New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 13, 4:17*pm, T8 wrote:
Can anyone name a single pilot who has an accident, or even a bad
scare due to entering IMC in competition?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Yes, Evan, I had a bad scare in a contest environment (Elmira 2009
Sports Class Nationals) I found myself in heavy down pour (IMC). I am
talking about the kind of down pour that makes you stop on the highway
because you don't see anything. I was not able to see anything neither
ahead nor down for what seemed like eternity. In reality the IMC
lasted 20 seconds or maybe a bit more before I barely saw the ground.
For all that time I did not touch controls and that saved the day.
After I started seeing bits and pieces of the ground I turned away
from the cloud. If I had a gyro I would have executed 180 deg right
away and I would have avoided much of the stress.

Saying all that, it was my bad judgement that got me there, although I
could swear the cloud did not look bad up to the moment I got poured
on. I learned from that experience. I am still worried more about
people flying in clouds than me entering IMC again. I am thinking that
if someone is going to fly in clouds they better do it with the right
equipment rather than a cell phone gyro especially if I am under the
cloud they are flying in. I am slowly thinking that maybe allowing
gyros is not that bad of an idea. I can't make up my mind on which
side of this argument I am on.

Andrzej

One more comment and then I promise I'll shut up on this topic for a
few days:

-----
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for,
and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
-----

SSA rules do not trump FARs, nor do the SSA rules take precedence over
the responsibility of the PIC. Even if the SSA permits AH devices,
its still the PIC who's at-fault if he dies while trying to cloud-fly.

(And if he's that eager to cheat and cares that little about his own
safety, do we really think a rule will discourage him? Especially
when things like iPhones and PDAs and mini-EFIS systems are so
portable and readily available?)

--Noel

Sure, a number of them, but I won't.
The rules recommendation to set start cylinder top
WELL BELOW CLOUDBASE has helped (when CDs have
followed the recommendation)...

On Feb 13, 2:15*pm, Andy wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:45*pm, Brad wrote:

I would also hope that my fellow competitors would
approve of my action and not protest.

Brad,

Your proposal is incomplete. *To be complete you would need to define
the penalty that would be applied if your disabling means was found to
have been broken at any time during the contest.

Such penalty could reasonably include loss off all contest points up
to and including the day on which the disabling device was found to be
ineffective. *Restricting the points loss to a single day may require
your glider to inspected every day, something you could perhaps
arrange with the CD, scorer, or an other designated competitor.

Andy

Andy,

That all sounds reasonable to me. It's much easier for me to do what
we've talked about rather than pull my instrument pod, unscrew the
panel, un-hook the wires and un-screw and remove my Tru_trak.

If I am willing to take several days off of work and spend a bunch of
money for a contest I am sure not going to cheat and risk everything.
That being said......IF I needed my Tru-Trak, then I would accept the
agreed upon penalty.............but if the AH saved me from pulling my
wings off and being a lawn dart (as some have suggested) then at least
I would be alive to take my beating for cheating!

thanks,
Brad

On Feb 13, 6:17*pm, Dave Nadler wrote:
Sure, a number of them, but I won't.
The rules recommendation to set start cylinder top
WELL BELOW CLOUDBASE has helped (when CDs have
followed the recommendation)...

If we're talking about pilots willfully flying into the edges of
clouds, then it doesn't seem like adding AHs is going to contribute to
safety. Maybe you see it differently?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

I am just passing along observations.
Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
FWIW, Best Regards, Dave

On Feb 13, 4:08*pm, Dave Nadler wrote:
I am just passing along observations.
Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation....
FWIW, Best Regards, Dave

Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
the gate?

Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
concerns go away.

--Noel
(OK, really this time, I'll be quiet for a bit!)

On Feb 13, 3:22*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Brad -

Here's the catch though: *You'd still be illegal to fly because you
use LK8000 or XCSoar. *Since they have AH functions that you cannot
"safety-wire" in the off position, you can't use them. *Sorry! No
contest-flying for you! *Not until you buy a dedicated flight computer
for a couple-thousand-dollars! *Oh, and if you buy a nice cell-phone,
you cannot fly with it. *Sorry, gotta hike to a farmer's house in the
middle of nowhere to make a call and get retrieved!

How do these things improve safety or help increase participation?
They don't - THAT'S the insanity of this rule. *Its much, much larger
than the half-dozen idiots in the country who'd kill themselves trying
to cloud-fly simply because they have an AH in the cockpit.

The sport and its rule-makers _must_ adjust to modern realities or the
sport is going to continue to die. *In some ways they're doing great
things; but in others they're falling flat on their face. *Adjusting
to modern society _doesn't_ mean you have to support million-dollar
thermal-detectors; but it _does_ mean the application of common-
sense!! *Skew the rules towards the greater common good; _don't_ skew
the rules and everyone's equipment out of fear that a teeny fraction
of individuals will cheat.

Anyone willing to cheat to cloud-fly is also willing to be a big dick
at their next contest and protest everyone who flies with a smart-
phone. *I'd LOVE to see the fallout from *that* event!

--Noel

XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.

On Feb 13, 4:51*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:08*pm, Dave Nadler wrote:

I am just passing along observations.
Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
FWIW, Best Regards, Dave

Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
the gate?

Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
concerns go away.

--Noel
(OK, really this time, I'll be quiet for a bit!)

it's easier if you just say "I won't post anymore" to yourself rather
than post it, how do I know this......
besides, this is a good thread with a lot of information........if the
internet was around in it's current form during the early day's of GPS
I bet things would have sounded very similar.

Brad

On Feb 13, 7:51*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:08*pm, Dave Nadler wrote:

I am just passing along observations.
Remember, the rule was created (at least) partly to reduce the temptation...
FWIW, Best Regards, Dave

Sorry, I realize I'm breaking my word about shutting up - but was that
rule created *before* the new start-cylinder rules that require you to
be below start cylinder height for 2 minutes prior to going through
the gate?

Because with the newer start-cylinder rules in place, a lot of these
concerns go away.

--Noel
(OK, really this time, I'll be quiet for a bit!)

2 minute rule has been with us since the beginning of GPS start.

Problems arise when top of lift is 5500 and top of gate is 6000 and
guys poke up into the murk.

CDs don't always follow recommended practice....

Nav devices without gyros probably are never going to constitute
instruments that "permit flight without reference to ground". GPS
plus ipaq or similar probably okay no matter what software. I don't
speak for the RC, but I think this is a pretty defensible position.
I'm planning on using XCSoar in comps in April & May.

-Evan Ludeman / T8