A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Butterfly Vario



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 8th 12, 02:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default New Butterfly Vario

On 2/7/2012 2:17 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
I choose safety. Continue flailing...I enjoy it.

As for your panic fire about filing, etc. I laugh at you. I am laughing hysterically at you both.

Safety. Its that simple.


My understanding is the rule was introduced because pilots were using
them for contest advantage rather than increased safety should they
inadvertently enter a cloud. The cloud flying would discourage pilots
from entering contests that were unwilling to take the risk or break the
rules, and would decrease safety as less able pilots attempted to risk
cloud flying.

So, I'd say the question might be: "Are we safer with a rule that might
- very rarely - mean someone is sucked into a cloud accidentally without
a blind-flying instrument; or a rule that encourages frequent
intentional flights into clouds?"

Of course, you can always carry one around when you aren't flying a contest.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
  #42  
Old February 8th 12, 05:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

It is alot better than nothing if it happens that you ever need it. And it is RIDICULOUS to outlaw it from the cockpit of airplanes when people want to have them as a safety measure, just encase.

Any of you with instrument training, partial panel training...will understand. Sure most people, even with a turn and bank, are in a world of hurt once IMC is encountered. I get that.

But saying the T&B is illegal is like saying to the window washers that its illegal for them to wear safety harnesses because is encourages them to skip maintenance on their cranes.

Shocking to me that someone needs to explain the logic here. Shocking.
  #43  
Old February 8th 12, 06:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Brad[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 722
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 8, 8:52*am, Sean Fidler wrote:
It is alot better than nothing if it happens that you ever need it. *And it is RIDICULOUS to outlaw it from the cockpit of airplanes when people want to have them as a safety measure, just encase.

Any of you with instrument training, partial panel training...will understand. *Sure most people, even with a turn and bank, are in a world of hurt once IMC is encountered. *I get that.

But saying the T&B is illegal is like saying to the window washers that its illegal for them to wear safety harnesses because is encourages them to skip maintenance on their cranes.

Shocking to me that someone needs to explain the logic here. *Shocking.


I made sure to add a Tru-Trak to my panel.

In my early days of hang gliding I got sucked into a cloud as it
rapidly formed and eventually totally engulfed me; it was
terrifying................I eventually spun out the side of the cloud
and once I had ground reference it was easy to correct. If anyone
tells you using a compass will save you it's not true. Another time I
was in wave in my ASK-14 when a wave cloud precessed and totally
whited me out...........I had a Wendezeiger installed in the panel and
it was on. 5 minutes later I flew out of the bottom of that cloud
totally wings level and under control.

The most recent occurance I had no turn instrument, and was lucky
enough the blue hole under me stayed open long enough to spiral down
thru. It's amazing how at 9k the cloud tops and blue holes are easy to
see and navigate around, it's also amazing as you descend how those
cloud towers completely block your view and what ever blue holes are/
were out there get limited rapidly.

From a safety standpoint I'll have that Tru-trak as insurance, and I
have partial panel experience as a PPSEL, and no, just because I have
the training I'll not use that as justification to cloud
fly...........it's illegal and un-safe...there I said
it...............un-safe and I'm not swinging thru the trees as I type
this.

Brad
  #44  
Old February 8th 12, 06:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 7, 6:56*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

My understanding is the rule was introduced because pilots were using
them for contest advantage rather than increased safety should they
inadvertently enter a cloud. The cloud flying would discourage pilots
from entering contests that were unwilling to take the risk or break the
rules, and would decrease safety as less able pilots attempted to risk
cloud flying.


The following is just some rambling thoughts.

IIRC, the "no-gyro" rule was in effect since at least the early
'60's. Back in those days pilots were not required to carry a
barograph so there was no altitude record. I suspect the rule was
just to insure cloud flying didn't happen.

Safety-wise, the old gliders handled a "benign spiral" better than the
extremely slippery racers of today so the no-gyro rule didn't
introduce much of a safety issue.

Now, loggers provide altitude data so it should be possible to spot
any pilot climbing higher than cloudbase by comparing IGC files so
maybe there is less justification for a no-gyro rule.
  #45  
Old February 8th 12, 10:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default New Butterfly Vario

A couple of thoughts.

I would like to point out that there are good precedents. For example,
some of us already fly with devices that supposedly encourage
excessive risk taking. They are called "engines", and we figured out a
way to handle this issue. You start the engine, your logger detects it
and it counts as a land out.
I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
of cloud flying equipment.

I know that it is possible to get into a cloud without trying to (or
while actively resisting). I got sucked into one. Due to the
cicrumstances it was neither unsafe nor illegal, but certainly
unintended.

Oh, and it is possible to make a sensor that would detect it when a
glider is in a cloud. And there would be countless ways of
circumventing it. Sometimes it is best to rely on a honor system.

Bart
  #46  
Old February 9th 12, 12:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default New Butterfly Vario

your logger detects it
and it counts as a land out.
I see no reason why the same approach could not be used for any kind
of cloud flying equipment.


This means the scorer has to get every log every day, so you can't
turn in your primary log and forget to turn in the butterfly log. It
means Guy has to reprogram winscore for every new instrument that
comes out. It means that any failure of the butterfly log also means
zero for the day any gap in the log, any security failure, anything at
all goes wrong with it and you lose points. That's way too much to put
on the poor scorer, and I'm not sure you'd want it once the ifs ands
and buts are spelled out!


I know that it is possible to get into a cloud without trying to (or
while actively resisting). I got sucked into one. Due to the
cicrumstances it was neither unsafe nor illegal, but certainly
unintended.


I'm mr safety in contests, but I think we need just some hint of a
problem before we change rules. I know of zero -- zero -- incidents in
US contest soaring that a cautious pilot, not pushing the limits, got
unintentionally sucked in to a cloud, and wished he had a "safety"
artificial horizon.

I know of lots of incidents of pilots deliberatly flying in to clouds,
with or without gyros; and many more deliberately flying into / under
thunderstorms and other low visibility situations. (We have the
"safety finish" for a reason!)

The balance of safety -- to say nothing of competitive fairness --
still seems to me squarely on the side of the no artificial horizons
rule

John Cochrane
  #47  
Old February 9th 12, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

With respect...

So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule? OK. I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. No accident has occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20 years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). And if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point. Its just a matter of time before it does. And this thing could prevent that from happening.

Is this the message that we want to send all pilots (students, etc) within the soaring community? Contest pilots do not use AH's (actually have a rule that you must take it out of the aircraft or disable the function on your Vario, Watch, Computer, etc) because it makes you push the edges and anyone who has one wants to cheat? They reason that contest pilots are safer knowing that if you break cloud-base or get trapped on top (whatever)...you'll probably will die? This way nobody needs them.

It should only about safety, not a contest or competition concern. The number of honest pilots greatly outweigh the very few who might attempt cheating with the instrument. Safety should trump the chance that someone may cheat by light years. This rule clearly is outdated, unenforced, unenforceable and should be a DEEP safety concern. Half the people who flew contest last year probably had AH's on board. Good for them! This rule has not been enforced at all.

This is fairly embarrassing for the contest aspect of our sport in my opinion. If anyone wishes to put an AH in their glider it should be ENCOURAGED and PRAISED. Not outlawed. This logic is completely backwards. Instead the prime concern is someone may cheat and in this thread we have posts focused on A) don't buy this GREAT VARIO because B) you only want it to cheat and C) I will throw you out of the next contest because you would be cheating by owning it. Instead the concern is D) how do we disable this vario's functionality so it can be legal when 100% of future electronics and 50% of anything designed within the past 4-5 years already has this functionality.

Wow! Is it just me? I have the space in my panel and would love to install one. I must be a cheater. How dare I consider it...?
  #48  
Old February 9th 12, 02:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Brad[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 722
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 8, 5:36*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
With respect...

So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule? *OK. *I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. *No accident has occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20 years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). *And if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point. *Its just a matter of time before it does. *And this thing could prevent that from happening.

Is this the message that we want to send all pilots (students, etc) within the soaring community? *Contest pilots do not use AH's (actually have a rule that you must take it out of the aircraft or disable the function on your Vario, Watch, Computer, etc) because it makes you push the edges and anyone who has one wants to *cheat? *They reason that contest pilots are safer knowing that if you break cloud-base or get trapped on top (whatever)...you'll probably will die? *This way nobody needs them.

It should only about safety, not a contest or competition concern. *The number of honest pilots greatly outweigh the very few who might attempt cheating with the instrument. *Safety should trump the chance that someone may cheat by light years. *This rule clearly is outdated, unenforced, unenforceable and should be a DEEP safety concern. *Half the people who flew contest last year probably had AH's on board. *Good for them! *This rule has not been enforced at all.

This is fairly embarrassing for the contest aspect of our sport in my opinion. *If anyone wishes to put an AH in their glider it should be ENCOURAGED and PRAISED. *Not outlawed. *This logic is completely backwards. *Instead the prime concern is someone may cheat and in this thread we have posts focused on A) don't buy this GREAT VARIO because B) you only want it to cheat and C) I will throw you out of the next contest because you would be cheating by owning it. *Instead the concern is D) how do we disable this vario's functionality so it can be legal when 100% of future electronics and 50% of anything designed within the past 4-5 years already has this functionality.

Wow! *Is it just me? *I have the space in my panel and would love to install one. *I must be a cheater. *How dare I consider it...?


This just made me realize I wasted 20 pages of paper, I printed out
the SSA 2012 Soaring guide to Competition, I was seriously considering
flying in my local sports class contest this summer, not anymore.
Sure, I could unscrew my panel and pull the fuse, but do I really want
to do that? Nope.............whatever fun I might have in a contest I
can have exponentially more of flying at my favorite XC locations.

I'll leave the mid-airs and wing separations to the big guys.

Brad
  #49  
Old February 9th 12, 03:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default New Butterfly Vario

On 2/8/2012 5:36 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
With respect...

So you're arguing that no one has yet died and therefore are
suggesting that "we need to have an incident first" before the rule
setters will consider changing this (outdated and ridiculous) rule?
OK. I'll just shut up and wait for that to happen. No accident has
occurred that can be directly correlated to disorientation in IMC in
a glider? I doubt that (many incidents have happened over the last 20
years, just nothing fatal yet assuming your facts are correct). And
if you are correct I promise you that one will happen at some point.
Its just a matter of time before it does. And this thing could
prevent that from happening.


Do you fly in contests?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
  #50  
Old February 9th 12, 09:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

What if I have flown contests? What if I havent? Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:31 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.