New Butterfly Vario

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?

Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:









On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

As long as hot chicks hang out at the finish line, and the prize money is so
bountiful, pilots will cheat to win! What, no chicks? Oh, never mind...
:-)


"Brad" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 4:34 pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:15 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:









On Feb 10, 6:07 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general
everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to
decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start
area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule
after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest
(manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you
do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not
sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat.
There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing
T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are
supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would
give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?

Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think
some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about
that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

On Feb 10, 8:02*pm, Brad wrote:
On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:





On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I alluded privately, your solution for you situation could work.
Not sure how you deal with disabling a piece of equipment you put on
your MEL, but assume could.
I'm the CD. You come to me on practice day and give me a bit of a
whine and ask me to look at your disabling method. Lets say I agree to
cut you a break and I put a seal tape someplace so it is secured.
Everybody is happy.
Now- multiply that by 20, or 30 , or 50.
Now- nobody is happy.
Organizers and officials would never want to have to deal with that.
We spent quite a bit of time on the Butterfly application to lay the
ground work for it and other programmable devices so that they can be
checked very quickly and in a common manner.
We want everybody to come play, but we have to keep the workload for
organizers and officials in mind.
The truth is that if you showed up with your True Track covered and
with clear indication it was disabled, I doubt anybody would notice or
give a darn.
UH
The issues are not simple as you can imagine.

Arrogant ass.

What a classy one.

On Feb 10, 6:15 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
- show quoted text -
Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Who all thinks our rules chair might need some meds to help sedate his ego a little bit. Wow the arrogance.

I think it might be a good start.

Massive trolling aside on this thread.... Hank, let them use the AH. Darwinism will kick in. There is a very good chance (as Richard and others mentioned earlier) that inexperienced and/or untrained IFR pilots going into these conditions will probably exit the clouds in a wingless glider. Lawn dart material. Problem solved. We won't have to read their comments any more. ;-)
Craig