A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Confessions of a Flarm Follower



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10  
Old January 1st 16, 01:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default Confessions of a Flarm Follower

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:29:22 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I wouldn't describe all opponents of Open Flarm as technophobes - some are (and have admitted to me that they are "not computer people"), other like technology just fine but seem to feel that some skill they have (perhaps risk-tolerance is one) will be diluted with new and better information. But denying people all external information hardly seems like a fundamental principle of glider racing - if it were we would do separate time trials or all MAT format to maximize the separation of gliders so you can't use any visual cues. We would have leeching penalties that are quite easy to calculate with IGC files. We don't, and no one seems to be interested in going down that path.

9B


While maybe not a "fundamental principle" one might look to the rules that have been in place and withstood the test of time.

6.6 Restricted Equipment
6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:
* Permits flight without reference to the ground.
* Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance greater than one wingspan.
6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight, such as bugwipers.
The use of such devices is allowed in all classes Rule 6.12.
6.6.3 Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,
commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight capabilities beyond those referenced below:
6.6.3.1 An aircraft-band VHF radio
6.6.3.2 An aircraft transponder
6.6.3.3 A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)
6.6.3.4 A air-to-ground position reporting device
6.6.3.5 An anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by the
device.
6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-flight access to weather data is prohibited.
6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)

Note that the rule was added a few years ago to permit a collision avoidance device. We have a pretty good one of those in Flarm. They do not expressly permit a device for tactical tracking or viewing our competitors which turns out to be another very useful application of the device. This is what I might call a "back door benefit" of the use of Flarm which could reasonably be seen as not included and thus either removed(not possible without destroying the benefit of safety), or limited in some manner.
The rules also are clear in intent to limit information in to that which is described in the text.
For 2016, phones will now be allowed to be on for the purpose of enabling tracking outputs only.
So while you might want to roll over the top on this and create a wide open cockpit technology race, the process will require a measured pace which starts with no new information in until due process allows it.
Cheers
UH



I was making more of a philosophical point - as well as a practical one. What is the principle behind banning technology? Is it cost? - the case against GPS was much stronger and the case against Flarm in general is much stronger than the case for stealth. Flarm costs money, open Flarm versus stealth has zero cost consequences. Is it ensuring fair competition? How is a technology that virtually every one is carrying unfair? Is it preserving the primacy of specific skills and halting the introduction of new skills? What's the basis for that?

You know if you have to write a new rule every time technology changes that you are not working from a general principle - it's something else at work..

Wait till you see my $200 FLIR sensor. It's sensitive to 0.1 degrees F. It's measuring the temperature of the ground, not the air, so it is permitted under 6.6. In initial testing the range seems to be a few miles.

Time for a new rule.

9B
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Flarm really needs... [email protected] Soaring 25 June 20th 15 08:34 PM
Flarm IGC files on non-IGC certified Flarm? Movses Soaring 21 March 16th 15 09:59 PM
Car Flarm [email protected] Soaring 18 February 8th 14 02:31 AM
IGC FLARM DLL [email protected] Soaring 1 March 25th 08 11:27 AM
Confessions of a Dumb Guy Veeduber Home Built 15 September 15th 03 06:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.