On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.



On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
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.