Analyzing US Competition Flights

John,

MOBILE DATA: Opening weather data to higher cost classes (18/Open). I don’t think that distinction is needed. Mobile phone data is really not a cost issue. To me it is a question of "what is the nature of the information" and how can it REALLY be used in a race to gain advantage. Mobile is at best equal to and likely far less reliable than standard radio accessible weather data. I suppose mobile "may" give you hints into sun on the ground at long distances (how old is the image is the question) in some cases. But this a severly doubt.

I agree that XM "SAT BASED" Weather on a Garmin 496 (for example, or similar) is overboard (at this point) but only because it will require the purchase of a $500 - $3000 piece of hardware and subscription to a $40 - $100 monthly service to access.

Simple smart phone based weather data (metars, etc) are already integrated into popular flight computer software such as XC Soar. The reason this information is included in these apps because it is incredibly simple to leverage mobile networks and there basic data capabilities.

Yes, a gentleman’s rule/recommendation now exists on the SSA site warning pilots not to use data via smart phone or tablet based flight computers. I have to ask, why? What are we afraid will happen? Remember, anyone is free to access this "where is the sun on the ground over the horizon" info (which in my opinion does not exist) in my scenario.

If there is something to fear from mobile based weather information, then it should also be illegal to call listen to ASOS/AWOS or get an in-flight briefing.

In short, I think you have to either allow smart phone data or ban the radio ;-)! They are one in the same with regards to weather or, for example, illegal communication from crew, etc over hundreds of potential frequencies.

Sean


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.

I don't see the fuss over cell phones. So far, my iphone doesn't work
over 1,500' or so, and below that I tend to be busy with other
things.
John Cochrane

One point of clarification. Current adult penetration of smart phones to all cell phones in the USA is 46% ( http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/.../Findings.aspx ). This is actual data as of March 1, 2012. That is not saturation by any person's definition.

However, total cell phone penetration in the USA is 82% of phones to bodies and is fairly stagnate. That works for me as saturation. No use in getting my 2 year old grandniece a phone quite yet....

The above information does indicate that smartphone ownership is moving up quickly. I'm going to bet that the next time the RC does a pole, it will probably get the necessary support to lift the ban. Until then, the rule is in place.
Craig

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:40:21 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
I don't see the fuss over cell phones. So far, my iphone doesn't work
over 1,500' or so, and below that I tend to be busy with other
things.
John Cochrane

OK, OK I will lay off the hard ceiling. I agree it is limiting and might leave pilots thousands of feet below usable lift at times. I agree that I have absolutely no experience outside of the Midwest other than Uvalde last summer...but cant wait to try my hand at the wild west soon! The hard floor I like. I think that is covered at current fairly well with the current rules. The 500 ft. violations argument is one that I (will now admit) think is useless, although I felt it should be mentioned.

I have heard of someone related to the RC working on a camera system to look for IMC situations via video playback. I think this is a fantastic idea for major contests where these issues are really important. I hope it is tested. Hard to beat video evidence!

As far as the hard ceiling contest test dummy...I think Ill pass on it for this year. We are just trying to perfect contest management at this point. If your really serious about it...send me an email on how you think should could be approached.

Cell phones, I fully agree, are fairly useless above and normal altitude...and this among other reasons will hopefully soften the general concern about them, data in particular. We should allow people to use them normally and have no worries about it. But as stated above, in general, its going to far.

Best,

Sean