largely unenforced rules about carrying cell phones or disabling the AH features of flight computers? How much less of it will there be if we dream up some complex verification scheme involving satellite loops and traces?

We're not talking about VFR pilots going up in the wispies. That happens, and banning AH doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the kind of sustained cloud flying that could potentially win a contest. You need to go up at least 2000' in some pretty thick clouds for that to work. Or you need to penetrate the wall of thunderstorm keeping the others from going in to the turnpoint. We're talking about really big, blatant, and monstrously illegal behavior.

My view, is that this sort of thing is rare; if it did start happening we could see it with an informal and case by case review of flight traces; and if so we can afford to lower the boom after the fact.

To Tom's post, it makes perfect sense for a tighter standard at the worlds. People care more, are more willing to do crazy stuff, and it's appropriate to impose greater costs on organizers and teams.

I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. If you are carrying, expect a little more careful look at your logs.

The complex rule has a long list of forbidden equipment, a procedure that CDs actually follow to check said equipment, surprise inspections, a complex trace evaluation procedure, and so forth. That is more ironclad, yes. But is ironclad worth it, in the real world of contest flying (not in the infinitesimal probability speculation we do on ras over the winter)?

So, when you ask for the latter, recognize you are asking for a rule book that is longer and denser than the current one. We all need to think whether problems really are problems before fixin' them, and think about the costs of the fix.

John Cochrane

John,

I appreciate the direction you advocate. It is important to remember that it unsportsmanlike conduct is a pilot issue and not a technology issue. To address it from a technological angle is like trying to stop the sunrise.

Lane

On 01/15/2015 2:47 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.

Thank you John and the rest of the RC, I think this is the right move.

Luke Szczepaniak

On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014...ng_Minutes.pdf

If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.

For the Committee,
John Godfrey (QT), Chair

As an "on again/off again" contest pilot in the US (for 30 years in regional & national contests), I agree that a "fat rulebook" either means people won't read it, or, will go for "shades of gray".

For the first, it can be daunting.
For latter, they're always "looking for a way".

In general, my biggest gripe (not that I can point a finger at anyone) is that, if, "Someone spirals out of a cloud and hits someone else (while illegally cloud flying), I feel bad for the "hit party"."

Yes, I will admit "flying way up in a dome under a strong CU" or "ridge soaring the face of a CU", both were likely "in violation of US FAR's (related to cloud clearance)", but I have never flown or seen "cloud flying".

While this does not make it correct, I also see a major difficulty in enforcing a rule against it.
I can foresee a case where the "FAR rules" were met but a "Monday morning quarterback" may see info that looks different.
Not to slight on anyone, just commenting.

Have at it guys........

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:47:09 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
I think it's important to meditate on just how much of a problem there is, and therefore how complex our procedures need to be to stop it.

Just how much actual, sustained, undetected, artificial-horizon-enabled, and contest-winning cloud flying is going on in US contests? How much more of it will there be if we abandon the current largely unenforced rules about carrying cell phones or disabling the AH features of flight computers? How much less of it will there be if we dream up some complex verification scheme involving satellite loops and traces?

We're not talking about VFR pilots going up in the wispies. That happens, and banning AH doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the kind of sustained cloud flying that could potentially win a contest. You need to go up at least 2000' in some pretty thick clouds for that to work. Or you need to penetrate the wall of thunderstorm keeping the others from going in to the turnpoint. We're talking about really big, blatant, and monstrously illegal behavior.

My view, is that this sort of thing is rare; if it did start happening we could see it with an informal and case by case review of flight traces; and if so we can afford to lower the boom after the fact.

To Tom's post, it makes perfect sense for a tighter standard at the worlds. People care more, are more willing to do crazy stuff, and it's appropriate to impose greater costs on organizers and teams.

I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. If you are carrying, expect a little more careful look at your logs.

The complex rule has a long list of forbidden equipment, a procedure that CDs actually follow to check said equipment, surprise inspections, a complex trace evaluation procedure, and so forth. That is more ironclad, yes. But is ironclad worth it, in the real world of contest flying (not in the infinitesimal probability speculation we do on ras over the winter)?

So, when you ask for the latter, recognize you are asking for a rule book that is longer and denser than the current one. We all need to think whether problems really are problems before fixin' them, and think about the costs of the fix.

John Cochrane

Thanks John & the Rules Committee. We already have rules against cloud flying & suitable penalties may be imposed within these rules. Spending an inordinate amount of effort enforcing an issue that appears to exist at the fringes seems like a poor use of our collective energy.

Craig
7Q

This was polled just recently and below are the results.

""""October 29, 2012 12:28 PM
Percentages usually do not add up to 100% because multiple selections can be made on many questions. Also, some questions
are not answered by all survey submitters.
Analysis Categories All
Summary of detailed data representing All respondants. 187
Part I. Equipment
1. Cloud flying instruments
For many years we have prohibited gliders from "carrying any instrument which: Permits flight without
reference to the ground." (6.6.1) In practice, this has meant that gliders may not carry gyros or Bolhi
compasses.
Now several navigation instruments sold to the glider market include artificial horizon displays. Some
cellphones and tablet computers also include such displays, though of questionable reliability. An
artificial horizon is now essentially a software switch on existing instruments rather than a whole new
instrument.
This year there was a substantial discussion about this rule. Briefly, advocates of removing the rule
feel that there is a safety advantage of allowing artificial horizons as a precaution in case of
inadvertent loss of visual reference. Supporters of the current rule feel that truly inadvertent loss of
visual reference is unheard of in contest flying, and the temptation to intentionally fly in or through
clouds or rain too strong with such instruments present. Allowing such instruments would also lead to
greater suspicion that others are cheating and foster an "I have to do it to keep up with the
competition" mentality.
All
a Do you favor removing the ban on artificial horizons?
RemoveBan 31%
LeaveBanInPlace 68%
b The RC has developed a protocol, whereby if a computer or vario with artificial horizon option is
installed, it must be possible to verifiably disable that option for the duration of the contest. (Please see
Restricted Device Policy) This policy requires some programming from manufacturers, and some
manufacturers have been reluctant to do it.
Do you support this policy? (If not, suggest an alternative!)
Yes 71%
No 27%"""""

Best. Tom #711.

On Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:51:48 UTC-7, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
This was polled just recently and below are the results.

""""October 29, 2012 12:28 PM
Percentages usually do not add up to 100% because multiple selections can be made on many questions. Also, some questions
are not answered by all survey submitters.
Analysis Categories All
Summary of detailed data representing All respondants. 187
Part I. Equipment
1. Cloud flying instruments
For many years we have prohibited gliders from "carrying any instrument which: Permits flight without
reference to the ground." (6.6.1) In practice, this has meant that gliders may not carry gyros or Bolhi
compasses.
Now several navigation instruments sold to the glider market include artificial horizon displays. Some
cellphones and tablet computers also include such displays, though of questionable reliability. An
artificial horizon is now essentially a software switch on existing instruments rather than a whole new
instrument.
This year there was a substantial discussion about this rule. Briefly, advocates of removing the rule
feel that there is a safety advantage of allowing artificial horizons as a precaution in case of
inadvertent loss of visual reference. Supporters of the current rule feel that truly inadvertent loss of
visual reference is unheard of in contest flying, and the temptation to intentionally fly in or through
clouds or rain too strong with such instruments present. Allowing such instruments would also lead to
greater suspicion that others are cheating and foster an "I have to do it to keep up with the
competition" mentality.
All
a Do you favor removing the ban on artificial horizons?
RemoveBan 31%
LeaveBanInPlace 68%
b The RC has developed a protocol, whereby if a computer or vario with artificial horizon option is
installed, it must be possible to verifiably disable that option for the duration of the contest. (Please see
Restricted Device Policy) This policy requires some programming from manufacturers, and some
manufacturers have been reluctant to do it.
Do you support this policy? (If not, suggest an alternative!)
Yes 71%
No 27%"""""

Best. Tom #711.

Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Good job! Only a sharp CD would of ever of caught that!

Best. #711.