From experience, nearly every contest I've flown since 1968 has had
multiple points where knowledge of the weather elsewhere on the course
or upstream of it would have conferred a significant, in many cases
winning advantage. And this applies even to the formerly ubiquitous
assigned tasks, as well as to today's area tasks. In many of these
cases, simply seeing the cloud cover would have sufficed. In other
cases, a more detailed assessment of local forecasts and observations
would have been necessary. The argument that onboard weather is of
marginal value in competition doesn't hold up.

There is a downside to all of this. We already know we have a
potential safety problem with pilots spending too much time staring at
their little displays and not enough looking outside the cockpits
owing to the rapid proliferation of flight computers and GPS
navigation systems of increasing capability (read: complexity). How
much will onboard weather on a smart phone exacerbate this problem? I
don't think anyone can answer this analytically. It depends on the
application, the hardware platform (e.g., the UI and display),
response time, the information needed, the urgency of the need, and
the user, among other factors.

We're considering requiring a PowerFLARM in every cockpit to reduce
the odds of a midair collision which, to be cold, happens very seldom.
Yet some of the same folks who are loudest in their call for
PowerFLARM seem to take a rather more cavalier attitude towards
situational awareness when it comes to using a handheld PC or
smartphone to deliver detailed weather info. Sure, the availability of
better weather info could increase safety, but only to pilots who
choose to proceed instead of simply turning back or going around. It's
similar to the argument made about GPS years ago: knowing exactly
where you were should have allowed safer flying. Instead, what
happened was that most pilots used that precise location data to shave
their safety margin down on final glides. A few even flew right down
to the deck, almost oblivious to the fact that they were getting low
enough to choose a field.

OK, GPS doesn't break gliders; pilots break gliders. And onboard
weather won't make good pilots less safe...unless they focus on it to
the exclusion of keeping an outside view. Maybe that's why FLARM is
necessary, to allow us all to focus on our electronics, trusting FLARM
to warn us if we're getting close to someone.

I agree that trying to ban technology is difficult. But it's not
impossible, as nearly every sport has demonstrated (think golf,
Formula 1, America's Cup sailing, baseball, swimming, etc.). It all
comes down to what are our objectives and what rules do we all agree
to abide by. Most pilots are fundamentally honest. What causes some of
them to be tempted is when they think other competitors are doing it,
too. If we, as a group, decide not to allow onboard weather (or AH)
for the moment, we can make it stick by the simple expediant of clear
rules and Draconian penalties. We should make our views known (as the
above posters have done) and look to the Rules Committee for
leadership rather than letting technology drive our sport.

I work in a technology business. Technology is never a goal and never
inevitable. It is an optional means to an end. Clearly defining our
objectives allows us to more easily promulgate rules that allow the
appropriate use of technology in achieving them.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.