Analyzing US Competition Flights

Looking at old contest data for the possibility of cloud flying is pretty meaningless. Old AH equipment was pretty obvious. However, we all can be busted for not maintaining proper VFR clearances. I really enjoy climbing up the face of a big cu and this has happened at various times waiting for a start. I certainly wouldn’t waste my time during a contest flight on course climbing in those marginal lift conditions. I think that virtually all of the “suspicious data” will be VFR clearance issues or wave conditions.

As a contest pilot, my much bigger concern is the availability of real time (or almost real time) weather information through the use of smart phones in the cockpit. To see and monitor the advancement of a weather front or cirrus deck over a task area is a MUCH larger issue than someone gaining a couple of thousand feet (probably slowly) in clouds. The person cheating with updated weather reports has a much better probability of making better course decisions than the person that doesn’t have that information and, therefore, will have faster times. Will back seaters can finally earn their way? ) I know that folk’s smart phones are a hot button, but in my opinion, we should have a bigger uproar over this issue than AH’s in the cockpit.

On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
...The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer.. Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Yep, it was nice hanging around up high before start that day, but those guys down low were a worry...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

On Mar 11, 7:44*am, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, March 9, 2012 9:34:34 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
...The photographer and several others (including yours truly) were lolling around in wave a couple thousand feet above the clouds enjoying the warm sun while the masses engaged in thermal warfare down in the boundary layer. * Not sure what analyzing those traces would tell you...

Yep, it was nice hanging around up high before start that day, but those guys down low were a worry...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

I don't think you were there the year that the skydiving club dropped
a bunch of jumpers from 12K... over a 5/10 cumulus sky at 5 or 6000...
into the middle of a start gate which had not yet opened. We had 30
gliders in the air, a fair number of which were in the gate. I heard
the radio call, was completely dumbfounded. I was under a Cu at the
time, in the gate, close to the airport. I hoped no one was crazy
enough to punch through a cloud... but they were crazy enough to jump
with tens of gliders in the local area, so who knew? IIRC that was
2010. Someone must have spoken with them. They didn't do it again.

T8

Hi folks,

Been out of the US for a few days. Just read this thread today and finally have a minute to respond (after a couple Disaronno's with friends I must admit...)

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for being so animate about the rule related to AH. I think in several ways I was out of line and regret it significantly. While initially I felt very passionately about the safety aspects of allowing AH's I think I have learned why it makes sense to leave the rule as it has been. After many phone and email conversations with more experienced contest pilots, which I respect greatly, I have slowly been won over by the argument that cheating (and the potential results of multiple cheating pilots flying around in the clouds) is a more serious problem than the innocent (inadvertent IMC) safety concerns I initially argued. While I regret being so "bold" in my arguments I feel that it was valuable to rattle the rules committee in some ways. But overall I wish I would not have argued the point.

My only goal is to have fun and learn this game. Hopefully in time my over-zealousness will be forgiven. Regardless, I want to have fun and compete fairly. It is far more important to me to have a beer with friends and make new friends then to change any rule. Enough said...

In terms of our "contest altitude peak" research project, absolutely John Cochran it will be shared with the powers that be. My intention is not to humiliate people who may have "climbed higher than the rest." Me intention is to see if IGC files can be mined to show trends in tasks, contests and seasons. Can they be used to identify potential incidents. Perhaps in contests where cheating is suspected or protested? My only goal is to see if there is a more "concrete way" to identify cloud flying incidents.

I will share any results or software we create with the US rules committee with a hope of developing a simple tool which can reinforce any protests or suspicion and turn the heat on a potential offending pilot.

My initial hypothesis is: "can a pattern be identified." The value of that pattern I would leave to smarter people to intemperate. I can say the technology is not difficult to develop. I will be happy to donate or share it as needed with the SSA, FAI, etc.

I love the game of sailplane racing and truly don't wish to be the "bad guy.." I can be very passionate about things...for sure. Often to a fault. Yes I love electronic toys (XC Soar), etc. But at the end of the day I have come to realize the wisdom of the no AH rule after hearing of the many cheating incidents over the years. Shocking how much cheating has, allegedly, occured over time. I am, for the record, in support of the rules committee's decisions at present and in the future in regards to the existing rule..

This is hopefully a chapter I can put behind and move forward with a chuckle and a smile. I understand that may take time. I am happy to take any **** that might be deserved... But bottom line I just want to focus on learning how to race gliders.

Best,

Sean
F2

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:39:18 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
I have an intern currently working on a slightly different project for US flights in an effort to isolate for potential cloud flying incedents over thousands of competition flights. It has been very interesting so far. More later. He did create a batch method for adding large sets of flights (but only a few dozen at a time). Not sure what dbase he is using.


No one else seems to have jumped in on this so perhaps I’m
overreacting.

The above posting from another thread was provocative, perhaps
intentionally so. I'm concerned it could send the wrong message. In
the nearly 45 years since I began flying contests here in the US, I
have witnessed only one or two incidents that could be classified as
"cloud flying". I’m referring to extended flight in cloud primarily by
reference to instruments rather than by visual reference to the
ground, NOT the separate and--in the context of this discussion--
unrelated issue of VFR clearance from clouds. I am aware of no
incidents that could be detected using the available analytical tools
and databases. Convective cloudbases are influenced by variations in
terrain, weather, time of day, and chance and may vary by thousands of
feet in a relatively brief time over a small area. As with many things
in aviation, we leave it up to the pilot to exercise good judgment
accounting for safety and the FARs. I think this approach has served
us well.

No one would argue that the system is perfect, or that there will
always be a few pilots to whom rules, regulations, and sportsmanship
matter less than seeing their names at the top of the list, albeit
only briefly. And I don’t deny that the controversy over new IMC
capabilities in soaring software is messy. But I worry that this
posting implies a level of "problem" that I don't believe exists. I'm
not suggesting that this research be discontinued; I'm sure it’s being
done conscientiously with the best interests of our sport and the
flying public at heart. But publicizing provocative statements about
“very interesting” findings to date without any conclusions, much less
evidence, borders on being irresponsible. I have great respect for the
competent, conscientious employees of the FAA I've met (yes, there are
many despite the horror stories). But I know from experience that even
those who are soaring pilots themselves and/or support our freedom to
continue soaring feel bound to investigate further when they read
something like this. And, yes, some of them do read this newsgroup.

I'm aware that I am potentially adding to the visibility of this by
reposting it instead of contacting the author privately but I feel
strongly that we shouldn't create a problem where we can't demonstrate
that one exists. The system we have now works well. The Rules
Committee has done a good job of addressing the potential for future
problems as a result of evolving technology. As with other trends in
soaring, we should continue to monitor the situation closely to see
what further action may (and almost certainly will) be required.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:04:20 -0800 (PST), Sean Fidler
wrote:


Been out of the US for a few days. Just read this thread today and finally have a minute to respond (after a couple Disaronno's with friends I must admit...)

not very much related, but...
Disaronno's owner has been a keen glider pilot, and today is still an
active tmg pilot.
His business is extremely successful, and he regularly has an ad
published on the italian magazine voloavela

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

I think the key element of this discussion is the fact that smartphone technology has saturated the cockpits of racing glider pilots (and indeed virtually all relevant glider pilots worldwide). It ABSOLUTELY has saturated the pockets of almost everyone. By the end of 2012, 65% of all mobile phones in the US will be smart (http://www.intomobile.com/2012/03/06...n-dumbphones/). They were in almost ever glider I flew with in the 3 contest I competed in last year and nobody mentioned the rule or had the slightest idea of it. Nobody cared, including Uvalde. I honestly never even imagined this was a problem until roughly 1 month ago when I first began hearing of the supposed, "issue."

Smart phones are, in my opinion, a simple convenience with highly, highly questionable racing value. At this point it is arguably more irritating to ban or restrict (buy a cheap phone for land out purposes) than to simply allow them. It is unenforceable and provides no advantage. So what if pilots can download a Metar or see a non-real time radar image while in flight? This can be accomplished just as easily via calling flight service. What is the advantage of this capability? If it is an advantage and is not to be accessed, why not ban radios? Or at least ban communication with flight service? Hmmm?

In my view, none of the smart phone "available" weather data is real time and therefore is of any tactical advantage. It is equally available to all of us. It seems "far fetched" at minimum to conclude that smart phones are capable of delivering a performance advantage to a racing glider pilot in a racing task.

Is it really worth it to go to the significant lengths necessary to ensure that smart phones are not used in flight (checking cell phone bills, etc)? Below is some relevant language from the most recent "important reading: Other Devices with Artificial Horizon or T&B Features" rules update from the SSA website last month. Can you imagine the kind of protests and accusations that can result from this language? (http://ssa.org/files/member/Restrict...e%20Policy.pdf)

SSA Rules Commitee, Late Feb 2012
3. Cell Phones
Rule 6.11.3 anticipates the presence of cell phones and reflects the expected purpose of these
and similar devices (“smart” phones) as not being used in flight and turned off. The RC reaffirms
its’ position in this respect and recognizes that absolute enforcement of this is not possible,
certainly within the scope of what we expect volunteer officials to do.
If such a device is used for the purposes of a flight display as contemplated in (2) above, it is to
be set in a mode that disables communication with carrier networks (i.e. “airplane mode” or
equivalent). No other applications which could provide prohibited functionality are to be
available in flight.

***Pilots please note that substituting an inexpensive “retrieve phone” in the glider for a more
capable phone used in daily life can be expected to avoid any questions in this area.***

4. Monitoring and compliance
Entrants shall comply with the provisions of the rules and associated policies as a continuing
display of good sportsmanship.
Noncompliance with these rules may be the basis for a determination of ***unsportsmanlike
conduct***, the consequences of which are described within the body of the rules. It will be
permissible for any contest official (or competitor to request of a contest official) to inspect the
glider at any time, consistent with safety, for compliance with these rules.. A refusal to permit a
reasonable request (as determined by contest officials) will be deemed to be justification for
additional investigation.US Competition Rules Committee Policy on Equipment and Devices
other than Instruments Carried in Competition

Allegations by other pilots of violations will be taken seriously and may be anonymous (safety
box) and should be expected to trigger scrutiny of flight records. In the case of flagrant or
repeated allegations, the appropriate action will be decided by the competition committee.
It will be ***permissible for contest officials to request to view records of phone use and internet
access if there appears to be reason for further investigation***.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????
***It is hoped that, with knowledge and care by competitors, that good sportsmanship will be
displayed and the confidence that it is in place will ensure the health and safety of our sport.***
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????

I feel this policy is the wrong path forward (starting with next season at the latest). It has no point. Simply allow them. Then its fair for everyone, and still nobody will use them because it has no value. At least we don't have to go out and buy junk phones per recommendations and have our phone bills inspected (which by the way will provide zero value when it comes to data usage).

http://www.xmwxweather.com/aviation/
http://www.xmwxweather.com/aviation/...-solutions.php
http://www.xmwxweather.com/xmwx-data/

No smartphone is capable of receiving real time "XM Satellite like" radar accuracy." To be useful, and this is highly questionable, detailed aircraft location integral to the NEXRAD radar would be required such as XM Sat Weather provides. Most XM services are not real time. In fact the most up to date weather information available to pilots is airport AWOS (real time reports of temp, wind direction, pressure, sky condition, etc. So we ban smart phones which can intermittently receive out of date weather info but allow radio's which receive real time AWOS and direct communication with flight service for detailed weather updates?

How many people have bothered calling flight service in contests? Have you? Anyone? Please reply. Did it help you win a contest day? More power to you. I am just wondering. Mobile phone data would give you similar but arguable far less usable information on task.

I will ask again, can anyone provide a detailed scenario (be prepared to defend your scenario) where smart phones with data connectivity via mobile networks are going to provide a racing glider pilot a demonstrable advantage over pilots who do not have or use a smart phone? Anybody?

What is the point of this ban on using smart phones (separate from the feeble AH capability)?

Is it worth having new contest pilots being told to go to Walmart and buy another phone? I vote A VERY BIG, no.

It's a little silly really...I hope we can move thru this sooner than later..

Sean

Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic, fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable, enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft. limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?) is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft. if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft. estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom. Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

On Mar 14, 5:41*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

HARD DECK:

Sorry for being obscure. The hard deck is a lower limit not an upper
limit. I'm not in favor of an upper limit. Cloud flying is just not a
problem, and wave, thermal wave, etc. are great fun when you can get
them. We need some sense that something is a problem, now, before
passing complex and draconian rules.

The concept is this: there is a set of lower altitude limits, quoted
in MSL, given out in SUA files. They are roughly 500 to 1000 feet
AGL, At Ionia, 1200' MSL might do over the whole task area, and could
just be announced without needing a file. In mountain sites, these are
set by looking at the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out.
Altitudes can be higher over undlandable terrain to discourage low
flight there.

When you hit the hard deck altitude, you're counted as landing out.
From there on in, the race is over -- land out, scratch your way back
up and fly home, it's up to you. Do the safe thing, but forget about
contest points, the race is over for you. And no more of these stall/
spin crashes from thermalling at 200 feet. (Those ARE a problem.)

The navy top gun school does this: If you fall below 10,000', you're
counted as crashing into the ground. But they're a bunch of wussies,
we real pilots keep racing down until we hit the dirt.

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane

Really, Really, Really speaking for myself and not the RC this time!
(Last time I counted noses, my fellow RC members were pretty solidly
in the 39 and very tired of hearing about it.)

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:18:52 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane


Make it 40:1 against. It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.