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

I think it's important to meditate on just how much of a problem there is, and therefore how complex our procedures need to be to stop it.

Just how much actual, sustained, undetected, artificial-horizon-enabled, and contest-winning cloud flying is going on in US contests? How much more of it will there be if we abandon the current largely unenforced rules about carrying cell phones or disabling the AH features of flight computers? How much less of it will there be if we dream up some complex verification scheme involving satellite loops and traces?

We're not talking about VFR pilots going up in the wispies. That happens, and banning AH doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the kind of sustained cloud flying that could potentially win a contest. You need to go up at least 2000' in some pretty thick clouds for that to work. Or you need to penetrate the wall of thunderstorm keeping the others from going in to the turnpoint. We're talking about really big, blatant, and monstrously illegal behavior.

My view, is that this sort of thing is rare; if it did start happening we could see it with an informal and case by case review of flight traces; and if so we can afford to lower the boom after the fact.

To Tom's post, it makes perfect sense for a tighter standard at the worlds. People care more, are more willing to do crazy stuff, and it's appropriate to impose greater costs on organizers and teams.

I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. If you are carrying, expect a little more careful look at your logs.

The complex rule has a long list of forbidden equipment, a procedure that CDs actually follow to check said equipment, surprise inspections, a complex trace evaluation procedure, and so forth. That is more ironclad, yes. But is ironclad worth it, in the real world of contest flying (not in the infinitesimal probability speculation we do on ras over the winter)?

So, when you ask for the latter, recognize you are asking for a rule book that is longer and denser than the current one. We all need to think whether problems really are problems before fixin' them, and think about the costs of the fix.

John Cochrane

John,

I appreciate the direction you advocate. It is important to remember that it unsportsmanlike conduct is a pilot issue and not a technology issue. To address it from a technological angle is like trying to stop the sunrise.

Lane

On 01/15/2015 2:47 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.

Thank you John and the rest of the RC, I think this is the right move.

Luke Szczepaniak

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:47:09 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
I think it's important to meditate on just how much of a problem there is, and therefore how complex our procedures need to be to stop it.

Just how much actual, sustained, undetected, artificial-horizon-enabled, and contest-winning cloud flying is going on in US contests? How much more of it will there be if we abandon the current largely unenforced rules about carrying cell phones or disabling the AH features of flight computers? How much less of it will there be if we dream up some complex verification scheme involving satellite loops and traces?

We're not talking about VFR pilots going up in the wispies. That happens, and banning AH doesn't make a difference. We're talking about the kind of sustained cloud flying that could potentially win a contest. You need to go up at least 2000' in some pretty thick clouds for that to work. Or you need to penetrate the wall of thunderstorm keeping the others from going in to the turnpoint. We're talking about really big, blatant, and monstrously illegal behavior.

My view, is that this sort of thing is rare; if it did start happening we could see it with an informal and case by case review of flight traces; and if so we can afford to lower the boom after the fact.

To Tom's post, it makes perfect sense for a tighter standard at the worlds. People care more, are more willing to do crazy stuff, and it's appropriate to impose greater costs on organizers and teams.

I've been on a kick to simplify rules lately, prompted by the many requests to do so in the polls over the years. This is a good test case of the kind of judgment we all need to make if we want simple rules.

The simple rule says, carry anything you want. Don't cloud fly. If you get caught there will be monstrous unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. If you are carrying, expect a little more careful look at your logs.

The complex rule has a long list of forbidden equipment, a procedure that CDs actually follow to check said equipment, surprise inspections, a complex trace evaluation procedure, and so forth. That is more ironclad, yes. But is ironclad worth it, in the real world of contest flying (not in the infinitesimal probability speculation we do on ras over the winter)?

So, when you ask for the latter, recognize you are asking for a rule book that is longer and denser than the current one. We all need to think whether problems really are problems before fixin' them, and think about the costs of the fix.

John Cochrane

Thanks John & the Rules Committee. We already have rules against cloud flying & suitable penalties may be imposed within these rules. Spending an inordinate amount of effort enforcing an issue that appears to exist at the fringes seems like a poor use of our collective energy.

Craig
7Q

This was polled just recently and below are the results.

""""October 29, 2012 12:28 PM
Percentages usually do not add up to 100% because multiple selections can be made on many questions. Also, some questions
are not answered by all survey submitters.
Analysis Categories All
Summary of detailed data representing All respondants. 187
Part I. Equipment
1. Cloud flying instruments
For many years we have prohibited gliders from "carrying any instrument which: Permits flight without
reference to the ground." (6.6.1) In practice, this has meant that gliders may not carry gyros or Bolhi
compasses.
Now several navigation instruments sold to the glider market include artificial horizon displays. Some
cellphones and tablet computers also include such displays, though of questionable reliability. An
artificial horizon is now essentially a software switch on existing instruments rather than a whole new
instrument.
This year there was a substantial discussion about this rule. Briefly, advocates of removing the rule
feel that there is a safety advantage of allowing artificial horizons as a precaution in case of
inadvertent loss of visual reference. Supporters of the current rule feel that truly inadvertent loss of
visual reference is unheard of in contest flying, and the temptation to intentionally fly in or through
clouds or rain too strong with such instruments present. Allowing such instruments would also lead to
greater suspicion that others are cheating and foster an "I have to do it to keep up with the
competition" mentality.
All
a Do you favor removing the ban on artificial horizons?
RemoveBan 31%
LeaveBanInPlace 68%
b The RC has developed a protocol, whereby if a computer or vario with artificial horizon option is
installed, it must be possible to verifiably disable that option for the duration of the contest. (Please see
Restricted Device Policy) This policy requires some programming from manufacturers, and some
manufacturers have been reluctant to do it.
Do you support this policy? (If not, suggest an alternative!)
Yes 71%
No 27%"""""

Best. Tom #711.

On Thursday, 15 January 2015 15:51:48 UTC-7, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
This was polled just recently and below are the results.

""""October 29, 2012 12:28 PM
Percentages usually do not add up to 100% because multiple selections can be made on many questions. Also, some questions
are not answered by all survey submitters.
Analysis Categories All
Summary of detailed data representing All respondants. 187
Part I. Equipment
1. Cloud flying instruments
For many years we have prohibited gliders from "carrying any instrument which: Permits flight without
reference to the ground." (6.6.1) In practice, this has meant that gliders may not carry gyros or Bolhi
compasses.
Now several navigation instruments sold to the glider market include artificial horizon displays. Some
cellphones and tablet computers also include such displays, though of questionable reliability. An
artificial horizon is now essentially a software switch on existing instruments rather than a whole new
instrument.
This year there was a substantial discussion about this rule. Briefly, advocates of removing the rule
feel that there is a safety advantage of allowing artificial horizons as a precaution in case of
inadvertent loss of visual reference. Supporters of the current rule feel that truly inadvertent loss of
visual reference is unheard of in contest flying, and the temptation to intentionally fly in or through
clouds or rain too strong with such instruments present. Allowing such instruments would also lead to
greater suspicion that others are cheating and foster an "I have to do it to keep up with the
competition" mentality.
All
a Do you favor removing the ban on artificial horizons?
RemoveBan 31%
LeaveBanInPlace 68%
b The RC has developed a protocol, whereby if a computer or vario with artificial horizon option is
installed, it must be possible to verifiably disable that option for the duration of the contest. (Please see
Restricted Device Policy) This policy requires some programming from manufacturers, and some
manufacturers have been reluctant to do it.
Do you support this policy? (If not, suggest an alternative!)
Yes 71%
No 27%"""""

Best. Tom #711.

Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Good job! Only a sharp CD would of ever of caught that!

Best. #711.

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:22:58 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Yeah, but when you're as old as Tom, seems like just minutes ago ;-)

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 4:42:04 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:22:58 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
Tom that survey is over two years old! Damn the torpedo's

Yeah, but when you're as old as Tom, seems like just minutes ago ;-)

Etymology
From "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!", a famous order issued by Admiral David Farragut during the Battle of Mobile Bay, a paraphrase of the actual order, "Damn the torpedoes! Four bells. Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!"

Start charging them batteries Nadler, will see you @ the Seniors.............#711.