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

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

On 01/20/2015 2:20 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
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

Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

I agree that adding a device to detect cloud flying (camera or specialized sensor) add unnecessary complication to U.S. Contest rules. It was mentioned only as a potential solution to high end competition such as World Championships.

Walt WX

I once witnessed a glider far above me while exiting the same cloud. I was leaving the cloud at cloud-base. The glider in question was much, much higher (2000 ft +) and was on the same heading towards the next "turn." I was quite shocked. How did that guy get that high? What did I miss? I was impressed to be honest, but also knew what I "might" have been witnessing. I kept a very close eye on this glider for as long as I could (another hour). I did not see that behavior again and just could not be certain. I never saw that glider enter (or exit) the cloud. I only saw it well above me exiting (I assume) the same cloud. I really didn't give it much thought at the time. I let it go. I spoke to the pilot and mentioned being surprised at his altitude. The pilot changed the conversation... The cloud was large, mature, fully developed. The thermal was very, very strong... Could it have been cloud flying? Maybe. Actually, if I had to put cash on the table, probably. But I cannot not be certain. Perhaps that pilot come up the front or side of the cloud. Perhaps there was a less developed portion of the cloud somewhere. Intentional cloud flying (cheating) is a very, very difficult thing to actually "prove."

I guess I have not experienced the feeling of losing a competition to someone I thought was cloud flying. I empathize with those who have (speak up and be heard if anyone has). That said, I strongly agree with the very intelligent removal of this long obsolete rule from our already portly US rule book. If preventing cloud flying is an important problem worthy of a specific rule, why have we so obviously not been enforcing it? That, to me, is the real litmus test.

Has anyone ever been caught cloud flying? Where, When and How? Please expound and detail the (many) incidents where contest pilots have been accused and proven to have been cheating by cloud flying? In the US? The World?

Others here have "noted" (hearsay really) that they have suspected (as recently as last year) other US contest pilots of cloud flying (under the OLD rule by the way). This may or may not be true. If the suspicion of cloud flying last year is true (iced wings), this proves that the OLD rule is NOT a meaningful deterrent for the competitor that is willing to cheat by cloud flying. Were these pilots disciplined? Why not? Clearly, the old rule was not effective in this case.

The only meaninful deterrent capable of preventing cloud flying is aggressive ENFORCEMENT and the likelihood of getting caught. Pilots are, apparently, still cloud flying in US contests (and it is influencing the results). If you simply reinstate the OLD rule (inconveniencing all honest pilots), you will, apparently, still have the cheating. The OLD rule clearly does nothing to prevent it even when "clear evidence" exists that it occured. If we really want to eliminate cloud flying from contests, we need to introduce a reliable, iron clad means of being able to prove that it occurred. The presence of the modern instruments and devices outlawed in the OLD rule, apparently, does little or nothing to stop cloud flying by pilots determined to cheat by cloud flying. This is a fact.

If you (the ones who want the ineffective, unenforced OLD rule reinstated) are TRULY serious about preventing illegal cloud flying, you are going need onboard cameras. Pilots would need to provide a flight trace along with "access" to a clear, reliable video file for each contest flight (primary and backup camera ;-)). This is simple to do really. Actually, its quite fun! But, most importantly and in addition to the cameras, the competing pilots would need to be vigilant in calling out others who they feel are cloud flying. Then the CD can easily check the incident in question and verify. Only this kind of PROOF will be truly effective in preventing cloud flying by pilots sophisticated enough to do so under the old rule. Only this level of proof would make it too risky for the sophisticated cloud flying US contest pilot to continue cheating in US contests.

The old rule, in the modern age, became a complete waste of time and paper. If cloud flying was occurring last year, then by definition the old rule was not preventing it. We need the will to ENFORCE and a mechanism that provides clear proof that cloud flying has occurred. Anything else is not going to deter, prevent or prove it happened. No broad analysis software technology exists or will exist in the foreseeable future that can PROVE cloud flying occurred.

If we are serious about this, we need video. If not, then its a ghost that can never be caught or proven to exist.

Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout.

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard