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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |