New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 10, 11:13*am, wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:49*pm, Ron Gleason wrote:









On Feb 10, 5:54*am, T8 wrote:

On Feb 10, 7:26*am, Andy wrote:

What do you mean by "bank indicator (still allowed)" ?

That's his checkbook register. *After buying that fancy ASG-29, it's a
pretty small number and hence easy to read in the cockpit. *The fear
of damaging damaging such a valuable asset keeps him out of cloud :-)..

-T8 (slipping, one bubble off center)

I have read the position released by the RC,http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...t%20Policy.pdf,
and am trying to understand how the process will work from a
competitors, RC chairperson and a SSA sanctioned competition score
keeper (I have scored contests *the last couple of years and have
plans to do so in 2012).

The document reads:

2. By waiver, the RC may allow the installation of such a device if
the RC determines that the “artificial horizon” or “turn and bank”
capability can be effectively and verifiably disabled for the period
of the competition.
3. To obtain a waiver a competitor must:
a. Ensure that the device in the configuration to be used is submitted
to the RC for inspection well before the intended use (at least one
month). This must also include a statement of compliance from the
manufacturer.
b. Request and obtain the waiver from the RC
4. The RC will use the following criteria in determining whether a
specific device is eligible for waiver:
a. It must be obvious to the casual observer that the forbidden
capabilities are disabled or entirely absent when the device powers up
and when the disablement will expire.
b. It must not be possible to re-enable the forbidden capabilities
during the period of competition. Examples of re-enablement scenarios
would include:
i. Reloading firmware
ii. Changing device settings
iii. Performing any kind of hardware reset (e.g. removing backup
battery)
5. The procedure for using the device is expected to be:
a. The competitor with a waiver disables the capability at the
beginning of the contest
b. The competitor demonstrates to an appropriate contest official
(e.g. CD, scorer) that the disabling has been done.
c. After 14 days the disablement expires (i.e. daily checking of IGC
logs is not an acceptable process)

?? *Does 3a mean that the competitor must submit the instrument from
their plane to the RC for inspection?
?? *Not sure how 4a is to followed. *Will each instrument that
receives a waiver be documented and that documentation be available to
all *SSA members, CD's, and scorers?
?? *How are CD's and scorers suppose to know how each instrument
works and the setup being shown to them is compliant?
?? *Are the contest registration forms and/or checklists being
updated so that contest organizers and other personnel *know to check
for waivers, similar to insurance forms?

I believe that advances in technology and instruments are great and
will greatly enhance our flying enjoyment and safety. *I am concerned
and eager to understand how this procedure will affect the workload of
contest organizers and rules committee members.

Ron Gleason

Hi Ron
It is expected that manufacturer's will submit representative units so
that the RC can determine that they comply.
We fully expect a list of compliant devices to result. No we don't
know where that list will live.
A complying instrument will display the information required to
veriify on start up. A contest official observes once and it's done.
Much of how this is being handled is targeted toward not increasing
the score's workload. This is why saving compliance information on the
flight log was determined to not be acceptable.
No forms will need to change. It is up to the pilot, if he has one of
these, to demonstate compliance. The other option is a screw driver.
We understand that new stuff is coming and this is why this policy was
created to get ahead of it and give pilots and manufacturers some
reasonable way to comply with a long standing rule.

The iPhone 4 and 4S (along with the newest Android and Windows phones)
contain 3-axis gyroscope and accelerometer sensors, and that there are
already at least two "artificial horizon" applications in the App
store. Both appear to be rather poorly implemented, but there is
nothing inherently preventing someone from creating an effective (and
accurate) implementation using known sensor fusion techniques. This
can't be disabled, and even if the iPhone is inspected and determined
to be free of offending apps, the phone can simply be synced with a
laptop to reinstall in a matter of moments. I suspect there will be
some resistance to banning these phones...

Marc

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?

Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:









On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

As long as hot chicks hang out at the finish line, and the prize money is so
bountiful, pilots will cheat to win! What, no chicks? Oh, never mind...
:-)


"Brad" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 4:34 pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:15 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:









On Feb 10, 6:07 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. In general
everything they do is outstanding. Especially the recent work to
decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start
area...), etc. I have never had a complaint with any contest rule
after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest
(manager) with almost 40 gliders. Overall I commend you for what you
do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. I would suggest that we not
sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat.
There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing
T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are
supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? This way everyone would
give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. ?

Thank you rules committee for your services. But in this case I think
some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. Sorry about
that. I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad

On Feb 9, 10:48*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
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.
If I was the CD or scorer (and I have been both) I would respond as
follows:

1. Expect to have your altitude trace closely compared against others.
Remember rule 6.1
2. Very nice! See 1
3. Even nicer! See 1
4. See 3
5. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver
6. Show me your waiver. If no waiver, here is a screwdriver

Hmmmm. It seems that if I ever make such a device and write two
firmware versions (AH and no AH), then, in order to fly in a contest,
I will have to
- load the version without AH support, AND
- never mention the existence of the other one.

Safety considerations aside, I think that many contributors to this
thread are concerned about devices that COULD, at least in theory, act
as an AH. For example, XCsoar is open source and runs on Android
phones, some of which have gyros. Lousy rate gyros, but gyros
nevertheless. Anyone with the necessary skills can modify the
application to display some sort of AH.

I guess what I am getting to is that you either trust the pilot or you
don't. If the rules are tightened enough to prevent any sort of AH in
the cockpit, then there may be no pilots willing to compete. I am
certainly not flying, competition or not, without my Android phone.

Bart

On Feb 10, 8:02*pm, Brad wrote:
On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:





On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I alluded privately, your solution for you situation could work.
Not sure how you deal with disabling a piece of equipment you put on
your MEL, but assume could.
I'm the CD. You come to me on practice day and give me a bit of a
whine and ask me to look at your disabling method. Lets say I agree to
cut you a break and I put a seal tape someplace so it is secured.
Everybody is happy.
Now- multiply that by 20, or 30 , or 50.
Now- nobody is happy.
Organizers and officials would never want to have to deal with that.
We spent quite a bit of time on the Butterfly application to lay the
ground work for it and other programmable devices so that they can be
checked very quickly and in a common manner.
We want everybody to come play, but we have to keep the workload for
organizers and officials in mind.
The truth is that if you showed up with your True Track covered and
with clear indication it was disabled, I doubt anybody would notice or
give a darn.
UH
The issues are not simple as you can imagine.

On Feb 10, 6:41*pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 8:02*pm, Brad wrote:









On Feb 10, 4:34*pm, wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:15*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

On Feb 10, 6:07*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:

I know the SSA rules committee is a thankless job. *In general everything they do is outstanding. *Especially the recent work to decentivize contest risk taking (low finishes, dives into the start area...), etc. *I have never had a complaint with any contest rule after competing in 3 contests last year, and running a contest (manager) with almost 40 gliders.. *Overall I commend you for what you do.

But in this case, obviously, I disagree. *I would suggest that we not sacrifice the potential safety of everyone because some might cheat. *There must be a more logical way to enforce this rule than outlawing T&B and AH which do not guarantee that cheating will not occur.

To expand on this rules logic (and the logic of those who are supporting it), why not outlaw parachutes? *This way everyone would give extra spacing in thermals and would be extra careful. *?

Thank you rules committee for your services. *But in this case I think some flaws in reason and logic have been clearly exposed. *Sorry about that. *I hope you take the time to consider a change...

Sean
F2

Sean,

Thank you for your considered comment. As I said much earlier in this
thread the issue of the prohibition has not come up in recent history
(6 years) in either the pilot poll or any other feedback to the RC
(RAS, while useful is not taken as input for decision purposes).

That is not to say the issue can't be considered, just that a very
longstanding (and to now non-controversial rule) is not going to be
tossed out instantaneously because of some new instrument. *I invite
you to bring the issue to the RC for consideration and press the
case. *If there is an obvious groundswell of support it will end up on
the poll as a question (just like the ban on weather devices in the
cockpit did this past year).

QT
Rules Committee

Looks like meds a kicking in.
All that said, I'll be clear about policy;
There is no way that the RC could ever go to the BOD and say that we
can accept permitting equipment that permits true cloud flying into
the cockpits of contest gliders. Multiple gliders circling up in
clouds, the obvious potential and likely outcome sooner or later, is
illegal number one, and invites a huge disaster.
If we were to do so, our heads would be on a pike in no time.
What we have worked on very hard in the last week is a proacative
solution to a coming issue of instrument manufacturers adding features
to try to create differentiaton from their competitors. In doing so,
they may add features that are not permissable in US competition(note
that in the area of A/H we are the same as the the WGC). We have put
together a way that such features can be disabled without huge impact
on the pilot or the contest organizers.
It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure his equipment is legal
according to the published rules.
There may be coming consumer devices that make maintaining orientation
easier and, as such, will not comply with our rules. Enforcement may
become an issue. I hope it doesn't. It is unsportsmanlike to use these
devices and such conduct has penalties that should make it not worth
the risk.
The safety argument is pretty much crap. It is 100% safer to stay out
of the clouds- period. *Having A/H instruments available only
increases temptation because the perceived risk is less.
Incidentally, The Butterfly folks appear to be just fine with what we
have developed.
CU
UH
RC Chair

Hank, Respectfully:

How is a software disabling device on the butterfly any different than
an on-off switch on a Tru-Trak? I submit that a witness wire holding a
switch in the off position will be much easier to verify than whatever
solution the Butterfly folks come up with.

I truly hope that any of us wanting to keep an AH in the cockpit are
not really thinking that it gives us an advantage and that we will use
it. The rationale that gaggles of AH gliders will be going in to the
clouds is absurd!

I did not know that competition pilots are bound only by rules and not
their honor and sportsmanlike attitudes to play fair and fly safe.

I'm glad the Butterfly folks are on-board with that, I would imagine
the Tru-Trak guys would be too, especially since a simple on-off
switch would be all it takes to "disable" the device.

Regards,
Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I alluded privately, your solution for you situation could work.
Not sure how you deal with disabling a piece of equipment you put on
your MEL, but assume could.
I'm the CD. You come to me on practice day and give me a bit of a
whine and ask me to look at your disabling method. Lets say I agree to
cut you a break and I put a seal tape someplace so it is secured.
Everybody is happy.
Now- multiply that by 20, or 30 , or 50.
Now- nobody is happy.
Organizers and officials would never want to have to deal with that.
We spent quite a bit of time on the Butterfly application to lay the
ground work for it and other programmable devices so that they can be
checked very quickly and in a common manner.
We want everybody to come play, but we have to keep the workload for
organizers and officials in mind.
The truth is that if you showed up with your True Track covered and
with clear indication it was disabled, I doubt anybody would notice or
give a darn.
UH
The issues are not simple as you can imagine.

Hank,

that works for me!

thanks,
Brad

To prove Bart's point, how about: http://www.hiltonsoftware.com/index.html

The iPad is thin enough to tuck behind your seatback until after
takeoff, then you lean forward and pop it out (hopefully after you
release from the towplane so you don't risk killing him if you lose
control of the sailplane).

Look, I appreciate a lot of the rules committee and for the most part
I think the guys involved are great people. It can be a tough job and
I'm not upset with them personally. I don't WANT people to cloud-fly,
and I'll certainly NEVER cloud-fly, and I DO think its easy to stay
clear of clouds (even if you're "pushing it"). But this is a total
"cut off our nose to spite our face" kind of deal. You can't possibly
cover every scenario and "strip search" every glider. You can't stop
everyday technology (that people use in their normal life) from
filtering into the sport (shall we try to return to the pre-GPS days,
anyone?).

As far as UH's comment: "There is no way that the RC could ever go to
the BOD and say that we can accept permitting equipment that permits
true cloud flying"
That's fine, but we're not _preventing_ "true cloud flying" right
now. People can still cloud-fly with or without the equipment
(they're just EVEN DUMBER if they do it without the equipment).

Why not tell the BoD that the rules still forbid cloud-flying, and
leave it at that? Or state that both flying IMC and the use of
artificial horizons are against the rules and violators are subject to
explusion and suspension from flying for a period of X years? You can
discourage behavior by instituting extreme penalties for anyone who
gets caught. Yes, their odds of being caught may not be great, but
stiff penalties (including a lengthy ban from contest-flying due to
"unsafe flying") changes the risk-reward equation in people's minds.

And frankly, if someone's determined to cheat they will find a way to
do so. My long experience in auto-racing proves that out! Why make
life hard on *everyone* in a futile attempt to stop a few bad apples?

Let's try a thought-experiment: We handicap gliders based on their
make/model, because we expect all gliders of a given model to perform
relatively similarly, right? How come we don't check to see if
someone's reprofiled the wings of their ship, to give them a better
airfoil? They could theoretically get better performance than the
handicap indicates. It would be hard to detect - especially with an
older glider in Sports Class that's been refinished once or twice in
its life. It would be even harder to prove. But under the same logic
being applied to the Artificial Horizon gear, we would have to measure
every airfoil of every glider, and BAN all gliders that have any signs
of being refinished. Hunting down and trying to eradicate all
potential sources of artificial horizons or instrument-flying seems as
equally-impractical as what I've just proposed.

The point is, as Bart says, there are some things that are just not
practical to try to control 100%. Why not just declare that the use
of such device functions illegal, and then rely on the protest process
to throw out the few bums who cloud-fly and (hopefully) get caught?
Why hurt everyone who's trying to buy a good piece of equipment or is
getting into competitions "on the cheap" with free PDA software, or
who owns a modern cell-phone?

I'm not mad, I'm just bewildered...

--Noel