Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

We've talked about this format, and the Houston club has experimented with it and found they like it.

In the US we frequently use turn area tasks and MAT (modified assigned) tasks. A popular form of the latter is the "long MAT" where everyone goes to the same turnpoints but the lower performance gliders can turn for home sooner.

These aren't exactly the same, I know. The handicap distance task removes the strategic question of how far to go into turn areas, and the strategic flexibility of going a bit more into one and a bit less into the other. But overall, like turn areas, you're going in roughly the same directions and the lower performance can turn around sooner. In the "long MAT" the high performance guys can't get behind the low performance gaggle on every turnpoint.

Still, we have two task types that accommodate racing between gliders of dissimilar performance. We have a lot of confusion by pilots on how these two work, and a strong demand from pilots to keep rules simple. So for the moment the US is "watch and wait" on this task type.

If a contest wants to try it by waiver that would be great.

John Cochrane BB

It's certainly possible to end up above cloudbase without flying in the cloud or breaking rules. Years ago, I flew from southern Arizona over the Chiricuhua Mountains into New Mexico to find myself over the tops of cumulus clouds on the other side of the hill! On another occasion, I flew out of the top of a thermal into wave that took me well over clouds that day.

Having said that, if someone is using instruments to cloud fly to get an advantage, it will be readily noticeable.

Mike

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:32:46 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:

Having said that, if someone is using instruments to cloud fly to get an advantage, it will be readily noticeable.

Mike


If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
FWIW
UH

I haven't heard anyone mention reporting cloud flying contestants to the
FAA and disqualifying them from the contest. This is a clear violation
of the FARs without an IFR flight plan. Or will the violator say that
he was inadvertently "sucked up" into a cloud? Not likely given FAR
cloud clearance requirements.


On 1/12/2015 3:42 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan
Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane
JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
FWIW
UH

--
Dan Marotta

The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.

VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.

No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.

As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.

BB

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.

VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.

No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.

As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.

BB

John,

I have been to 4 contests since the wildly complex rule about disabling the AHRS in flight was adopted. I complied with the rule at all 4 contests.

Although the CD's had no idea what I was talking about or doing when I showed them and disabled the Butterfly Vario AHRS.

I agree that we should simplify the rules.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
FWIW
UH


With JJ's help I took a look at the flights in question (thanks JJ!). There is some reason to believe that with advances in technology we will be able to detect, with increasingly reliability, egregious and/or repeated excursions into IFR-land. Steve's point about climbing up the face of a cu (I've done it myself) remains one of several complications that need to be considered.

More broadly, the RC, like King Canute, understands that we are kidding ourselves when we stand at the shore and command the incoming tide to retreat. Technology marches on relentlessly. Once it becomes affordable and pervasive we need to face that reality - and we have. Tasking contest organizers with onerous "stop and frisk" responsibilities has never been broadly practical so it is at best a fig leaf - and a wilting one at that.

The prohibitions on cheating by getting outside help and on busting FARs remain in place and violations should be handled in the harshest possible terms short of lethal injection. Means to improve detection of violations is in my view worthwhile. $50 cockpit video recorders anyone? They are out there.

9B