On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 6:10:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
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

Agreed - more stuff for pilots to manage and for CDs to deal with is not the goal of glider racing.

The issue was raised at the specific request of a CD in response to his belief that pilots might have been racing in violation of the prohibition on cloud flying - or at least acting at significant risk of getting sucked into cloud by flying under CBs. It was believed that this was done by carrying cell phone A-H, and other apps, mostly as backup, but maybe not. This is all happening under the current rules of course. GPS also facilitates that sort of flying by allowing the pilot to more easily hold a course line under IMC. Does it happen a lot? Maybe not. Does it win contests - maybe on rare occasions. But we are glider pilots and it is winter so it's easy to get wound up about what might be happening.

Rather than prohibit GPS and phones (which is overkill and impractical) the primary alternative is to maintain the prohibition on illegal behavior and make a judgement as to whether there is adequate deterrent via credible means of detection, rather than try to detect the thing that might allow the pilot to pursue the risky behavior if he decided to (a lot of conditional logic and complexity in that approach). The equipment inspection stuff IMHO is silly at this point. It has been - or very shortly will be - overtaken by the relentless march of technical innovation. They said phones would never be any good for doing computing tasks ('they' includes me and 'they' were wrong). It won't be long before we see a whole bunch of things you couldn't even imagine a few years ago and a lot of it will be amazing. What's in your cellphone could well be better (and certainly cheaper) than what was considered a sophisticated instrument not long ago.

Speaking personally, it would be of some additional comfort to me, in the event that I get inadvertently sucked into a cloud someday, to not have the thing that could save my glider and maybe my life deliberately disabled.

Also of interest and worthy of discussion are other apps like the smartphone based sailplane trackers (that offers significantly enhanced position reporting vs Spot) and apps for obtaining weather information. Do we need app inspections and prohibitions in the rules for these? If so, how would it be enforced? What would it be intended to stop? Apps are cheap and most people already own the hardware. Flight computers are getting Bluetooth to the integration is just software. So, is it good or bad for pilots to have available on their phones - or on their flight computers within a year or so - the locations of embedded thunderstorm, microburst and rain activity? Is it better to fly into the gloom without this information?

Out from under the desk Hank - back to the keyboard! ;-)

9B