If You've Flown a FLARM Stealth Contest, Vote Here

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 9:57:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Andy, how different is this from the definition of Standard Class? The FAI/IGC established it in the 1950s, the German glider manufacturers allegedly colluded in the 1960s to rewrite the rule about terminal velocity dive brakes, and each country's aero club can do whatever they want (as the U.S. did with flap timers around 1980 and again a few years ago to handicap older gliders).

Or "approved flight recorders", the definition of which varies widely from country to country.

Within the U.S., is it standards? Or enforcement?

I'll grant you a dispensation from the "don't post if you haven't flown" mandate to respond.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

It is different in that setting standards for glider manufacturers, which by the way, also serve the interests of technological evolution, rather than retarding it - think 18-meter class, 2-seat, 20-meter class, 13.5-meter class (okay, not so much). More classes, more glider sales. If you are setting standards for gliders that are primarily designed and built to serve the buyers who race - and that's mostly what happens - you will get compliance from the manufacturers or they will sell far, far fewer gliders.

In this case the technology is significantly designed and built to serve much, much bigger markets than gliders. Transponders and ADS-B server general and commercial aviation, cellphones serve a market of well over a billion people. I think it will be hard to get Garmin or Apple, or Google to put in technology to restrict what information glider pilots can use. You could ban these things, but banning a device that can pick up transponder-equipped aircraft without ADS-B via TIS-B traffic services is a safety benefit near many airports, so requiring glider pilots to rip said equipment out to race seems problematic, as does restricting the acceptable range of manufacturers only to more high-priced bespoke soaring devices.

There are other examples, but that one is most prominent in my mind. I won't even get in to the cheating opportunities this opens up, but they are manifold. (Now I am sure to get the body-cavity search at Nephi).

9B

It would be hypocritical of me, indeed, to criticize others for lengthy posts! But it will take me a few days to assimilate Andy's latest contributions.

So let me respond to a few factual issues, as opposed to the sometimes-well-reasoned-but-speculative opinions being posted here now that apparently some have lost interest in the previous post and migrated to my "stealth veterans vote here" thread.

For the record, I just wanted to poll people who've actually tried a stealth contest, not solicit more editorial content from those who threaten to quit soaring--if it even survives--if stealth is mandated in Nationals. The results aren't necessarily definitive regarding our future direction.

Tim, I was referring to whatever each country allows for national contests. The U.S. has generally required approved flight recorders but I understand each country makes the call.

Jonathon, I suggest you re-read my posting about parachutes, which refers to the PIA recommendation of 20 years. My experience is that riggers often adhere to that rec although many admit that it's much more a liability/insurance issue than a practical one. Others, having more confidence or fewer assets, run some tests and make the determination on a case-by-case basis. Everything I discussed is, to the the best of my knowledge, both ethical and legal. I'm sure, in your eagerness to express your opinion, you didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Yeah, 9B, they should definitely inspect you and your glider very carefully next summer. You're a troublemaker.

Hope to see you there.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

Yeah, 9B, they should definitely inspect you and your glider very carefully next summer. You're a troublemaker.

Hope to see you there.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.