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

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

At 18:35 06 April 2012, John Godfrey QT wrote:


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
c=
ompliant with a very long standing (decades) FAI rule.

QT
Rules Committee

It is not an FAI Rule. Nothing to prevent the fitting or indeed use of AH
in civilised parts of the world. By all means restrict the members in your
own country if that is your wish but accept that it is totally your
responsibility not the FAI.

Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships. It's terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of its Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..


On Friday, April 6, 2012 6:42:21 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 18:35 06 April 2012, John Godfrey QT wrote:


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
c=
ompliant with a very long standing (decades) FAI rule.

QT
Rules Committee

It is not an FAI Rule. Nothing to prevent the fitting or indeed use of AH
in civilised parts of the world. By all means restrict the members in your
own country if that is your wish but accept that it is totally your
responsibility not the FAI.

At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..

Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:36:41 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..

Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

that is the FAI rule for world and continental championships.

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 1:36:41 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 01:31 07 April 2012, Papa3 wrote:
Sorry Don - try again. Following is quoted directly from Annex A of the
Sporting Code covering rules for World and Continental Championships.
It's
terribly inconvenient for your argument:

4.1.2 Each competing sailplane shall be flown within the limitations of
its
Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly and:
a. Must have been issued a valid Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit
to
Fly not excluding competitions.
b. Shall be made available to the Organisers at least 72 hours before the
briefing on the first championship day for an acceptance check in the
configuration in which it will be flown. This configuration shall be kept
unchanged during the whole competition. Exception: In the Open Class only
it
is allowed to change complete wing panels and/or winglets. No instruments
permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to the ground may be
carried
on board, even if made unserviceable. The Organisers may specify
instruments covered by this rule in their Local Procedures.
..

Well that has to be the most ludicrous restriction I have ever had the
misfortune to read. You have to be a real moron to come up with something
like that, but why am I surprised. Just because an instrument is fitted
does not mean it has to be used and how in the name of all that is holy can
you police it when any iPhone has a app that will do the job? You can by
the bits from Radio Shack or any model shop to provide the instrument and
unless you are going to search every pilot before they get in the cockpit
and then seal them in you have no chance. By all means have a no cloud
flying restriction if you are that much of a woos but not allow the
instrument, just plain crazy.
You have to wonder at a system of rules that allows you to carry your Sig
Sauer in the cockpit but not a useful instrument, it could only happen in
one place in the world and that the lord it is not here. It is what we have
come to expect from our former disobedient and rebellious colony.

Don - Sporting Code = FAI = International Rules. Largely written and influenced by the former Colonial Powers.