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

It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:

Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.3685252

Here's another article

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz...ction.pdf?dl=0

Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.

Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.

Walt Rogers WX

Actually... I like the $50 cockpit camera idea. It's simple and commercially available. Place 10 real ones in cockpit ... and the rest look-a-likes. I think it would be easy to detect more than 20 secs of IMC flying, at which point you would be busted.

Walt Rogers WX

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 6:13:29 PM UTC-8, WaltWX wrote:
Actually... I like the $50 cockpit camera idea. It's simple and commercially available. Place 10 real ones in cockpit ... and the rest look-a-likes. I think it would be easy to detect more than 20 secs of IMC flying, at which point you would be busted.

Walt Rogers WX

I took a look. There are a boatload of inexpensive HD cameras available with a variety of interesting features - they can run on external power, shoot time lapse, record to SD cards of various capacities so you get get 12+ hours of recording, loop recording, multiple mounting options, etc. Turns out car cameras (kind of like police car cameras it seems) are all over the place in addition to sports cameras, FPV cameras, surveillance cameras. Lots to choose from.

I bought a couple of interesting candidates to play with in 2015 to see what might be practical if it comes to the need to verify adherence to FARs and racing rules.

Hopefully people aren't making a habit out of this as a tactic - it is unsportsmanlike, in violation of FARs and potentially a risk to life and property as gliders are not generally equipped for for flight into instrument conditions and certainly not designed for flight into icing conditions. CDs are within their authority to deal with violations in the harshest terms.

9B

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:

Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.3685252

Here's another article

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz...ction.pdf?dl=0

Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.

Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.

Walt Rogers WX

I don't think we need another device installed that then has to be checked by contest officials.
The current long standing prohibition of instruments that allow true instrument flight, as well as compliance and, sportsmanship on the part of competitors, has made this a non issue for decades.
Permitting true instrument flying tools installed has the real potential to change this. It also retains the strong position against flying non VFR in contests.
It is true that some devices have features that may make flight without reference to the horizon possible, however whether they are good enough for continuous instrument flight in thermals is of some question. You need a very good instrument to do this, particularly with modern slippery gliders. use of the turn rate features in some GPS displays is good enough in a 1-26, if you know how to do it, but now way will it work with any degree of reliability in my '29.
The enforcement argument has a real degree of truth. We can't practically enforce this rule if someone wants to sneak something into their ship. That said, we don't need to outright permit it.
Voluntary compliance and sportsmanship have proven to be adequate. Why add the potential temptation to instrument fly by expressly allowing the needed equipment?
Most changes in the rules come about because there is a need identified by pilots. This proposed change is done in the "cause" of simplification. In my view, and that of many I've talked to, it is not needed and adds a real risk of negative consequences.
Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?
Under my desk now
UH

At a regionals last year 3 pilots said they 'iced up' on the last day and one of them won 4 days in a row, beating the second-place handicapped speed by 10 mph on most days. Guess who won the contest? I submit that a few are already venturing into short bursts of IFR flight and we have no way to catch them short of someone seeing another glider enter or exit a cloud. On at least one occasion, the winner sought out and then deliberately flew under storm clouds, exchanging lift into speed. Not illegal if you stay VFR, but the chance of being forced into the cloud is always present. This 2-place ship had 'fat' cell phones stuck to the canopy in both seats. Does anyone believe they weren't accessing near real-time radar WX and artificial horizon app installed?

Lets give the CD a couple of recording cameras. I believe just showing the camera along with a stern warning at the mandatory pilots meeting would bring this unauthorized IFR flight, to a screeching halt!

Oh, the shame of being asked (forced) to wear the CD's ankle bracelet!

JJ

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 6:10:14 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-5, WaltWX wrote:
It's very hard to detect when a glider or aircraft enters into a cloud. But, this sensor appears to be inexpensive and could be adapted with a custom logger (match book size) and attached in the cockpit at World Championships:

Balloon-borne disposable radiometer for cloud detection

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.3685252

Here's another article

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1wb0jttcz...ction.pdf?dl=0

Suppose you built 10 matchbook boxes and 100 fake ones. They would be installed on all gliders, but you never know which one has the real one. Logging of temp, RH and solar radiation could be analyzed after the fact.

Maybe this is too complex even for a World Soaring Championship. But, if cloud flying became a problem in the future, this technique would be a good deterrent.

Walt Rogers WX

I don't think we need another device installed that then has to be checked by contest officials.
The current long standing prohibition of instruments that allow true instrument flight, as well as compliance and, sportsmanship on the part of competitors, has made this a non issue for decades.
Permitting true instrument flying tools installed has the real potential to change this. It also retains the strong position against flying non VFR in contests.
It is true that some devices have features that may make flight without reference to the horizon possible, however whether they are good enough for continuous instrument flight in thermals is of some question. You need a very good instrument to do this, particularly with modern slippery gliders. use of the turn rate features in some GPS displays is good enough in a 1-26, if you know how to do it, but now way will it work with any degree of reliability in my '29.
The enforcement argument has a real degree of truth. We can't practically enforce this rule if someone wants to sneak something into their ship. That said, we don't need to outright permit it.
Voluntary compliance and sportsmanship have proven to be adequate. Why add the potential temptation to instrument fly by expressly allowing the needed equipment?
Most changes in the rules come about because there is a need identified by pilots. This proposed change is done in the "cause" of simplification. In my view, and that of many I've talked to, it is not needed and adds a real risk of negative consequences.
Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?
Under my desk now
UH

Agreed - more stuff for pilots to manage and for CDs to deal with is not the goal of glider racing.

The issue was raised at the specific request of a CD in response to his belief that pilots might have been racing in violation of the prohibition on cloud flying - or at least acting at significant risk of getting sucked into cloud by flying under CBs. It was believed that this was done by carrying cell phone A-H, and other apps, mostly as backup, but maybe not. This is all happening under the current rules of course. GPS also facilitates that sort of flying by allowing the pilot to more easily hold a course line under IMC. Does it happen a lot? Maybe not. Does it win contests - maybe on rare occasions. But we are glider pilots and it is winter so it's easy to get wound up about what might be happening.

Rather than prohibit GPS and phones (which is overkill and impractical) the primary alternative is to maintain the prohibition on illegal behavior and make a judgement as to whether there is adequate deterrent via credible means of detection, rather than try to detect the thing that might allow the pilot to pursue the risky behavior if he decided to (a lot of conditional logic and complexity in that approach). The equipment inspection stuff IMHO is silly at this point. It has been - or very shortly will be - overtaken by the relentless march of technical innovation. They said phones would never be any good for doing computing tasks ('they' includes me and 'they' were wrong). It won't be long before we see a whole bunch of things you couldn't even imagine a few years ago and a lot of it will be amazing. What's in your cellphone could well be better (and certainly cheaper) than what was considered a sophisticated instrument not long ago.

Speaking personally, it would be of some additional comfort to me, in the event that I get inadvertently sucked into a cloud someday, to not have the thing that could save my glider and maybe my life deliberately disabled.

Also of interest and worthy of discussion are other apps like the smartphone based sailplane trackers (that offers significantly enhanced position reporting vs Spot) and apps for obtaining weather information. Do we need app inspections and prohibitions in the rules for these? If so, how would it be enforced? What would it be intended to stop? Apps are cheap and most people already own the hardware. Flight computers are getting Bluetooth to the integration is just software. So, is it good or bad for pilots to have available on their phones - or on their flight computers within a year or so - the locations of embedded thunderstorm, microburst and rain activity? Is it better to fly into the gloom without this information?

Out from under the desk Hank - back to the keyboard! ;-)

9B

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?

Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!

Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.

Nice daydream though.

T8

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:15:48 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?

Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!

Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.

Nice daydream though.

T8

To really simplify you have to start nearly from scratch - typically because of interdependencies and accumulation of rules on top of rules. This is not without its perils.

It wasn't just onboard technology where simplification held sway this year. Simplification came up in the discussion of the interplay between having to land to restart a task (or not), the requirement to land at the airport post-finish (or not) and the ability to use the finish point as a MAT turnpoint (if it is designated a turnpoint). There is also a lot of complexity in creating special rules to accommodate motorgliders without conferring an unfair advantage (an eye of the beholder topic for sure). Maximum number of tows allowed, what and where a motorglider/sustainer can do an engine test run. It's a lot of figuring out the principle at stake and all the different scenarios that can occur that meet or violate the principle you're aiming for. In all of the above cases the RC opted for simplification after a boatload of analysis and discussion. Take a look and see what you think. Right direction or wrong direction to take provisions out.

More radical surgery is a more time-consuming task with even more tradeoffs.. Taking the sliding scale penalty off the finish has come up. The dirt-simple version is you either finish above MFH or you don't. In theory you could eliminate MFH altogether - 0 foot finishes at a mile or two - I guess that is literally dirt-simple. Not sure who would go for it. The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

9B

Please! Please! don't make us carry surveillance cameras in the cockpit. How I long for the days when everyone had to go to specific points in the sky and a good finish was landing anywhere on the airport. Having said that, many of the changes in recent years are excellent and have no significant down side. Some of the changes, however, seem to be fixes for problems that have not yet occurred. Simplification is a commendable goal and I applaud the rules committee for attempting to do so.
Dale Bush DLB

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:12:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

The reason for this is that Sports Class doesn't have that option and it makes sense that all concurrent classes are using the same finish.

90% of our contests include a Sports Class, so effectively the finish line is history.

Evan Ludeman / T8