New Butterfly Vario

On 2/15/2012 7:43 PM, T8 wrote:
Tom does have a point. Buy a cheap phone, put it on your existing
service. Charge it, test it, turn it off, put it in the glider and
leave it there. I'd do that.

Looks like you can still get them. Perhaps $30 on Amazon. Big
deal... not.

Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are
available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be
adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a
SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work
some places, especially in the West.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Feb 15, 9:34Â*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:48Â*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:





1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Â*Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
start rules were put in place. Â*I *know* when they were put in place.
I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. Â*The 2-minute-
below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
below the day's cloudbase. Â*It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
cloudbase.

2) Tom, UH, and John: Â*If we're going to talk about the honor system
and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?

Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:

The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
*possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
purposes). Â* Â*But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. Â*The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. Â*If they want to be contest-
legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).

-----
QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
cell phones?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
what people here have said). Â*They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. Â*Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. Â*This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. Â*This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. Â*XCSoar
and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
last 3 years. Â*It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! Â*If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. Â*The ironclad AH rules cut off all
current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
easier. Â*Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
for 2+ weeks.

We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
(witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Â*Yet
here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!

-----
QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
expensive to participate in contests?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
then you imply that we won't enforce them.

-----
QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
hell have them in the first place? Â*If people know they're not going
to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
-----

...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
up with a better rule!

-----
QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
and then just walk out with the trophy?
-----

...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
smarter!

Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
takeoff. Â*And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?

In Summary: Â*I just don't understand. Â*I simply don't. Â*Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. Â*Yes, its a danger. Â*Yes, it should be
prevented. Â*But you're telling me that the best solution is an
outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
enforced? Â*And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
time to fly?

There has to be a better way.

--Noel
(who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
software on a PDA)

Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
definition of "Sportsmanship".

The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
during a SSA contest.

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.

The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.

Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.

Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.

Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
much thought to these topics.

Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.

Thomas Kelley #711.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom - thanks for reminding all of our friends of the associated rules
shown immediately below which have also been in place for quite some
time. I guess I missed that meeting.
UH

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. In
certain

classes (Rule 6.12), the use of such devices is prohibited.

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 ‡ 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.)

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:17:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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 ‡ 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.)

Hank, John Squared, et. al.,

You guys already know how much I appreciate your service and dedication, so I'll move right along...

Look at rule 6.6.3.3. Now let's think about it. We CAN carry a "wireless telephone", but we are on the honor system not to use it in flight. Frankly, it's a completely unenforcable rule, right? I could easily use it to cheat. I could call my crew and ask them to bring up the latest hi-res satellite loop on the laptop. "It looks like it's ODing toward the second turn -how's it look to you?" Heck, I could call my friend 2,000 miles away if he or she is sitting at a computer. Obviously, it's less convenient than doing it right in the cockpit using my smartphone. But, it's somewhere on the cheating continuum. Of course, I could do that on the "company frequency" using my good old VHF radio, running a slight risk that someone might be snooping on that frequency. Don't tell me it's never been done. So, following the logic of banning instruments with the potential to give an unfair advantage to someone willing to cheat...

I for one am certainly NOT arguing for cloud flying, nor am I buying the argument that having these instruments enhances safety. I am in the camp that says technology is moving faster than the rules can keep up (Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns). I have more computing, communications, and sensing power in my Android phone than the Space Shuttle had when it first came out for less than the cost of a NASA toilet paper holder. We can't even imagine what's going to be possible in just a couple of years.

I think it's time to get back to communicating the broad principles and get out of the business of trying to police cockpit technology. Yes, a few unscrupulous sorts will try to take advantage. A few may even succeed. Those few will have to live with the knowlege that they violated the trust of fellow pilots. That should be punishment enough.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann

On 2/15/2012 6:34 PM, Tom Kelley wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:48 pm, wrote:
1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
start rules were put in place. I *know* when they were put in place.
I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. The 2-minute-
below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
below the day's cloudbase. It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
cloudbase.

2) Tom, UH, and John: If we're going to talk about the honor system
and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?

Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:

The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
*possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
purposes). But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. If they want to be contest-
legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).

-----
QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
cell phones?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
what people here have said). They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. XCSoar
and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
last 3 years. It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. The ironclad AH rules cut off all
current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
easier. Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
for 2+ weeks.

We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
(witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... Yet
here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!

-----
QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
expensive to participate in contests?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
then you imply that we won't enforce them.

-----
QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
hell have them in the first place? If people know they're not going
to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
-----

...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
up with a better rule!

-----
QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
and then just walk out with the trophy?
-----

...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
smarter!

Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
takeoff. And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?

In Summary: I just don't understand. I simply don't. Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. Yes, its a danger. Yes, it should be
prevented. But you're telling me that the best solution is an
outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
enforced? And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
time to fly?

There has to be a better way.

--Noel
(who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
software on a PDA)


Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
definition of "Sportsmanship".

The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
during a SSA contest.

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.

The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.

Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.

Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.

Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
much thought to these topics.

Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.

Thomas Kelley #711.

Tom, now I am really scared. I don't know what to do. I really enjoy
contest flying and have done a lot of it. I'm not going to win a Nat's,
but really enjoy ending up in the middle third.

I have a Blackberry 8830. I don't want an A/H. Got enough to do in the
cockpit. Never been sucked up in a cloud and never want to. I trust my
8830 for phone calls in the boonies and email in the boonies. If I have
to give it up for an untrusted, untested $20 phone without email, I
ain't going to fly any more contests.

Maybe my smart phone is a dumb phone. Couldn't find an A/H for it
anyway. If I can't put it in a pocket easily reachable, I won't be
flying either.

Who's going to be responsible for designating those cell phones that
have or could have A/H's?

I sure hope this is resolved by the end of March.
--
Mike I Green
MG - Mighty Gorilla

On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE.

Thomas Kelley #711.

Yes, it is. Who doesn't get that?

Show of hands please. Then we can work on the real problem.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

OK, I've made a couple of smart-assed remarks on this thread. But clearly
it is not going to die (ever!) and I suppose at this point I might point
out my "real" opinion on this.

First off, I am an instrument-rated airplane pilot, glider CFI, and
(beginning) competition glider pilot. I have been a licensed glider pilot
for 26 years, and power pilot for 24 year. I only bring this up so that
everyone here will know where I am coming from when I ask the following
question:

Question: "Has anyone actually tried cloud-flying with their smartphone?"

The reason why I ask is my reading of the rule, which I quote below (from
another post, so I hope it is accurate):

"6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

"
does not seem to prohibit carrying a smartphone, as some have asserted in
this thread.

John C. posits that it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS
moving map. I disagree about this point. Or I suppose I can't argue with
the "theoretically" part, since the definition of "cloud flying" itself is
not 100% clear (I mean, if you shoot through a vapor tendril under a CU
are you "cloud flying"? Inertia is enough to cloud fly for a least a
couple of seconds...). But, as a practical matter (as opposed to
"theoretical") I disagree that your smart phone enables cloud flying.
Here is why.

I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

If you are in a less stable machine (like a glider), and trying to use one
of these devices to gain competitive advantage by thermalling (i.e.
turning) into a cloud, I would argue that these devices are useless. Yes,
you might live, but I know the story of a guy who jumped out of a B-17 in
WW-II without a parachute, fell 14,000 feet and lived. This does NOT mean
that flapping your arms when in freefall "permits flight without the use
of a parachute." You might get lucky, but most of the time jumping
without a parachute will be fatal.

Similarly, trying to use a smartphone to cloud fly is highly likely to
have a bad outcome.

The rule does not appear to prohibit any device that any person on RAS
believes might possibly be used to somehow "cloud fly." It prohibits
instruments that "permit flight without reference to the ground." My
smart phone does not do that and therefore if anyone challenges me in a
contest, I will maintain that this is not an instrument that permits
flight without reference to the ground and therefore is not prohibited by
the rules. If anyone disagrees with me, I'll ask them to go up and use my
phone to demonstrate "flight without reference to the ground" while
circling in a thermal (in their glider, of course, not mine because I'd
like mine to come back in one piece).

I do think that dedicated glider instruments that have greater
capabilities may exist, and probably are under development. Some of these
may actually "permit flight without reference to the ground." The rules
committee it seems to me has done a great job in clarifying how these
devices may be disabled such that they can be used (without the cloud
flying enabling features operating), or at least mentioning that the
possiblity of disabling certain features may allow one to use the
instrument sans cloud flying features in a contest. It seems to me that
this is eminently forward-looking and an attempt to accommodate these new
devices without making contest flying more dangerous by giving contestants
a little voice in the back of their head telling them that it's OK to gain
just another hundred feet in this booming thermal since I've got a "cloud
flying" instrument on board "just in case." All very sensible to me.

I just don't see that being alarmed about being called a "cheater" at a
contest because you have a smart phone with you is a realistic scenario.
I note also (and perhaps this is a suggestion for the rules committee),
that the rule bans any device that "permits flight without reference to
the ground." It does not ban anything that "permits flight without
reference to the horizon." Imagine a situation where you are in VMC above
a solid cloud layer. You can see the horizon (thus an AH is not needed),
but not the ground. In this case, a GPS or other navigation system is what
"permits flight without reference to the ground," since it enables you to
compensate for the normally visually-derived navigational information that
you lack due to your inability to see the ground. Thus, GPS devices
should be banned in contests, because they "permit flight without
reference to the ground." Clearly, a literal reading of this rule will
not have the intended effect. Thus, arguments that attempt to postulate
some imaginary scenario under which a contest pilot could innocently run
afoul of this rule and be penalized seem to me to be missing the point.
CDs and other competitors need to have some common sense, in conjunction
with the clarification provided recently by the rules committee, and I
think usually is enough to prevent the kind of dire outcomes that have
been mentioned in this thread.

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan





On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:56:42 -0600, John Cochrane
wrote:


Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. It's also possible to sneak
off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.







--
Stefan Murry

On Feb 16, 4:04*pm, "S. Murry" wrote:
[snipped]
Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan

That was worth reading. Thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Feb 16, 1:17*pm, T8 wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:04*pm, "S. Murry" wrote:
[snipped]

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan

That was worth reading. *Thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

ditto.

The last time I believe a thread got much over 100 was a few years ago
and it was titled "the future of soaring"
I think this thread follows along those same lines. I have been very
entertained and informed and feel quite pleased to be able to
participate with such a group of smart people.

Brad

Well said, Stefan!


"S. Murry" wrote in message
news OK, I've made a couple of smart-assed remarks on this thread. But clearly
it is not going to die (ever!) and I suppose at this point I might point
out my "real" opinion on this.

First off, I am an instrument-rated airplane pilot, glider CFI, and
(beginning) competition glider pilot. I have been a licensed glider pilot
for 26 years, and power pilot for 24 year. I only bring this up so that
everyone here will know where I am coming from when I ask the following
question:

Question: "Has anyone actually tried cloud-flying with their smartphone?"

The reason why I ask is my reading of the rule, which I quote below (from
another post, so I hope it is accurate):

"6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

"
does not seem to prohibit carrying a smartphone, as some have asserted in
this thread.

John C. posits that it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS
moving map. I disagree about this point. Or I suppose I can't argue with
the "theoretically" part, since the definition of "cloud flying" itself is
not 100% clear (I mean, if you shoot through a vapor tendril under a CU
are you "cloud flying"? Inertia is enough to cloud fly for a least a
couple of seconds...). But, as a practical matter (as opposed to
"theoretical") I disagree that your smart phone enables cloud flying.
Here is why.

I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

If you are in a less stable machine (like a glider), and trying to use one
of these devices to gain competitive advantage by thermalling (i.e.
turning) into a cloud, I would argue that these devices are useless. Yes,
you might live, but I know the story of a guy who jumped out of a B-17 in
WW-II without a parachute, fell 14,000 feet and lived. This does NOT mean
that flapping your arms when in freefall "permits flight without the use
of a parachute." You might get lucky, but most of the time jumping
without a parachute will be fatal.

Similarly, trying to use a smartphone to cloud fly is highly likely to
have a bad outcome.

The rule does not appear to prohibit any device that any person on RAS
believes might possibly be used to somehow "cloud fly." It prohibits
instruments that "permit flight without reference to the ground." My
smart phone does not do that and therefore if anyone challenges me in a
contest, I will maintain that this is not an instrument that permits
flight without reference to the ground and therefore is not prohibited by
the rules. If anyone disagrees with me, I'll ask them to go up and use my
phone to demonstrate "flight without reference to the ground" while
circling in a thermal (in their glider, of course, not mine because I'd
like mine to come back in one piece).

I do think that dedicated glider instruments that have greater
capabilities may exist, and probably are under development. Some of these
may actually "permit flight without reference to the ground." The rules
committee it seems to me has done a great job in clarifying how these
devices may be disabled such that they can be used (without the cloud
flying enabling features operating), or at least mentioning that the
possiblity of disabling certain features may allow one to use the
instrument sans cloud flying features in a contest. It seems to me that
this is eminently forward-looking and an attempt to accommodate these new
devices without making contest flying more dangerous by giving contestants
a little voice in the back of their head telling them that it's OK to gain
just another hundred feet in this booming thermal since I've got a "cloud
flying" instrument on board "just in case." All very sensible to me.

I just don't see that being alarmed about being called a "cheater" at a
contest because you have a smart phone with you is a realistic scenario.
I note also (and perhaps this is a suggestion for the rules committee),
that the rule bans any device that "permits flight without reference to
the ground." It does not ban anything that "permits flight without
reference to the horizon." Imagine a situation where you are in VMC above
a solid cloud layer. You can see the horizon (thus an AH is not needed),
but not the ground. In this case, a GPS or other navigation system is what
"permits flight without reference to the ground," since it enables you to
compensate for the normally visually-derived navigational information that
you lack due to your inability to see the ground. Thus, GPS devices
should be banned in contests, because they "permit flight without
reference to the ground." Clearly, a literal reading of this rule will
not have the intended effect. Thus, arguments that attempt to postulate
some imaginary scenario under which a contest pilot could innocently run
afoul of this rule and be penalized seem to me to be missing the point.
CDs and other competitors need to have some common sense, in conjunction
with the clarification provided recently by the rules committee, and I
think usually is enough to prevent the kind of dire outcomes that have
been mentioned in this thread.

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan





On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:56:42 -0600, John Cochrane
wrote:


Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. It's also possible to sneak
off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.







--
Stefan Murry

On Feb 16, 1:04*pm, "S. Murry" wrote:
I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. *I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). *I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. *I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). *My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." *It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. *To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

Thank you for this informative post. The above paragraph,
unfortunately, contains an incorrect assumption. The new
"smartphones" being discussed are capable of more than just a GPS-
derived AH display. They contain full 3-axis solid state gyroscope,
accelerometer, and magnetometer (3D compass) sensors. Given the huge
size of the phone market, a single integrated circuit containing all
of these sensors now costs under $10. They are there primarily for
game playing and "augmented reality" applications, allowing the
orientation of the phone in 3D space to be determined in a stable,
repeatable, and accurate fashion, to within fractions of degrees, with
update rates upwards of 100 Hz. Software already exists (typically $5
in the appropriate app store) for some of these phones to implement a
full inertially-based (not GPS-derived) artificial horizon. With
properly implemented software, the performance can easily exceed that
of the spinning mechanical device in your IFR panel. Competition has
resulted in all new high end phones (like iPhone 4S) and tablets (like
iPad 2) being produced with this full sensor suite. This will filter
down to lower end smart phones and smaller tablets over the next few
years.

Converging from another direction are devices built, using the same
low cost sensor chips, for use in hobbyist autonomous UAVs. There are
huge online communities of people developing open source software and
hardware to allow these things to fly in a stable and controlled
fashion. Given that there is no pilot directly controlling what are
in some cases highly unstable aircraft (helicopters, quad rotors, high
speed ducted fans, even jets), accurate high rate attitude
determination is a must. This is why we're suddenly seeing phones,
tablets, varios, flight computers, etc., with usable artificial
horizons. This capability will only become more ubiquitous as time
goes on...


Marc