Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Kevin,

If you really want to urge me to do something I suggest you do it in person, man to man. I truly look forward to this moment. Until then Kevin.

Sean

On Friday, April 6, 2012 8:17:58 PM UTC-4, Kevin Christner wrote:
Once again I urge you to sell your glider

On Apr 4, 2:32*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
Kurt, So unsurprisingly you want me to go away. *Got it. *But not going to happen. *Do you have a LX product? *Sorry it is nothing personal...

I want to see everyone's feet held to the same fire. *The standard has been set clearly by USRC. *If other software/hardware possesses AH capability (of any level of usefulness) the they must be forced to build a special version of firmware or software. *LXNAV (and any other "offenders") should be "required" to provide its customers a special version as the others have been forced to do. *Reason: *nobody is going to check under the panel and the technology is very capable. *Double standards are afoot. *We have a big double standard in the case of LXNAV vs. Butterfly, XCSoar or LK8000.

The USRC has opened this can of worms. *But they are only forcing a couple parties to eat them. *We all must eat the same worms. *Now lets dig in! *Ummmmm!

Sean
F2







On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 1:24:07 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?

The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. *Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!

All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. *Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. *That includes the latest smartphones. *Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!

If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!

If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.

And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.

But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!

OK, I'll shut up now. *Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Paul Remde wrote:
It would not be possible for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes
to those products.

Paul, that is wrong, did you read my reply to your first post here?

At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..

Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:36:41 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..

Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

that is the FAI rule for world and continental championships.

I flew with XC soar 6.3 and the AH actually worked (looks like an actual AH, globe blue top/brown bottom). It seems to function fairly well...but i could not figure out how accurate it was. I think it was simply using GPS alt and heading...not really a gyro funtion becuase it was easy to trick with skids, slips and inverted flight. This was the first time I have seen it function. As much of a toy as any other mobile based AH, but neat! Well done Max and team.

As to the arguments that LXNAV is exempt from firmware requirements via USRC (when Butterfly and others are not) to be legal to fly in US contests...I simply disgree. The current LXNAV firmare has the AH mode code needed to utilize harware which going to be burried in the panel or elsewhere.

The LXNAV firmware is ready to go, AH capable (this is a fact)...and nobody is going to check to confirm if the AH box exists or is plugged in. Do the only way to be sure is to require special firmware as butterfly has built.. Dangerous stuff indeed.

I think the RC needs to clarify this...

As for the personal comments I am amused. This should not be that emotionally stimulating...

Sean

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..

Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

Don - Sporting Code = FAI = International Rules. Largely written and influenced by the former Colonial Powers.

I suggest that we rewrite FAI Sporting Code and any national rules for the simple reason of stopping these endless threads.

Where is the AH in XCSOAR 6.3? I've looked through all the menus and don't see it. Is there special confuguration to enable it or something?

Running XCS standard build 6.3.


On Saturday, April 7, 2012 1:34:23 PM UTC-5, Sean F2 wrote:
I flew with XC soar 6.3 and the AH actually worked (looks like an actual AH, globe blue top/brown bottom). It seems to function fairly well...but i could not figure out how accurate it was. I think it was simply using GPS alt and heading...not really a gyro funtion becuase it was easy to trick with skids, slips and inverted flight. This was the first time I have seen it function. As much of a toy as any other mobile based AH, but neat! Well done Max and team.

As to the arguments that LXNAV is exempt from firmware requirements via USRC (when Butterfly and others are not) to be legal to fly in US contests....I simply disgree. The current LXNAV firmare has the AH mode code needed to utilize harware which going to be burried in the panel or elsewhere.

The LXNAV firmware is ready to go, AH capable (this is a fact)...and nobody is going to check to confirm if the AH box exists or is plugged in. Do the only way to be sure is to require special firmware as butterfly has built. Dangerous stuff indeed.

I think the RC needs to clarify this...

As for the personal comments I am amused. This should not be that emotionally stimulating...

Sean

On 4/7/2012 1:50 PM, rk wrote:
I suggest that we rewrite FAI Sporting Code and any national rules for the
simple reason of stopping these endless threads.

Heh.

And fully realizing we both are contributors to the "endlessness", rk's post
did raise a (serious) question in my noodle.

Is the objection to: a) the thread length; b) the (entirely unnecessary and
easily avoidable, it seems to me) unpleasantness of a number of the posts; c)
the very topic; d) other???

It is, after all, easy enough to ignore reading posts...

Bob - curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back - W.

"Max Kellermann" wrote in message
...
Paul Remde wrote:
It would not be possible for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes
to those products.

Paul, that is wrong, did you read my reply to your first post here?

___________________

Hi Max, Please clarify. How could it be possible to mess with the LXNAV
LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 firmware?

In your first reply I assumed that you were saying LX8000 when you meant
LK8000.

Paul Remde