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

On Mar 1, 10:14*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
*Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be

much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
expect.

As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
workable. *We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
may factors, including time-of-day and location. *I have flown under
clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! *I am
also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
clearing a ridge and whacking into it.

I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
validate my forecasts. *It is in this role that I have observed what
you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. *So far, I haven't reported
any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
into my morning weather briefings.

Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?

Mike

Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

Yes, definitly. I've seen it myself, though most (if not all) cases
were rather marginal for a few seconds. Enough to make them invisible
but nothing like circling inside the cloud or anything like that. As
you can see this raises the question if the ban of cloud-flying-
instruments really prevents pilots from flying into clouds... I am
sure that without such an instrument nobody these days will try to
circle inside of a cloud but I've seen enough pilots "touching" the
clouds without these devices.

On Mar 1, 9:10*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:14*am, Mike the Strike wrote:









*Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be

much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
expect.

As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
workable. *We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
may factors, including time-of-day and location. *I have flown under
clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! *I am
also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
clearing a ridge and whacking into it.

I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
validate my forecasts. *It is in this role that I have observed what
you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. *So far, I haven't reported
any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
into my morning weather briefings.

Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?

Mike

Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

Let's just say that rules maintaining minimum separation from clouds
as mandated by Federal Aviation Regulations are frequently broken in
contests and virtually impossible to police.

As I have previously also said, it is very easy to do in areas with
strong thermals (and happens to me as well). In a ten-knot thermal,
you are climbing at close to 1,000 feet a minute and half a turn will
take you from legal cloud clearance to too close. Folks flying in
typical northern European or eastern US conditions may find this hard
to believe, but those who fly in hot places (Western US, South Africa,
Namibia and Australia) will know what I mean.

Mike

On Mar 1, 11:35*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:10*am, Andrzej Kobus wrote:









On Mar 1, 10:14*am, Mike the Strike wrote:

*Instead of all the over-complex technology arguments it would be

much simpler for the competition director to state a maximum flying
altitude for the day based on forecast cloud-base altitudes. *This could be
say 500' below the lowest expected cloud-base on task. *The obvious
objection that this would prevent pilots from fully exploiting conditions
is no more valid that banning cloud flying in the first place - it is
simply one more constraint to add to the many that competition pilots
expect.

As the guy who forecasts weather, including cloud-base height, at
quite a few contests in the US west, I am afraid the idea of a "
declared contest cloud-base" (akin to contest sunset) is not really
workable. *We experience wide variability of cloud base, depending on
may factors, including time-of-day and location. *I have flown under
clouds on one side of a mountain and over them on the other! *I am
also unwilling to restrict altitude for pilots flying in mountainous
terrain, where an extra 500 feet can make the difference between
clearing a ridge and whacking into it.

I do fly at least part of most contest tasks as an observer and to
validate my forecasts. *It is in this role that I have observed what
you might call "unsportsmanlike" flying. *So far, I haven't reported
any infractions to the CD, but a few observations have found their way
into my morning weather briefings.

Maybe it's time to have a few referees flying with the competitors?

Mike

Are you saying people already fly in the clouds?

Let's just say that rules maintaining minimum separation from clouds
as mandated by Federal Aviation Regulations are frequently broken in
contests and virtually impossible to police.

As I have previously also said, it is very easy to do in areas with
strong thermals (and happens to me as well). *In a ten-knot thermal,
you are climbing at close to 1,000 feet a minute and half a turn will
take you from legal cloud clearance to too close. *Folks flying in
typical northern European or eastern US conditions may find this hard
to believe, but those who fly in hot places (Western US, South Africa,
Namibia and Australia) will know what I mean.

Mike

I simply asked if anyone is flying in the clouds cheating.

I see in contests people getting very close to the clouds even cutting
through wisps, but I have never seen true intentional cheating. I
would not consider cutting through wisps a cheating, although not
really a legal activity.

consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI and feature sets based on chosen location

Erik,

That's a good idea. This year the US rules committee has indicated
that "It must not be possible to enable the prohibited functions
added artificial horizon by changing any device setting or memory
location (i.e. registry)." So, we would have to compile and
distribute XCSoar binaries for each localized version. A runtime
"Country" switch in the software wouldn't satisfy that requirement.
Assuming the IGC AH prohibition is still in place next year (and I
hope it is rescinded), this would be a step in the direction towards
reliance on sportsmanship if the US RC would allow a runtime switch
for AH.

Rob

At 23:22 01 March 2012, Rob D wrote:
consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI
and
feature sets based on chosen location

Erik,

That's a good idea. This year the US rules committee has indicated
that "It must not be possible to enable the prohibited functions
by changing any device setting or memory
location (i.e. registry)." So, we would have to compile and
distribute XCSoar binaries for each localized version. A runtime
"Country" switch in the software wouldn't satisfy that requirement.
Assuming the IGC AH prohibition is still in place next year (and I
hope it is rescinded), this would be a step in the direction towards
reliance on sportsmanship if the US RC would allow a runtime switch
for AH.

Rob

Please read the XCSOAR website forum reply about the the current XCSOAR
version without AH is legal according to the latest SSA Contest Rules. Hope
this ends the debate.

I for one am tired of the endless rules associated with contests...Why
can't
we just keep it simple? As a contest pilot I have never thought about
cheating, or have I ever suspected any competitors of cheating, let's keep
it
simple, we are all a family, no more changes....Please....

GL

At 23:22 01 March 2012, Rob D wrote:
consider a localization scheme that allows you to manage various UI
and
feature sets based on chosen location

Erik,

That's a good idea. This year the US rules committee has indicated
that "It must not be possible to enable the prohibited functions
by changing any device setting or memory
location (i.e. registry)." So, we would have to compile and
distribute XCSoar binaries for each localized version. A runtime
"Country" switch in the software wouldn't satisfy that requirement.
Assuming the IGC AH prohibition is still in place next year (and I
hope it is rescinded), this would be a step in the direction towards
reliance on sportsmanship if the US RC would allow a runtime switch
for AH.

Rob

Please read the XCSOAR website forum reply about the the current XCSOAR
version without AH is legal according to the latest SSA Contest Rules.
Hope
this ends the debate.

Those who are happy with the status quo (and likely not invested in
any technology related to this discussion) definitely want this debate
to end. This has been made abundantly clear by the numerous tantrums
and attacks (meds, OLC vs Contest Pilots, etc) by those most
passionate about contest soaring against anyone who argues a
counterpoint. I understand there is a system for changing rules.
But vetting the debate here prepares us for that eventual vote or
poll. Debate is good!

FACT: The only way to ensure that AH functionality is not used in
contests is to: 1) ban all smart phones and stricktly enforce the ban
by, 2) randomly strip search contest pilots as they get into the
glider 3) ransack those contest gliders for contraband (smart phones
& instrument firmware versions, memory sticks, etc) and 4) patroling
the task area with advanced electronic counter measure aircraft to
intercept data signals and phone bills. Probably should scan radio
frequencies for communications as well...but im getting off track.
All of this contest version, regular version crud is meaningless other
than it satisfies a highly outdated rule (which has not been enforced
for several years). Even with these steps in place those who are
capable of cheating will still cheat, EASILY. Nothing will change in
the air other than all of us have had to go to Wal-Mart and buy a junk
phone that probably won’t work when we need it. This will be a dark
day indeed.

If XC Soar does the work requested and we do not ban smart phones,
PNA's etc what is the point of doing the work? Nobody seems to want
to deal with these facts. The rule as it stands still does literally
nothing to prevent the cheater from cheating. It makes no sense.

There is alot of great work that went into XC Soar version 6.3. I
think we would all greatly enjoy using many improvements within the
new version. Unfortunately, we are being told “just be happy” using
the old version until (wink, wink) the XC Soar folks..."bow" like the
others to our divine power! :-)

Who else saw 300? Will Leonidas (XC Soar) bow in submission to King
Xerxes (US Rules Committee & eventually the FAI/IGC) as others have?
Bow to the Rules Committee XC Soar! On your knees!

We shall see. I’m guessing not... Here is a nice video that
illustrates our tale with humor -- http://youtu.be/kmgRv2V_7P4

EXAMPLES OF SEVERAL (of hundreds) ARTIFICIAL HORIZON MOBILE APPS (30
seconds of search, copy paste):
Easily installed on PNA's, etc...(Many smart phones come preinstalled
with gyro monitoring apps that are very nice)

http://ipilotapps.com/ipad/nav/airboard/
http://www.mobiles24.com/downloads/s...izon_simulator
https://market.android.com/details?i...orizontX3Fu n
http://www.mobileapps.com/mobileapps...=15&platform=1
http://download.cnet.com/Artificial-...n;dropDownForm


On Mar 2, 5:04*am, Robert Fidler wrote:
"Please read the XCSOAR website forum reply about the the current
XCSOAR
version without AH is legal according to the latest SSA Contest Rules.
Hope
this ends the debate."

On Mar 2, 9:59*am, Gregg Leslie wrote:
I for one am tired of the endless rules associated with contests...Why
can't
we just keep it simple? As a contest pilot I have never thought about
cheating, or have I ever suspected any competitors of cheating, let's keep
it
simple, we are all a family, no more changes....Please....

GL


But, but, but, if someone cheats, they'll get all the hot chicks and
sponsorship money ... oh wait, there aren't any. ( well, there's a few
hot chicks, but no money )

Please keep the rules simple and enforceable, since it is currently
impossible to prevent a pilot from showing up with an attitude gyro in
his pocket today, that rule is just not enforceable and should be
scrapped. keep the ban on cloud flying, that's fine and will be
enforced the same way other rules are enforced, self policing.

The cost to sailplane racing of cheating by cloud flying seems prettly
damn low compared to the cost of trying to prevent any pilot from
having an attitude gyro available to him with today's technology.

To Sean Fidler, don't take my statements as support. You might be a
nice guy in real life, but you are an ass on the internet.

Todd Smith
3S

Classy Todd! :-)

On Mar 2, 12:52*pm, toad wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:59*am, Gregg Leslie wrote:

I for one am tired of the endless rules associated with contests...Why
can't
we just keep it simple? As a contest pilot I have never thought about
cheating, or have I ever suspected any competitors of cheating, let's keep
it
simple, we are all a family, no more changes....Please....

GL

But, but, but, * if someone cheats, they'll get all the hot chicks and
sponsorship money ... oh wait, there aren't any. ( well, there's a few
hot chicks, but no money )

Please keep the rules simple and enforceable, since it is currently
impossible to prevent a pilot from showing up with an attitude gyro in
his pocket today, that rule is just not enforceable and should be
scrapped. *keep the ban on cloud flying, that's fine and will be
enforced the same way other rules are enforced, self policing.

The cost to sailplane racing of cheating by cloud flying seems prettly
damn low compared to the cost of trying to prevent any pilot from
having an attitude gyro available to him with today's technology.

To Sean Fidler, don't take my statements as support. *You might be a
nice guy in real life, but you are an ass on the internet.

Todd Smith
3S