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
  #21  
Old January 27th 12, 07:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike the Strike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 926
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Jan 27, 10:07*am, wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:32*am, Mike the Strike wrote:









On Jan 27, 7:44*am, Richard wrote:


On Jan 27, 6:12*am, johngalloway wrote:


On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" wrote:


Hi,


I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks
quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butte...utterfly-Vario


Best Regards,


Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.


"Brad" wrote in message


...
On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:


On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote:


On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" wrote:


Hi,


I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very
impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM),
GPS
flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial
horizon,
and many other very nice features. You can see details
hehttp://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm


Good Soaring,


Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.


It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned
contests that this instrument, as described, will not
be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the
artificial horizon.
UH


I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that
the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests.


It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking
forward to hearing some flight reviews.


Mike


I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are
cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit.


Brad


The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement
unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift
variometry up a notch. *There were hopes that the 302 would develop
that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the
development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first??


If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a
PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000
including its expensive *compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly *FAQs


The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed
to use the
Butterfly Vario in competitions?
The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged
by the integrated IGCLogger
and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to
introduce new
competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud
flying but allows the
installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions.


Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy
Aero Ultimate Le.


*http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm


Richardwww.craggyaero.com


Perhaps as this technology becomes more widely available we should re-
examine the rules against cloud flying in competitions. *In my
experience, these rules are frequently infringed by pilots who fly up
to cloud base, into, round or over cumulus clouds!


I'd be interested to hear from contest pilots who can honestly say
that they have never infringed regulations regarding clearance from
clouds. *I suspect the rule is probably unenforceable.


Mike- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


So you are suggesting that we make IFR flying a part of our
competions?
I'm curious as to how you think that might work.
UH


As Andy pointed out earlier, prohibiting cloud flying is largely
unenforceable and a number of pilots already do this for competitive
advantage. I'm just suggesting leveling the playing field!

Last year, I spotted a fellow competitor exiting a cloud and ribbed
him over a beer afterwards. His comment - "a good job clouds aren't
shown on igc files!"

Mike
Ads
  #22  
Old January 27th 12, 08:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,004
Default New Butterfly Vario

To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. Not the just the IFR flying part. The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.

That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots?

Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation.

If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved.

But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. What I care about is safety. And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. This rule is out of date.

The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank?

Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. Let me know.

  #23  
Old January 27th 12, 10:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,894
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Jan 27, 3:58*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. *Not the just the IFR flying part. *The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.

That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. *Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots?

Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. *In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. *In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation.

If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. *On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. *On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. *Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved.

But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. *What I care about is safety. *And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. *This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). *I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. *But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? *I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. *New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. *This rule is out of date.

The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. *Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. *We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. *In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. *I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. *I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. *What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank?

Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? *I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. *Let me know.


Read rule 6.6.1
Also note that flying in cloulds is an FAR violation and obviously it
makes no sense to permit equipment in competition that wouls have the
purpose of making it possible to cloud fly.
The cloud flying that I'm talking about is climbing within the cloud
as a tactical part of the flight.
If we fly legally, there is no significant liklihood of needing an
artificial horizon.
Do you want to be circling up in a cloud with half a dozen of your
friends?
Pilots can always report unsafe flying. I am aware of several cases
where pilots spent too much time in the rags of the clouds and were
reported to the CD. A little wood shed action broughtthat to a halt.
This is also why CD's are encoraged to put the maximum start height
500 feet below cloud base.
UH
  #24  
Old January 27th 12, 10:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike the Strike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 926
Default New Butterfly Vario

There are times when you might get into clouds unintentionally. Years
ago, on another continent, I got trapped above a layer of low cloud
that formed near storms and had to descend through it. My trusty
Jantar-1 had an SZD gyro turn and bank that enabled me to make the
descent with wings level. I almost never used that instrument, but
was glad I had it on that occasion.

A couple of years ago on a cross-country flight in Arizona, I
thermalled up high on mountains and then flew over lower terrain and
found myself over the tops of cumulus clouds and had to dodge my way
round them to the thermals underneath.

In contests, pilots I observe routinely get up into the wispies (yes,
we all do it!). When you're climbing in a ten-knot thermal it can be
hard to judge when to stop and suddenly you're in the cloud. Where
there is a dome of increased cloudbase under a cumulus, you can end up
exiting through the side of the cloud. I suspect this happens a lot,
even unintentionally.

No-one, let alone a CD at a distant airport, has any clue where the
clouds or cloudbase are.

I'm with Sean in that, if you have an instrument that might improve
safety, it would be stupid to disable it.

More fun for the Rules Committee!

Mike

  #25  
Old January 27th 12, 11:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruno[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default New Butterfly Vario

I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. I
would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
disabled.

How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
that feature is used? It would still be available if the crap hit the
fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
points for the day. Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
accommodate that.

Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention.
Bruno - B4
  #26  
Old January 28th 12, 03:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 551
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Jan 27, 3:31*pm, Bruno wrote:
I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand
why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a
competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc
records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. *I
would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that
instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now
disabled.

How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is
available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger
of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if
that feature is used? *It would still be available if the crap hit the
fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero
points for the day. *Some of the best pilots I know who are also very
safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above
clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves
getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument
to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can
accommodate that.

Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention.
Bruno - B4


I would suggest to all that unless you are a trained and current
instrument pilot your probably should not rely on a butterfly horizon
to get you out of a jam. Many accidents in power aircraft are
attruibted to flight into IMC with perfictly good instrument aircraft
and unprepaired pilots. Entering a cloud in a glider is usually not
a benign manuever, possibly you will be at VNE already in turbulent
conditions and quite easily can go past VNE and flutter the wings off.


Richard
www.craggyaero.com
  #27  
Old January 28th 12, 04:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,868
Default New Butterfly Vario

bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
the artificial horizon was used. Like you say I think that is a good
way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud
(See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
zero points.
  #28  
Old January 28th 12, 12:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ron Gleason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 443
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Jan 27, 9:45*pm, Tony wrote:
bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
the artificial horizon was used. *Like you say I think that is a good
way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud
(See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
zero points.


This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC
file markers. Are there standards defined for such inclusions within
IGC files?
  #29  
Old January 28th 12, 02:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
T8
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default New Butterfly Vario

I think there are a lot of straw men being constructed here w.r.t.
contest rules.

The *only* times I have been the least bit concerned about getting
caught in cloud have been when I was deliberately "twisting the
dragon's tail". Can you honestly tell me differently?

Our current rules philosophy is that we do not encourage this sort of
thing in competition, witness recent revisions to finish height
rules. I... somewhat reluctantly... agree that this is probably best
for all concerned.

-Evan Ludeman / T8
  #30  
Old February 6th 12, 09:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,894
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Jan 28, 7:57*am, Ron Gleason wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:45*pm, Tony wrote:

bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says
the artificial horizon was used. *Like you say I think that is a good
way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud
(See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the
instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for
zero points.


This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC
file markers. *Are there standards defined for such inclusions within
IGC files?


There are no provisions for this in Winscore .
The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible
under the long
established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used,
The RC is working with
Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during
competition while not adding to
the work load of the scorer and other contest workers.
This has not yet been determined.
I will provide more information on this as it becomes available.
UH
RC Chair
 




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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.