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

Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66

[quote=kirk.stant;812642]Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66[/QUOTE

Well said Kirk

At 00:33 05 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away,
I
=
want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you
repeat=
the same bull**** over and over about how the RC is preventing the march
o=
f progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your
g=
lider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your
rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in
your=
glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout,
and=
have fun. =20

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would
ha=
ve been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it
is,=
you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC,
or=
had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they
are
=
to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66
If all else fails you can still shoot them with your Sig Sauer, which you
are allowed to carry with you in the cockpit. :-)

Kirk,

You make many assumptions about what you think I want. Most are wrong. Really wrong. Nothing personal but **** off.

I have no interest in an AH in my glider. Rules are rules but the rulemaker has to defend them occasionally. That goes with the territory. I wish to see all pilots and manufacturers inconvienenced equally by the USRC rules.. Right now that is not EVEN CLOSE to happening. There is a distinct double standard. 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...;-)

Get over it. I have no personal issue with the people of the RC. I have a really big issue with the manner they have handled this rule policy. It needs to be tightened up and enforcement needs to be far better defined.

Any logical person can see the massive steaming pile of double standard here. I need it bagged up...not left on the sidewalk for people to step in this summer.

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.

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.

Sean,

You really are a prick.

P3

On Friday, April 6, 2012 7:23:43 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
Sean,

You really are a prick.

P3

Anytime.

Hi Sean,

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The XCSoar and LK8000 software
products (which I hear are very nice) are (if I understand correctly)
opensource products. The code is freely available.

The LXNAV LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 are not opensource. They are products
that have firmware that is not freely available. Updates to those LXNAV
products is done by requesting a new version of the firmware from LXNAV
which is tied to a particular unit serial number. It would not be possible
for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes to those products. They have
recently implemented features in the firmware which make it easy to disable
the artificial horizon for 14 days - longer than any contest. Also, it is
easy for any contest official to look inside the glider and determine
whether or not the AHRS unit is installed and connected to the flight
computer. It connects to the flight computer using a standard USB cable.
If there is no USB cable connected to the flight computer, then the AHRS is
not connected. This is much different than the opensource software issues.

However, I strongly agree with you that it is silly and frustrating that the
rule committee has decided to restrict our technology. It discourages
innovation and discourages pilots from flying in U.S. soaring competitions.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"Sean F2" wrote in message
news:32549288.367.1333683984277.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36...
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.

On Friday, April 6, 2012 12:11:01 PM UTC-4, Paul Remde wrote:
Hi Sean,

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The XCSoar and LK8000 software
products (which I hear are very nice) are (if I understand correctly)
opensource products. The code is freely available.

The LXNAV LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000 are not opensource. They are products
that have firmware that is not freely available. Updates to those LXNAV
products is done by requesting a new version of the firmware from LXNAV
which is tied to a particular unit serial number. It would not be possible
for anyone other than LXNAV to make changes to those products. They have
recently implemented features in the firmware which make it easy to disable
the artificial horizon for 14 days - longer than any contest. Also, it is
easy for any contest official to look inside the glider and determine
whether or not the AHRS unit is installed and connected to the flight
computer. It connects to the flight computer using a standard USB cable.
If there is no USB cable connected to the flight computer, then the AHRS is
not connected. This is much different than the opensource software issues.

However, I strongly agree with you that it is silly and frustrating that the
rule committee has decided to restrict our technology. It discourages
innovation and discourages pilots from flying in U.S. soaring competitions.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"Sean F2" wrote in message
news:32549288.367.1333683984277.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36...
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.

With all due respect, the RC has not "decided" to restrict anything. What the RC has done is provide a way for instrument manufacturers and software developers who choose to include AH capability in their product to remain compliant with a very long standing (decades) FAI rule.

QT
Rules Committee