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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old April 4th 12, 09:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Only $139! Sweet!

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:54:17 PM UTC-4, toad wrote:
On Apr 4, 1:24*pm, "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


If you want a backup, try this. I bet it would even get past the
strip search.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...iteturn003.php

Todd


  #42  
Old April 4th 12, 10:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
toad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?


lol. *that might even be crappier than some of the phone apps I've
seen.

T8


Nah, I expect it actually could be pretty decent. Remember, all that
it needs is 1 solid state rate gyro and circuity to light up the led
indicators.

I had asked one of the flight control engineers how much a decent gyro
would cost, about $100 was his answer. So I think with bulk purchase
this think mighty actually be made with decent components.

I only need it for letting down through that cloud when the wave whole
disappears or the lennie moves forward unexpectedly :-)

Todd
  #43  
Old April 4th 12, 10:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.

https://plus.google.com/photos/10776...52900309699361
  #44  
Old April 4th 12, 10:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Max Kellermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Sean Fidler wrote:
How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.

https://plus.google.com/photos/10776...52900309699361


LOL, I would "+1" this if I had an account :-)
  #45  
Old April 5th 12, 01:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kirk.stant
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66
  #46  
Old April 5th 12, 05:55 AM
Ventus_a Ventus_a is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: May 2010
Posts: 202
Default

[quote=kirk.stant;812642]Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66[/QUOTE

Well said Kirk
  #47  
Old April 5th 12, 12:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Johnstone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

At 00:33 05 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away,

I
=
want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you
repeat=
the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march
o=
f progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your
g=
lider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your

rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in
your=
glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout,
and=
have fun. =20

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would
ha=
ve been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it
is,=
you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC,
or=
had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they

are
=
to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66

If all else fails you can still shoot them with your Sig Sauer, which you
are allowed to carry with you in the cockpit. :-)


  #48  
Old April 5th 12, 01:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean F2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Kirk,

You make many assumptions about what you think I want. Most are wrong. Really wrong. Nothing personal but **** off.

I have no interest in an AH in my glider. Rules are rules but the rulemaker has to defend them occasionally. That goes with the territory. I wish to see all pilots and manufacturers inconvienenced equally by the USRC rules.. Right now that is not EVEN CLOSE to happening. There is a distinct double standard. It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers saying "its ok...wink....ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink...;-)

Get over it. I have no personal issue with the people of the RC. I have a really big issue with the manner they have handled this rule policy. It needs to be tightened up and enforcement needs to be far better defined.

Any logical person can see the massive steaming pile of double standard here. I need it bagged up...not left on the sidewalk for people to step in this summer.

  #49  
Old April 5th 12, 02:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Reitter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:

It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the
manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see
a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers
saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink...;-)


I think there's a misunderstanding.

A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to accomplish.

Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box - no IMC instrument. No XCSoar with "horizon" - no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14 days - no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.
  #50  
Old April 5th 12, 05:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Wayne Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 905
Default Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Anyone remember "Lennie the Lurker?" This thread is starting to look like
he has been reincarnated.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:12283817.128.1333546526179.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc18...

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 9:22:32 PM UTC-4, T8 wrote:
https://play.google.com/store/search...Horizon&c=apps

Works for me.

T8


Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider
updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)


 




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
U.S.A Rules Committee: We Didn't Mean It? SoarPoint Soaring 3 November 15th 10 02:06 PM
US Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election Ken Sorenson Soaring 0 December 1st 06 01:36 AM
SSA Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election Ken Sorenson Soaring 2 October 6th 06 03:27 PM
US Rules Committee Election and Rules Poll Ken Sorenson Soaring 1 September 27th 05 10:52 PM
FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity? SoarPoint Soaring 1 February 3rd 04 02:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.