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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Analyzing US Competition Flights
On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using. No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m overreacting. The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as "cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion-- unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served us well. No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about “very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup. I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required. Chip Bearden ASW 24 "JB" U.S.A. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
R9N Logan Competition | Ron Gleason | Soaring | 1 | July 20th 10 08:12 PM |
304S in competition again | Tim Mara | Soaring | 7 | July 25th 08 06:41 PM |
See You Competition | Mal[_4_] | Soaring | 0 | August 14th 07 01:56 PM |
Satellite wx competition | john smith | Piloting | 0 | February 10th 06 02:03 AM |
Competition I.D. | Ray Lovinggood | Soaring | 22 | December 17th 03 12:22 AM |