The way eMC works is quite trivial and straightforward for a pilot and it is
well described (by me) in the mentioned web page.
Most people "wish" to fly at - say - MC 1.0, following their stf indicator
on the variometer.
If they fly in sinking air, being downwind a mountain or in a narrow windy
valley, the STF indicator will tell them to fly faster.
A pilot may not be able to balance sink and lift (negative and positive air
zones) during a long glide, for some reasons:
a) weather condition (rain, for example, but also simply a bad zone with
only sinking air)
b) stress and weakness after many hours of flight
c) ignorance - unable to understand what's going on and recover from bad air

Now here is the problem with flight computers: they keep telling you the
arrival altitude based on the MC you have chosen.
Which is a good choice, if you know what you are doing, but only in such
case.
The Equivalent MC is just an automatic MC set by the calculator by looking
to your real average speed.
The arrival altitude will be coherent with what you are doing, not what you
WISH to have done so far.
Then, I know "my chickens": most people do NOT change MC on the PNA,
expecially in bad situations, but most times they do not use it at all on
the PNA.
So how are we supposed to give estimation of arrival altitudes ? Not using a
random MC of course. So we use equivalent MC.

It is important to state that in our software it is possible with a few
clicks to change from manual to automatic MC and there is always an overlay
indicator telling the pilot if the MC is stuck by him or it is dynamically
changing automatically.

Personally I change to manual MC only to understand the possible choices
available, and then back to eMC.
Now it may be worth saying that all the pilots in my area use LK with a
database of mountains, passes, ridges etc.
And in practice we all fly with at least two or three simultaneous
destination - we call them multitargets in the software -: one or more
landing places (in the alps you need to know if you have a place to land
reachable, it is not like in flat lands where you can land anywhere. ), the
task next turnpoint, and the next ridge , next mountain peak, or mountain
pass. So we do constantly look at the arrival altitude over the next ridge
and we can speed up and slow down and look instantly to the estimation.
Then we have a dedicated page to tell us how far we can go and how fast,
making a choice of peaks and ridges around in our direction. But that's not
related to eMC although quite innovative concept .

by the way the flight season this year in the alps has been.. a disaster.
Someone has stolen us the summer.
paolo




wrote in message
...

On Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:43:45 AM UTC, Tibor Arpas wrote:
My ideas for features:

* showing equivalentMC
http://www.lk8000.it/new-20-features...t-mcready.html
* automatic MC set from equivalent MC

As I understand it, 'Equivalent MC' reverses the STF calculation, and
produces a figure from your averaged airspeed and the polar for your
aircraft.

For example, assume MC theory for a glider states a STF of 150kph for a
2.0m/s estimated climb. 'Equivalent MC' reverses this equation; If you fly
this glider at a constant 150kph IAS for the averaging period, the
'Equivalent MC' will be 2.0m/s.

The way I've heard it described, the idea is that you directly compare your
'Equivalent MC' figure with your MC figure and adjust your airspeed
accordingly. If 'Equivalent MC' = 2.1m/s and MC = 2.0m/s, slow down. If
'Equivalent MC' = 1.9m/s and MC = 2.0m/s, speed up.

Climb and sink does not directly influence 'Equivalent MC', which is one
reason why 'Equivalent MC' might be a poor value to display on a vario.