[USA] What do you think of mandatory FLARM at Uvalde?

On Jan 24, 6:51*pm, R S wrote:
At the IGC meeting in March, we will decide whether to require FLARM
at World Gliding Championships. *

No brainer. Yes. But hardly necessary, as I think we've all got the
message now. The rest of the thread here should calm down -- Flarm and
the organizers will get it figured out for Uvalde.

Worlds should include a simple power-flarm rental program.

The wording should recognize that other anti-collision systems may
emerge in the future. The Flarm requirement is only in place because
right now Flarm is the only viable device. So write the rule "every
glider must carry an approved anti-collision device" and the list of
"approved devices" right now reads 1. Flarm 2. Power-Flarm.

You don't mention the question whether stealth mode is a) allowed b)
mandated. At Szeged there was a rule that it was mandated, which was
totally unenforced and totally ignored. IGC needs either to enforce
the rule (a pain in the butt) or not have it. (This is in local
procedures, but local procedures have to conform to IGC norms. So,
local procedures can't say "you must use stealth" mode -- or if they
do, they must follow a verification procedure which the IGC will
write. Good luck with that one.)

Additionally, we will vote on:

The future WGC calendar
The site of the 2014 WGC

Interesting that at a meeting with a lot of "safety" discussion one
site is in the Alps, and another is in the forests and lakes.

Ballast in the 13.5 meter class

1. Get rid of this class! The "legacy" gliders PW5, Russia, etc. will
be instantly outdated the minute somebody designs a new glider to this
class rule (sparrowhawk?) -- or just saws a few meters off the wing
of an LS4. The last thing we need is a new class!

Seriously. There is a nice vision of small ultralight gliders and
giving them a place to race. The right place for PW5, Russia,
Sparrowhawk, Apis, etc. is in a handicapped lower performance version
of club class. Split club in 2 at the 1.0 handicap range.

But none of these gliders will survive in a 13.5 meter class. For
that, you build a mini version of an ASW27 made out of super expensive
lightweight materials, redesigned for lower Reynolds numbers.

2. If they do go ahead with this class, it should have ballast. If
there is no ballast, then the design that is optimal for winning
worlds has a quite high wingloading, making the glider unsuitable for
clubs and new pilots. That makes it a "specialist" tiny class at the
outset.

Handicaps in the 20 meter 2 seat class

Or else it is the "arcus" class and all the other existing gliders are
obsolete. Handicaps will also allow gliders designed for this class to
remain easy to fly and useable by clubs, able to make small tradeoffs
of useability for performance. For example, without handicaps, non-
retractable nosewheels will disappear; designers will either make them
retractable or have to put in monster mains that swing forward.

Handicaps aren't appropriate in every class, but this class certainly
should have them.

The Club class handicap list
Use of GPS altitude above FL 500

I couldn't find this one. I hope this is for altitude records only, as
it would cause unholy chaos in competitions. Airspace restrictions are
barometric, and all our instruments want barometric!

Pilot ID in the declaration
Medals for team performances
Using GPS for Silver and Gold Altitude

Of course. Does anyone even bother with badges anymore or just go
OLC?


Details on all the proposals are athttp://www.fai.org/gliding/igc_plenary11

What are your views on these issues? *How should USA vote? *Let me
know here, or by email, or in person at the SSA Conference.

The fai website has a lot of other discussion about safety issues.
Great! Some comments

-"Safety pays" proposal to give contest points for gliders that meet
certain safety standards. This won't work in practice for lots of
reasons. And what's the problem we're trying to fix here? There are
lots of crashes at glider championships, but so far as I can tell zero
crash, damage or injury is the result of people flying unsafe
uncertified gliders.

- If they're really serious about safety, they should
1) Put in a "hard deck" finish at 250 meters, with no speed points
below (See Szeged finish crash),
2) Implement altitude-limited starts with a requirement to spend 2
minutes below the start height, to stop all the silly prestart cloud
flying and VNE dives below start heights
3) Get rid of the switch from speed to distance points, which is
behind all the start roulette and gaggling.

-The "permit to fly" controversy = should Dianas be allowed to
compete. If a glider and pilot are legal to fly in the country where
the contest is held, they should be allowed to fly. The IGC should not
get in the certification business. Innovation and competition are
good!

-Minor issue. The IGC ranking system doesn't work for those of us who
don't fly in Europe, which unfairly disadvantages us when slots are
scarce.

Thanks for representing us!

John Cochrane


Rick Sheppe
usa.igc.fai 'at' gmail.com