If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On 2/15/2012 7:43 PM, T8 wrote:
Tom does have a point. Buy a cheap phone, put it on your existing service. Charge it, test it, turn it off, put it in the glider and leave it there. I'd do that. Looks like you can still get them. Perhaps $30 on Amazon. Big deal... not. Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work some places, especially in the West. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 15, 9:34Â*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:48Â*pm, "noel.wade" wrote: 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Â*Sorry, I guess I was being too clever and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new start rules were put in place. Â*I *know* when they were put in place. I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. Â*The 2-minute- below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more) below the day's cloudbase. Â*It doesn't have to be some onerously-low start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below cloudbase. 2) Tom, UH, and John: Â*If we're going to talk about the honor system and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences? Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time: The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such purposes). Â* Â*But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in them already. Â*The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest pilots to fly with these smartphones. Â*If they want to be contest- legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew). ----- QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with cell phones? ----- ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule! Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of what people here have said). Â*They say if it *could* be used, then its forbidden... period. Â*Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the cockpit. Â*This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free software. Â*This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. Â*XCSoar and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the last 3 years. Â*It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000 flight computer! Â*If I had been required to do so, I *never* would have become a contest pilot. Â*The ironclad AH rules cut off all current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and easier. Â*Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off for 2+ weeks. We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Â*Yet here we are, putting up big barriers to participation! ----- QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more expensive to participate in contests? ----- ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule! Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but then you imply that we won't enforce them. ----- QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the hell have them in the first place? Â*If people know they're not going to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them? ----- ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come up with a better rule! ----- QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit, and then just walk out with the trophy? ----- ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot smarter! Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore- mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after takeoff. Â*And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule doing to stop them? In Summary: Â*I just don't understand. Â*I simply don't. Â*Yes, cloud- flying used to happen. Â*Yes, its a danger. Â*Yes, it should be prevented. Â*But you're telling me that the best solution is an outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be enforced? Â*And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes time to fly? There has to be a better way. --Noel (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free software on a PDA) Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the definition of "Sportsmanship". The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them during a SSA contest. Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS AVOIDABLE. Enough said their. The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests. Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day. Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting, those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained. Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship" a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given much thought to these topics. Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way. Thomas Kelley #711.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Tom - thanks for reminding all of our friends of the associated rules shown immediately below which have also been in place for quite some time. I guess I missed that meeting. UH 6.6 Restricted Equipment 6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which: • Permits flight without reference to the ground. • Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan. 6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight. In certain classes (Rule 6.12), the use of such devices is prohibited. 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: 6.6.3.1 ‡ An aircraft-band VHF radio 6.6.3.2 ‡ An aircraft transponder 6.6.3.3 ‡ A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight) 6.6.3.4 ‡ A air-to-ground position reporting device 6.6.3.5 ‡ anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the device. 6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in- flight access to weather data is prohibited. 6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.) |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
Tom C-
So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in case? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were screwed? Ever just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced one? A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men. What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests? What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here new contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud....be damned! You careless *******! It’s your fault for making that mistake. Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost to safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat. I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer ;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the standings. Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe this should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair compromise? Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional? Please say no. Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. Not sure if that would be a positive result. “Any pilot attending a regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. Yeah sure those cheap crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the country somewhere. But I digress. Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you’re going to be able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if someone really wants to with today’s technology? Are we going to randomly ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball’s steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of the top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPhone. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb phone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best. I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely killed. That would not be fun to watch. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
Eric responds, "We seem to be down to "I want it because I want it."
Eric, you have got to be kidding me. We want it because it can save someones life and the chance of someone cheating effectively (almost zero) is MEANINGLESS when compared to safety. Wow, we are miles apart here Eric. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On 2/15/2012 6:34 PM, Tom Kelley wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:48 pm, wrote: 1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Sorry, I guess I was being too clever and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new start rules were put in place. I *know* when they were put in place. I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. The 2-minute- below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more) below the day's cloudbase. It doesn't have to be some onerously-low start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below cloudbase. 2) Tom, UH, and John: If we're going to talk about the honor system and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences? Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time: The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could *possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such purposes). But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in them already. The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest pilots to fly with these smartphones. If they want to be contest- legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew). ----- QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with cell phones? ----- ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule! Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of what people here have said). They say if it *could* be used, then its forbidden... period. Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the cockpit. This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free software. This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me - to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. XCSoar and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the last 3 years. It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000 flight computer! If I had been required to do so, I *never* would have become a contest pilot. The ironclad AH rules cut off all current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and easier. Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off for 2+ weeks. We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation (witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Yet here we are, putting up big barriers to participation! ----- QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more expensive to participate in contests? ----- ...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule! Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but then you imply that we won't enforce them. ----- QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the hell have them in the first place? If people know they're not going to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them? ----- ...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come up with a better rule! ----- QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit, and then just walk out with the trophy? ----- ...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot smarter! Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore- mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after takeoff. And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule doing to stop them? In Summary: I just don't understand. I simply don't. Yes, cloud- flying used to happen. Yes, its a danger. Yes, it should be prevented. But you're telling me that the best solution is an outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be enforced? And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes time to fly? There has to be a better way. --Noel (who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free software on a PDA) Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the definition of "Sportsmanship". The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them during a SSA contest. Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS AVOIDABLE. Enough said their. The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests. Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day. Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting, those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained. Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship" a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given much thought to these topics. Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way. Thomas Kelley #711. Tom, now I am really scared. I don't know what to do. I really enjoy contest flying and have done a lot of it. I'm not going to win a Nat's, but really enjoy ending up in the middle third. I have a Blackberry 8830. I don't want an A/H. Got enough to do in the cockpit. Never been sucked up in a cloud and never want to. I trust my 8830 for phone calls in the boonies and email in the boonies. If I have to give it up for an untrusted, untested $20 phone without email, I ain't going to fly any more contests. Maybe my smart phone is a dumb phone. Couldn't find an A/H for it anyway. If I can't put it in a pocket easily reachable, I won't be flying either. Who's going to be responsible for designating those cell phones that have or could have A/H's? I sure hope this is resolved by the end of March. -- Mike I Green MG - Mighty Gorilla |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 15, 8:07*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work some places, especially in the West. Banning just smart phones would do very little: http://tech.yostengineering.com/3-sp...mily/bluetooth http://www.x-io.co.uk/node/9 These are just two examples of several such devices on the market. In essence, to prevent use of devices like this, it woud be necessary to ban all programmable Bluetooth-capable PDA, PNA, smart phone, and tablet devices, or search the gliders and frisk the pilots on a daily basis. I am 100% in favor of the cloud-flying ban in US contests, but this technology is advancing faster than the RC will be able to keep up with. Given that I flew (and occasionally won) in regionals for several years using homebrew software running on various odd PDA-like devices, I have reason to be concerned with the direction this discussion seems to be heading. Deal with cloud-flying harshly as unsportsmanlike behavior when detected, but don't pretend the problem can be solved by banning entire categories of equipment... Marc |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
Sean,
The rules against artificial horizons have been around for years. Although I believe we are an honest bunch it does not hurt to help things stay that way, we weigh sailplanes at contests too! I have 22000hrs, 3800 in sailplanes and I have only once inadvertently been "sucked" into cloud [in South Africa at the top of a 15knot thermal] In that case I pushed hard and came out of cloud - I then cruised at almost VNE with the wheel down and airbrakes open for 60 kms!!] I am sure the butterfly people can build a vario without the AH. I reckon if the capability to cloud fly is there then some will try, without training this is unsafe [let alone illegal] I have cloud flown legally in the UK and NZ and do not believe it enhances safety. Tom At 04:17 16 February 2012, Sean Fidler wrote: Tom C-=20 So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please a= llow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be ba= d for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidental= ly flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in c= ase? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a benign spi= ral because, essentially, you=92ve made a mistake and you were screwed? Ev= er just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced one? A rule = leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, = at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun= , enjoyable and of honest men. What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the o= pportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the r= est of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, howe= ver slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument= if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have = to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests? What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at= this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that so= meone is going to be able to cheat =93past=94 them that safety for any fair= pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here n= ew contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud.= ...be damned! You careless *******! It=92s your fault for making that mist= ake. Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someo= ne really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost to = safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a f= ew of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant liv= e with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat. =20 I won=92t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I kno= w) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last su= mmer ;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the s= tandings. =20 Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw= away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you = recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and i= ncreasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe this= should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair compromis= e? Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regiona= l? Please say no. Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide e= mail from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - = any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most = Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your d= oors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. = Not sure if that would be a positive result. =93Any pilot attending a reg= ional should go and get a throw away phone,=94 etc. Yeah sure those cheap = crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the= country somewhere. But I digress. Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you=92re going to be = able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if some= one really wants to with today=92s technology? Are we going to randomly ra= nsack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is= a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone = in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball=92s s= teroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone recor= ds to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of th= e top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just goi= ng to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? = Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPh= one. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb p= hone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best. I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fata= l accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread w= hile suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely kil= led. That would not be fun to watch. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 15, 11:17*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
Tom C- So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? *Please allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. *How exactly would it be bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in case? *Did you read this article? *Have you ever had to perform a benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were screwed? *Ever just had to ride it out and hope? *Have you ever practiced one? *A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men. What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? *Please weigh that with the rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests? What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. *If you, (insert your name here new contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud...be damned! *You careless *******! *It’s your fault for making that mistake. *Tough taffy. *But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone really wanted to? *Can all the instruments be policed? *At what cost to safety? *At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? *All because a few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat. I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer ;-0! *See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the standings. Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. *Maybe this should be for National contests only guys? *Would that be a fair compromise? *Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional? *Please say no. Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. *Then perhaps consider locking your doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. *Not sure if that would be a positive result. *“Any pilot attending a regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. *Yeah sure those cheap crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the country somewhere. *But I digress. Think about this carefully. *Do you really think that you’re going to be able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if someone really wants to with today’s technology? *Are we going to randomly ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is a DSQ? *Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone in his pocket? *If yes, then what of the last 3 years? *Like baseball’s steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? *Subpoena phone records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of the top pilots? *Confirm the device model of these calls? *Or are we just going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? * Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPhone. *Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb phone, program in some numbers, etc. *Seems paranoid to me at best. I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. *Absolutely killed. * That would not be fun to watch. Sean, The real issue is not the cheating. The real issue is that the behavior (cloud flying) has in the past resulted in IMC mid-airs. As Eric pointed out there have been no AH-preventable fatalities in his memory, but there have been mid-airs as the result of cloud flying. It's a matter of basing the rules on known facts rather than speculation about situations that have not caused one contest accident. It is a real concern that technology advances are making this rule extremely hard to enforce, and human nature being what it is we will unfortunately likely see a repeat of IMC mid-airs as a result. QT |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:
Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS AVOIDABLE. Thomas Kelley #711. Yes, it is. Who doesn't get that? Show of hands please. Then we can work on the real problem. -Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
I have already made the below notes on all of my flight computer, data
logger pages to hopefully make competition pilots aware of the position the US contest rules committee has made prohibiting the use of AHRS and other blind flying instruments and devices please see my page http://wingsandwheels.com/lx_nav_lx8...ano_flight.htm and other pages as well "Instruments or devices equipped with any form or AHRS system (Artificial Horizon) or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying" that cannot be completely disabled or removed are not permitted in any SSA sanctioned competition!" More details are available on link above or may be found on Contest Rules and Rules Committee Documents regards Tim Mara Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com wrote in message ... On Feb 14, 4:15 pm, "Paul Remde" wrote: Hi, The LX8000 and LX9000 use an AHRS sensor box with built in g-meters, etc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-AHRS Paul Remde "Mike" wrote in message ... On Feb 14, 12:08 am, Max Kellermann wrote: Mike wrote: XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that. Yes: http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xc...enderer/Horizo... The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits on technology used by XCSoar) This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer. Max Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Paul: As in my warning about Butterfly, you and other vendors should ensure that the pilots buying the devices from you that are represented to have A/H functionality, know that these devices are not permitted under current and future SSA competition rules. Notwithstanding the disagreement by a vocal few, this policy is not going to change any time soon. It would be a big service to your customers to ensure that they are informed and an even bigger service if you make a point of ensuring that your suppliers know that there is a clarification of policy in effect and a methodology for compliance. There is adequate time before the majority of the contest season to get this accomplished. If there is a question about whether a product falls into this catagory, the RC will work hard to give you a determination. I guess Richard, Rex?,and Tim and I don't know who else would also be well to heed this suggestion. I don't think you want to be getting the angry call from your customer on contest practice day that you sold him an instrument he can't use. Thanks for you cooperation and service to the contest community. UH RC Chair __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6889 (20120216) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6889 (20120216) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Butterfly iGlide | Reed von Gal | Soaring | 4 | May 2nd 12 06:00 PM |
WTB: 57mm Cambridge Vario/FS: 80mm Cambridge Vario | ufmechanic | Soaring | 0 | March 24th 09 05:31 PM |
TE vario | G.A. Seguin | Soaring | 8 | June 8th 04 04:44 AM |
WTB LD-200 Vario | Romeo Delta | Soaring | 0 | June 4th 04 03:08 PM |