On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:20:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:26:26 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
UH

Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.

I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.

It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?

There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.

I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.

John Cochrane

My point is that it is the responsible thing to look at the potential negative aspects of any change and seriously consider them. There are unintended consequences tied to almost any significant decision and they should be properly addressed. I don't thing playing the Geezer card is a proper way to do this.
Some negatives that I see:
Real AHRS will end up in cockpits. There is little doubt in my mind that, while it may save a few situations, it will lead to more risk taking and quite possibly bad outcomes.
Telephony and data handling in the cockpit will undoubtedly result in more heads down time as pilots try to take advantage of information that could come in. If you doubt this, look around you on your daily commute.
The fundamental character of the sport will change from pilot/glider/sky to pilot/glider/sky/internet resource. Some will say that is a cool thing. Many will not.
If you say this is going to happen anyway, I say it is your duty to manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport.
I understand that this is mostly driven by a vision that flight tracking will create some significant new interest in contest flying. My experience is that watchers and spectators generally aren't participants. If we want more young participants, we need to do a much better job of getting the ones we already have into a contest cockpit. The internet won't do it, mentoring and sponsorship can and will.
My many years experience is that it is much easier to get a bad idea in than it is to get it out later.
The doors on these technologies were knowingly closed many years ago, when much of what is now a reality was foreseen. The philosophical change being contemplated is likely the most profound since the variometer. It certainly potentially far exceeds the impact of GPS.
I'm sure there will be more debate on this. I hope that this topic is polled in a fair and honest way, and not just done to sell the idea. Past experience leads me to believe it will be hard to get all points of view equally represented.

UH

AHRS, (gyro instruments) are already almost universally installed in airplane cockpits. Has this led to increased risk taking? Sure, some have illegally nosed their airplanes into clouds with one of two outcomes. (for those who survived) One group was so scared they never did it again and the other group promptly began training for an instrument rating. If attitude instruments ever saved anyone not trained to use them, the number of such incidents is vanishingly small.

So, how do we," manage this in a way that has the fewest negative consequences to our sport"? (I really like that quote) One is to make it clear that blind flying without extensive and very necessary training usually leads to an early grave.

The real problem is with those who have that training, experience and competency using their advanced skills to gain advantage over those without it. First we must acknowledge that, in a way, it happens all the time - highly skilled glider pilots usually beat those with lesser skills. But, instrument rated pilots flying a glider equipped in a way to allow them to exploit those skills is a special case that could confer an overwhelming advantage. How would we prevent this?

First is to look for the concurrence of skills and equipment. An instrument rated pilot with no gyro instruments is no issue nor is a non-instrument rated pilot with gyros. For those with both, one asks how well they are scoring relative to the pack. Only the top two or three pilots with both need be watched closely. My bet is the incidences where a pilot with both is at the top of the score sheet with several hundred points separating them from #2 will be very rare. I'd also bet it would be very hard to hide cloud flying when everyone turns in their GPS logs.