Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:50:21 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
What is the definition of AH toy? AH's that have a chance that they may actually allow cloud flying and AH's that have no chance?

The "toy" is not the problem. The problem (as this thread intends to point out) is the useless, outdated, nonenforceable, unenforced and unnecessary rule and all the hassle it is causing everyone (example: you trying to communicate with the rules committee on how ineffective XC soars AH is). The rule has no fundamental or measurable benefit other than making the traditional guard happy (who really do not understand the capability of the technology in my opinion) and irritating alot of people all over the world.

The rule should be for fixed gyro's only (systems which might actually work)...not cell phones with unfixed, un-calibrated solid state gyro's designed for rudimentary 1g gaming. The rule should be strictly, actively enforced or removed entirely.

Back to topic. LX NAV's system is clearly usable for cloud flying? Were is my statement on USRC policy outlawing its presence at contests? Hello RC...I know your'e reading this... We are waiting..............

Sean
F2

What are you waiting for? The policy published in Feb fits this perfectly.

Don't bring an LX with the external AHRS plugged into it. If you must, disable it and get a waiver. Its up to the individual competitor to get the waiver. Its not initiated by the RC.

-Dave