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

XC Soar and LK8000 are useless mobile based, unfixed 1g gyro's on mobile phones and faced direct demands from the USRC.

LXNAV has a huge high priced capability and not a peep?

Follow the money...



On Thursday, April 5, 2012 9:23:37 AM UTC-4, David Reitter wrote:
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:

It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the
manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see
a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers
saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink....;-)

I think there's a misunderstanding.

A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to accomplish.

Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box - no IMC instrument. No XCSoar with "horizon" - no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14 days - no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.