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
  #51  
Old February 9th 12, 03:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 3:07*am, Sean Fidler wrote:
What if I have flown contests? *What if I havent? *Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.


In looking back through the Pilot Opinion Poll comment responses and
minutes of the Rules Committee meetings back to 2007 (on the SSA
site), I cannot find any instance where the issue of forbidding the
use of artificial horizons or turn & banks has been raised.

The RC makes great effort to seek considered pilot opinion formally as
part of the poll and informally via email submission. All input is
reviewed and considered each fall, the minutes published, the proposed
rule changes published for comment, etc. etc.

This year we received exactly 2 comments on the rules changes.

The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.

I can only conclude that this is really a case of being surprised to
find the rule exists.

  #52  
Old February 9th 12, 04:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 7:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:
The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.


Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.

The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.

Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
to consider implementing that provision?

What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.

As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
instrument training, or better an instrument rating. Flying in IMC on
instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
some might think.

Andy (GY, CFII)
  #53  
Old February 9th 12, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 10:35*am, Andy wrote:
On Feb 9, 7:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:

The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.


Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.

The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.

Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
to consider implementing that provision?

What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.

As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
instrument training, or better an instrument rating. *Flying in IMC on
instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
some might think.

Andy (GY, CFII)


What you describe is exactly what the RC is working on.
A related issue is how to reliably disable non approved functions
without having the scorer be required to monitor
this.
We have had constructive discussions with the Flarm folks about how to
do this outside the flight log and practical
solutions appear to be available. All of this related to Flarm is on
hold till we get some practical experience.
The RC determination on this topic will be forthcoming quite soon.
UH
  #54  
Old February 9th 12, 04:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 10:50*am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 10:35*am, Andy wrote:









On Feb 9, 7:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:


The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.


Some people are not suggesting that the rules should be changed, only
that an instrument that has a disabled AH should not be prohibited.


The objections to inspecting the log are surprising since I thought
that was to be the proposed method of enforcing FLARM use.


Rather than saying an instrument with a disabled AH is banned under
SSA contest rules, wouldn't it be more constructive to define what
method of disabling would be acceptable, and then for the manufacturer
to consider implementing that provision?


What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.


As to those that think having an AH will save you I hope you have some
instrument training, or better an instrument rating. *Flying in IMC on
instruments, particularly recovering from an upset, is not as easy as
some might think.


Andy (GY, CFII)


What you describe is exactly what the RC is working on.
A related issue is how to reliably disable non approved functions
without having the scorer be required to monitor
this.
We have had constructive discussions with the Flarm folks about how to
do this outside the flight log and practical
solutions appear to be available. All of this related to Flarm is on
hold till we get some practical experience.
The RC determination on this topic will be forthcoming quite soon.
UH


The Rules Committee has posted the policy on using instruments that
provide features enabling flight without reference to the horizon.

See http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...t%20Policy.pdf
  #55  
Old February 9th 12, 05:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 551
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 6:28*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" wrote:
On Feb 9, 3:07*am, Sean Fidler wrote:

What if I have flown contests? *What if I havent? *Please define for us all in advance what that information does for you Eric.


In looking back through the Pilot Opinion Poll comment responses and
minutes of the Rules Committee meetings back to 2007 (on the SSA
site), I cannot find any instance where the issue of forbidding the
use of artificial horizons or turn & banks has been raised.

The RC makes great effort to seek considered pilot opinion formally as
part of the poll and informally via email submission. *All input is
reviewed and considered each fall, the minutes published, the proposed
rule changes published for comment, etc. etc.

This year we received exactly 2 comments on the rules changes.

The RC is not opposed to reviewing any rule, but deciding
instantaneously to throw out a long standing rule just because some
new instrument came along is not a good idea.

I can only conclude that this is really a case of being surprised to
find the rule exists.


I think that in I the quest for fairness that the rules for
motorglider engine use should also be rewritten to allow for use if
disabled for a period of 14 days.

It absolutely not fair that a motorglider can eliminate a potentially
all night retreive. Maybe we can cancel the next day if anyone have a
more than 4 hour retreive.

This would save the scorers time and contest officials a lot of time.

Is this more ridiculous than it appears a simple program change as was
done for motorgliders can solve this issue.

Richard
  #56  
Old February 9th 12, 06:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default New Butterfly Vario


What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.

Andy (GY, CFII)



The rules committee position is the rules:

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

If a garmin 496 or LK8000 has a useable AH, then it is against the
rules to carry it in US competitions. Expect a complaint from your CD
if he notices, or a protest from a fellow competitor. If you want to
carry them without breaking the rules, follow the new procedures John
Godfrey just posted.

A bit of explanation on this rule. I'm sure an individual pilot, who
knows he's never gong to cheat, might like to have an AH "just in
case." Alas, there have been lots of instances of cheating and
dangerous behavior in the past. If we allow AH, somebody is going to
be heading up in to clouds.

Now, you might say, so what? But when piltos get the idea that other
people are cheating it poisons the sport. Going to contests becomes
less fun, just if you suspect that some big shot made it over that
tough blue hole with a cloud climb.

Then, lots of pilots feel justified in cheating because "you know,
everyone is doing it." Next thing you know, we have fleets of gliders
all heading up in to the clouds, and the "safety" advantage of having
an AH "just in case" evaporate with a fleet of gliders out there doing
illegal cloud flying in a gaggle.

So far, I think the opinions of most pilots are that they would rather
forego the questionable individual advantage of having an AH to keep
this scenario from breaking out. You, who would never cloud fly
intentionally, give up having an AH, so that you know that those crazy
bozos around you won't cloud fly and beat you in the race by doing
something both illegal and dangerous.

This is really not a rule imposed from above. It's a gentleman's
agreement among pilots. If pilots would rather have it the other way,
so be it -- make a fuss at the next rules cycle, we'll put it on the
poll, and see if a large majority votes for artificial horizons.

I doubt this project is going very far. Pilots just strongly voted to
keep the ban on cockpit weather instruments intact, though the costs
of letting everyone else have them are a lot lower.

When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John Cochrane
  #57  
Old February 9th 12, 07:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike the Strike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 952
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 10:32*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
What is the rules committee position on flying with a Garmin 396 or
496, or even LK8000. *All of these provide a crude AH that may or may
not assist in maintaining control in instrument conditions.


Andy (GY, CFII)


The rules committee position is the rules:

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

If a garmin 496 or LK8000 has a useable AH, then it is against the
rules to carry it in US competitions. Expect a complaint from your CD
if he notices, or a protest from a fellow competitor. If you want to
carry them without breaking the rules, follow the new procedures John
Godfrey just posted.

A bit of explanation on this rule. I'm sure an individual pilot, who
knows he's never gong to cheat, might like to have an AH "just in
case." Alas, there have been lots of instances of cheating and
dangerous behavior in the past. If we allow AH, somebody is going to
be heading up in to clouds.

Now, you might say, so what? But when piltos get the idea that other
people are cheating it poisons the sport. Going to contests becomes
less fun, just if you suspect that some big shot made it over that
tough blue hole with a cloud climb.

Then, lots of pilots feel justified in cheating because "you know,
everyone is doing it." Next thing you know, we have fleets of gliders
all heading up in to the clouds, and the "safety" advantage of having
an AH "just in case" evaporate with a fleet of gliders out there doing
illegal cloud flying in a gaggle.

So far, I think the opinions of most pilots are that they would rather
forego the questionable individual advantage of having an AH to keep
this scenario from breaking out. You, who would never cloud fly
intentionally, give up having an AH, so that you know that those crazy
bozos around you won't cloud fly and beat you in the race by doing
something both illegal and dangerous.

This is really not a rule imposed from above. It's a gentleman's
agreement among pilots. If pilots would rather have it the other way,
so be it -- make a fuss at the next rules cycle, we'll put it on the
poll, and see if a large majority votes for artificial horizons.

I doubt this project is going very far. *Pilots just strongly voted to
keep the *ban on cockpit weather instruments intact, though the costs
of letting everyone else have them are a lot lower.

When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.

John Cochrane


....and I thought economics was the dismal science! Do I have to add
Finance to that too?

I couldn't disagree with John more on this. Firstly, the problem in
contests is not deliberate flying through clouds, but the frequent
close approach and occasional infraction that occurs to all of us -
both recreational and contest pilots. Every pilot I know is going to
squeeze the last few hundred feet out of a thermal, too often going
very close to cloud base. Even the "gentleman's agreement" doesn't
work to control this. I have been in and around enough contests to
see this frequently and (at least after a few beers) most contest
pilots will fess up! I have seen more than one of the names high on
the ranking list sneaking out of the side of a cumulus!

The RC is going to have to face the reality that more and more
instruments are going to have weather data and many flight computers
are going to add some sort of horizon. Maintaining a rule that is out
of step with technology isn't going to work, in my opinion.

I can certainly agree that keeping contest pilots away from clouds is
a worthwhile safety goal, but I disagree that restricting the
capability of their instrumentation is the best way of achieving
this. If you want to keep pilots away from clouds, you have to come
up with a method of monitoring this. At least one instrument
manufacturer has an idea how to do this. Yep, more work for the
scorer!

Mike (a non-dismal physicist!)



  #58  
Old February 9th 12, 07:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruno[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default New Butterfly Vario

Thank you Rules Committee for going through the effort to get this
done so quickly. I have a Butterfly Vario on order and am relieved
there is now a mechanism in place for it to remain in the glider
during contests. Fingers are crossed that Butterfly will be able to
make the software changes necessary to implement these rules for the
2012 season.

Thanks again,
Bruno - B4
  #59  
Old February 9th 12, 07:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 9, 9:32*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
When you look at it this way, you see that not only do we need a ban
on AH, it has to be very clear to everyone that the ban is enforced.
Everyone around you needs to see that you're not carrying an AH. It's
not enough to say "oh yeah, that big thing in the panel. I pulled the
tube out the back." You may have, but others don't really know you
have, so we again unwind the gentleman's agreement.


John,

What is the policy regarding unidentified instruments? You see, I
happen to enjoy making my own gadgets.
Let's imagine that I entered a competition and you are the CD or a
fellow competitor. You glance at my panel and see this weird, LCD
screen. Out of curiosity, you ask "what is it?".

My answers:

(1) I would rather not answer.
(2) It's an intelligent vario. I made it myself!
(3) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself!
(4) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself! In theory, it could even act as an AH, I just haven't written
the firmware yet.
(5) It's an intelligent vario. One with g-meters, gyros etc. I made it
myself! It could even act as an AH, but I have a vario-only version of
firmware loaded right now.
(6) It's an intelligent vario and AH. I made it myself! I promise I
will not use it as an AH.

What would you do? Note that no matter what my answer is, you have no
way of verifying it - short of reverse-engineering the device.

Bart
  #60  
Old February 9th 12, 07:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 8, 3:06*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
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.


Well, Butterfly is supposed to be a logger right? So, no need for two
logs. And I guess it could be made to record enabling AH as "engine
noise." From Winscore point of view it would mean "end of flight in
the competition", no software changes necessary.

Mind you, I am not trying to argue. I am not even a competition pilot.
I am just not sure if the technical problems you mention are nearly as
hard as they seem to be.

Bart


 




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 06:31 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 04:34 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.