On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:

Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.3685252

Here's another article

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz...ction.pdf?dl=0

Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.

Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.

Walt Rogers WX

I don't think we need another device installed that then has to be checked by contest officials.
The current long standing prohibition of instruments that allow true instrument flight, as well as compliance and, sportsmanship on the part of competitors, has made this a non issue for decades.
Permitting true instrument flying tools installed has the real potential to change this. It also retains the strong position against flying non VFR in contests.
It is true that some devices have features that may make flight without reference to the horizon possible, however whether they are good enough for continuous instrument flight in thermals is of some question. You need a very good instrument to do this, particularly with modern slippery gliders. use of the turn rate features in some GPS displays is good enough in a 1-26, if you know how to do it, but now way will it work with any degree of reliability in my '29.
The enforcement argument has a real degree of truth. We can't practically enforce this rule if someone wants to sneak something into their ship. That said, we don't need to outright permit it.
Voluntary compliance and sportsmanship have proven to be adequate. Why add the potential temptation to instrument fly by expressly allowing the needed equipment?
Most changes in the rules come about because there is a need identified by pilots. This proposed change is done in the "cause" of simplification. In my view, and that of many I've talked to, it is not needed and adds a real risk of negative consequences.
Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?
Under my desk now
UH