New Butterfly Vario

c


As an alternative, hopefully pilots will refuse to particiapte in
activities that prohibit devices that enhance safety.


Alan


Flying in cloud enhances safety????

Flarm good, artificial horizon bad - pretty simple, have one without the
other.

Tom

On Feb 15, 4:30*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.

http://www.pacificsoaring.org/westwi...2_WestWind.pdf

Into the Bowels of Darkness
© Kempton Izuno 2005 . All images by author.
Writing about soaring is easy with an achievement to share or a flight you are proud of. Enthusiasm and pride
are in great supply. But the flight(s) will come of which you are less than proud or downright embarrassed about.
Or worse, a flight from which you don’t return...
Since you are reading this article, you may presume I’ve not had one of the latter flights, but a few have been
close. Coming to the edge of disaster and living to learn from it is an incredible gift. In my case, a SOARING
Safety Corner article (see sidebar) read 30 years ago, is what saved my bacon after I was sucked into a cloud.
A Major Thank You to Bruce Carmichael for writing “The Spiral Dive”. May you, dear reader, never have this
experience.
Prelude
The forecast looked good for the central Nevada Great Basin area, so I planned for several days based out of
Tonopah, Nevada. Launching out of Hollister, California on June 17, 2003 in my ASH-26E, I slid across the
Central Valley and Sierra Nevada mountains, arriving at Tonopah in the late afternoon.
Part of the normal summer soaring routine in the Great Basin is working cumulonimbus clouds (CB). Now CB in
most parts of the world are BIG (50 miles or more across) and should be avoided. In Nevada, with the dry land,
dry air and high ground, there often can be small (3-4 miles across) CB cells with strong lift which do not block
your path. These “small” cells really speed up your flight and are the smallest CBs, but still hold significant risk.
13
Warning Signs
The forecast for June 18 showed scattered CB cells with bases around 17,000 ft, strong heating and a very light SW
wind. The first leg along the Monitor range is great, with strong lift and a light tailwind. Turning near Elko, I head
northwest following a line between towering cu to my north and overdevelopment (OD) to the south. Rain shafts are
becoming more widespread under the cu to the south, but this does not overly concern me. There’s a ways to go
before turning south and I expect that by that time, I’ll be west of the high ground and clear of the OD. Averaging
16,000 ft or so, the path ahead looks good.
FLASH! Lightning appears around the rain shafts to the south of me while the sky ahead is 40% cu, and to the far
north, along the Oregon border, it is dark with more overdevelopment. Confident I can make McDermitt, I press on. By
2pm however, it’s clear bases are dropping on track, so 20 miles short of McDermitt I turn south along the Santa Rosa
range. Lift continues to weaken producing a stair step descent as I aim to get back to the strong lift on the edge of the
OD area to the south.
By 3pm I’m down to 9,200 ft just north of Winnemucca having averaged only 50mph for the last hour. Frustrated at the
slow speed, I’m really hungry for the BIG lift to get going again. Now under the first of a number of dark based clouds,
I make three more climbs, each better than the last, reinforcing my decision to move back to the OD area. The lift is
good (15,000 ft bases with 6 knot climbs), but I think, there MUST be better lift nearby. Cloud cover is now 70+% with
rain shafts. Anxiously, I scan the sky for a “young” cloud to get my expected 12+ knot climb. The stage is now set. I’m
in high risk weather with a very impatient attitude.
Trouble…..BIG Trouble
Threading my way between rain shafts 25 miles ESE of Winnemucca, I spy “the” cloud. With a very dark and clearly
much higher base than the neighboring clouds, plus no rain shaft, I think, “YES!, this is the boomer I KNEW was
around here! Now it’s going to be easy!”. As with investing, right before things go bad, there is often overconfidence.
Let us now watch our hapless pilot moment by moment. This is the only inadvertent cloud flight with a GPS flight
recording of which I’m aware, so for the first time we have a numeric history along with the emotionally charged
recollection. All numeric data is “as is” from the SeeYou program.
3:33:50 PST 8 kt. CLIMB The edge of the cloud is coming overhead. This is good lift!
3:34:02 12 kt. CLIMB A few seconds later I hit the start of the strong lift and instinctively slow up.
3:34:50 17 kt. CLIMB The black cloudbase is coming up fast, better push over and head for the edge. I start perhaps
a 30 degree bank to the right.
3:35:32 28.6 kt. CLIMB “Oh, s**t, THIS is the core!” Faster than I can comprehend, I’m in the cloud. Unaware, I almost
immediately relax the controls which allowed a LEFT turn. I mistakenly believe I have the controls neutral in hopes of
coming out the side of the cloud. But….in a few seconds I realize I’m not coming out the side; it’s still dark grey and
worse, the wind noise along with the G force is building from the spiral dive. I know that if I pull back on the stick it will
only tighten the radius of the dive and the G forces. The little voice of JJ’s whispers in my ear “You’re going to die”.
3:36:02 9 kt. CLIMB Trying to ignore a fast rising panic, I recall a SOARING article describing a spiral dive recovery.
When in a spiral dive, do not pull back on the stick. Rather, neutralize the stick in pitch, then push to one side and see
if the G force lessens. If it does, then you guessed correctly and are leveling the wings. I push to the right and feel
reduced G. I then pulled back to slow the ship down.
3:36:38 15 kt. CLIMB The wind noise rapidly drops off to a moment of silence. Quick!, throw out the landing flaps, dive
brakes and gear to (hopefully) give me enough drag to get out the bottom of the cloud. I momentarily consider a spin,
but having never tried one in the 26E (intentional spins are not permitted), I pass. Unbeknownst to me, I’m pitched up
at 80° vertical. Without a horizon reference I had let the nose come up almost to the vertical. Suddenly, I’m falling
backwards, which only heightens the panic. “OK, I know, I shouldn’t be here in the first place, pulezzzzzeee can I
leave now?!!!!”. A loud “CLUNK” aft further spooks me, then a sudden negative G force pushes me towards the
canopy. “What the…..?!”
Now remember, I have no outside reference as it’s all dark grey. The clunk was the rudder shoved to one side during
the momentary tailslide, and the negative G force was from the sudden pitching over from nose high to nose down. An
already terrifying experience becomes worse.
14
3:36:44 6 kt. CLIMB The second spiral dive starts but at least all drag devices are deployed.
3:37:44 9 kt. DESCENT Airspeed is 110 knots and increasing. The landing flaps are red lined at 76 knots so I’m now
a test pilot. Seconds seem like hours. Reviewing the trace shows I only lost 360 feet in the past minute! Add to this an
irrational claustrophobic feeling that I need to unbuckle and get out of the cockpit.
3:38:08 38.9 kt. DESCENT
It’s getting lighter…I’m coming out the bottom! Now drop a bit more to make sure………
15
3:38:14 36 kt. DESCENT
Ok, gently pull out…….
3:38:38 5 kt. DESCENT
Back to level flight. thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! The feeling of relief is overwhelming.
The 2.5 minutes in cloud seemed like an entire day.
At that one moment, I am the luckiest guy on earth. Almost four hours of soaring lie ahead to get back to Tonopah, but
that does not matter. I cannot believe I’m alive and intact. Later inspections showed no damage to the flaps. Had the
flaps failed I likely would not be here.
Since Then
Now you have the story, but why did it go this way?
-Poor situational awareness. I can clearly recall how distinctly higher and darker the cloudbase was compared to
surrounding clouds. Did that worry me? Of course not! Like the moth to the flame, it only served to push me closer.
Hey, and I knew that lift rates can be 15 knots or more near cloud base but I had not seen that kind of climb all day.
So when the vario passed through 12 knots, I stuck with it not seriously considering that it could DOUBLE in a few
seconds. I was complacent. The unusually fast RATE of increase should have alarmed me a few seconds earlier than
it did. Gavin Wills comments further:
“Climbing at 10 knots beneath the cloud, it will take 60 secs to gain the last 1000 feet to cloud base and climbing at 20
knots it will only 30 secs which will be a little more than a single turn to do 1000 feet! Therefore be cautious and if the
lift increases towards cloud base consider action 1000 feet below cloud and carry it out by 500 feet. Action well below
cloud is essential in strong lift as one does not always have a sense of rushing up to the cloud.”
Keep your eyes out of the cockpit. Situational awareness means actively looking for and analyzing details such as the
speed & direction of the cloud shadows, the vertical rate of cloudbase tendrils, other aircraft location, or the growth
rate & state of the overdevelopment. What is the situation ahead? What is the situation behind in case I have to
retreat? What is the safety margin I need at this moment? In one minute? How do I keep it? In a “Sudden Loss of
Margin”, you think you have enough speed/altitude/clearance until *poof*….it’s gone in a few seconds. And, if you
survive, you’ll look back and say, ”Well, I’ve done this for years and that’s never happened before! How rude!”
-Remain calm, be fair to yourself and keep thinking. Poor situational awareness got me into this, but luck and recalling
the article improved my chances. An extreme emotional state will bias your judgment. During the flight, don’t beat
yourself up over a slow speed and don’t get too confident when you hit super lift.
What about Next Time?
First, ...

read more »

Excellent stories with counter measures and morals Sean. Thank you.

As so many before me have already said in one form or another: "It's
extremely unlikely to be sucked into a cloud if you maintain legal
separation." Likewise, if you cheat you'll know you did it and will feel
crappy about it forever - that is if you're an honest person to start with.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:24861166.122.1329338510874.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd8...
John,

I will be the first to admit that you are an extremely smart guy. I would
not raise my hand to go up against you in Jeopardy any time soon. I
greatly enjoy reading your outstanding soaring articles and have tremendous
respect for your many insights within our sport.

I 100% agree that the honor system is the right way to proceed forward.
Essentially that has been the case even with this rule historically in place
and the recent reminder to the contest pilot community from the SSA Rules
Committee. I believe that it would be much easier (and safer) for everyone,
at this point, to simply allow everyone to install or keep any existing AH
or T&B enabled instrument they currently fly (about 15 people I know flew
with AH or T&B in various regional contests last year and were entirely
unaware of the specifics of this rule). Let the honor system work.

I believe the vast majority of our soaring colleagues are extremely honest,
would never willingly cheat for any reason and are primarily concerned with
safe flight for themselves and their fellow pilots. As of right now we have
butterfly (vario) removing their AH capability for the SSA rules committee,
but 4-5 other instruments from various manufacturers (LK8000, XC Soar,
Iphone, Andriod, LX8000, LX 9000, etc, etc) are going to need the same
oversight. Its going to go on and on and on.

I think I have already proven that this rule is entirely unenforced,
unenforceable and noneffective in general. Technology is going to move
faster than our rules committee can follow. This is what is happening now
and why there is so much debate today. If you really think about it (by
definition of the current rule) almost every SSA competition pilot cheated
for the past 2-3 years by having their GPS and accelerometer/gyro equipped
iPhone or Android phone on board
(http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhon...ardown/3156/1).

If somebody really wants to cheat and cloud fly this season it could be done
with more and more ease each season as new and improved electronics are
released. It would not be hard to do now if someone really wanted to do it.
The manufactures own customers are asking for the AH capability for safety
reasons (very efficient and slick to integrate into the multi function
displays of modern instruments) and the manufacturers want to deliver this
value. The current AH/T&B ban rule creates are real conflict with
innovation. To spend all this effort disarming all and any upcoming
instrument is going to be extremely difficult for pilots and committee
members (all to prevent one yahoo from cheating whom the rule wont stop from
doing so as it is currently enforced and written). It could also invite
some extremely ugly protests, etc.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

On Feb 15, 4:48*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
1) QT, Dave, and a few others: *Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
start rules were put in place. *I *know* when they were put in place.
I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. *The 2-minute-
below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
below the day's cloudbase. *It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
cloudbase.

2) Tom, UH, and John: *If we're going to talk about the honor system
and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?

Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:

The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
*possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
purposes). * *But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. *The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. *If they want to be contest-
legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).

-----
QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
cell phones?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
what people here have said). *They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. *Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. *This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. *This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. *XCSoar
and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
last 3 years. *It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! *If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. *The ironclad AH rules cut off all
current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
easier. *Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
for 2+ weeks.

We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
(witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... *Yet
here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!

-----
QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
expensive to participate in contests?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
then you imply that we won't enforce them.

-----
QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
hell have them in the first place? *If people know they're not going
to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
-----

...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
up with a better rule!

-----
QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
and then just walk out with the trophy?
-----

...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
smarter!

Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
takeoff. *And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?

In Summary: *I just don't understand. *I simply don't. *Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. *Yes, its a danger. *Yes, it should be
prevented. *But you're telling me that the best solution is an
outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
enforced? *And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
time to fly?

There has to be a better way.

--Noel
(who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
software on a PDA)


Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
definition of "Sportsmanship".

The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
during a SSA contest.

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.

The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.

Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.

Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.

Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
much thought to these topics.

Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.

Thomas Kelley #711.

On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:48*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:









1) QT, Dave, and a few others: *Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
start rules were put in place. *I *know* when they were put in place.
I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. *The 2-minute-
below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
below the day's cloudbase. *It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
cloudbase.

2) Tom, UH, and John: *If we're going to talk about the honor system
and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?

Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:

The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
*possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
purposes). * *But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. *The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. *If they want to be contest-
legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).

-----
QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
cell phones?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
what people here have said). *They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. *Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. *This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. *This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. *XCSoar
and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
last 3 years. *It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! *If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. *The ironclad AH rules cut off all
current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
easier. *Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
for 2+ weeks.

We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
(witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... *Yet
here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!

-----
QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
expensive to participate in contests?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
then you imply that we won't enforce them.

-----
QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
hell have them in the first place? *If people know they're not going
to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
-----

...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
up with a better rule!

-----
QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
and then just walk out with the trophy?
-----

...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
smarter!

Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
takeoff. *And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?

In Summary: *I just don't understand. *I simply don't. *Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. *Yes, its a danger. *Yes, it should be
prevented. *But you're telling me that the best solution is an
outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
enforced? *And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
time to fly?

There has to be a better way.

--Noel
(who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
software on a PDA)

Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
definition of "Sportsmanship".

The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
during a SSA contest.

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.

The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.

Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.

Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.

Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
much thought to these topics.

Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.

Thomas Kelley #711.

What are you going to do once the only phones available are smart
phones?
If I have to leave my current phone behind to go to a contest I am
done with contests.

While I have no strong opinion on AH in a cockpit please keep your
hands away from my phone!

On Feb 15, 10:17*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:









On Feb 15, 4:48*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

1) QT, Dave, and a few others: *Sorry, I guess I was being too clever
and my comment was misinterpreted. I wasn't questioning when the new
start rules were put in place. *I *know* when they were put in place.
I was driving at the fact that the newer start rules themselves stop
people from cloud-flying before going through the gate. *The 2-minute-
below-start-cylinder-height rule effectively removes any incentive to
cloud-fly, as long as the start cylinder height is set 500' (or more)
below the day's cloudbase. *It doesn't have to be some onerously-low
start height; anything reasonable will do as long as its below
cloudbase.

2) Tom, UH, and John: *If we're going to talk about the honor system
and sportsmanship and stuff (all things I support and concur with you
on), then WHY are we so adamantly in-favor of this rule, and having it
so detrimentally iron-clad-no-matter-the-unintended-consequences?

Let me try to state the issue clearly one more time:

The rules right now have ZERO exceptions for any device that could
*possibly* be used for an AH (whether or not it is used for such
purposes). * *But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. *The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. *If they want to be contest-
legal, they must buy a different cell phone (or fly without a cell
phone and risk landing out with no good way to contact their crew).

-----
QUESTION 1: Is it really our intention to stop people from flying with
cell phones?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Similarly, the rules -AS WRITTEN- don't say that if the device its OK
to have something in the cockpit if its is a "bad AH" (regardless of
what people here have said). *They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. *Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. *This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. *This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. *XCSoar
and LK8000 have helped me to win contest days and consistently finish
in a high position at Regional contests around the western US over the
last 3 years. *It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! *If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. *The ironclad AH rules cut off all
current and future contest pilots who fly on a budget using free
software and readily-available hardware that makes XC flying safer and
easier. *Since the AH is driven by software, there's no way to
physically disable these features and guarantee they stay turned off
for 2+ weeks.

We've got UH and others working hard to increase participation
(witness the positive discussions about the Standard Class)... *Yet
here we are, putting up big barriers to participation!

-----
QUESTION 2: Is it really our intent to make it harder and more
expensive to participate in contests?
-----

...If not, perhaps we should come up with a better rule!

Some of you are adamantly stating that we must have these rules, but
then you imply that we won't enforce them.

-----
QUESTION 3 (and 4): If we're not going to enforce the rules, why the
hell have them in the first place? *If people know they're not going
to be enforced, what's it going to do to stop them?
-----

...If the rules don't actually have an effect, perhaps we should come
up with a better rule!

-----
QUESTION 5: If someone is hell-bent on winning, why not protest
everyone in the contest who has a modern cell-phone in their cockpit,
and then just walk out with the trophy?
-----

...That's a hell of a lot easier than cloud-flying, and a whole lot
smarter!

Finally, if someone is insane and wants to cloud-fly, there are any
number of MEMS-gyro-equipped PDAs, PNAs, tablets (or the afore-
mentioned smartphones) that they can hide in the cockpit until after
takeoff. *And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?

In Summary: *I just don't understand. *I simply don't. *Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. *Yes, its a danger. *Yes, it should be
prevented. *But you're telling me that the best solution is an
outdated rule that does more harm than good and can't really be
enforced? *And that we'll all just look the other way when it comes
time to fly?

There has to be a better way.

--Noel
(who may not be able to fly contests in 2012 because he uses free
software on a PDA)

Enforcement of the rule comes from Sportmanship. Its us, its that
simple. We act alone on this issue but stand together in the
definition of "Sportsmanship".

The cell phone issue is simple, Wal Mart, a $20 cell answers this
issue. Many do this as we also have Androids but don't carry them
during a SSA contest.

Going IMC, meaning into a cloud, flight below VFR minimums, IS
AVOIDABLE. Enough said their.

The rules do have an effect, as it is now expected of all entrants to
display Sportmanship while racing in SSA contests.

Noel, like no PDA to fly with?? No cell or Spot?? Just good old
charts, a wiz wheel and knowing the task area? Like real airmanship
and looking outside? Dang, bring it on, lets race, you made my day.

Yes, enforcement can happen and will. As during the 18 Meter Nationals
several years back. Several were carrying Android phones or
BlackBerrys. I, yes, I, stood up during the pilots meeting and spoke
of Sportmanship. After my brief talk, a senior old rules commititte
guy spoke. He made it very clear. Unsportsmanlike conduct can be as
sever as a ban from SSA contests for up to 5 years. Carrying these
devices can be considered unsportmanslike conduct. After the meeting,
those 2 folks went and got new cells to carry with them, from Wal
Mart. Ahhhhhh............they never once complained.

Again, we stand as one, meaning we are each responcible for our
actions, but together we bring under the definition of "Sportmanship"
a sport inwhich we race in. We also know that our peers have given
much thought to these topics.

Its been posted way before this on the "how to's" of rule changes. As
at shopping in Sears, its the "best" way.

Thomas Kelley #711.

What are you going to do once the only phones available are smart
phones?
If I have to leave my current phone behind to go to a contest I am
done with contests.

While I have no strong opinion on AH in a cockpit please keep your
hands away from my phone!

Tom does have a point. Buy a cheap phone, put it on your existing
service. Charge it, test it, turn it off, put it in the glider and
leave it there. I'd do that.

Looks like you can still get them. Perhaps $30 on Amazon. Big
deal... not.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On 2/15/2012 2:33 PM, RAS56 wrote:
It blows my mind that an attitude exists in competition soaring that
because a small minority of competition pilots will cheat, the other 99%
will have to carry the burden of their lack of integrity by disabling an
obvious safety feature.

We've had this rule for at least 35 years, and this is the first time I
can remember a discussion over it. Really, in USA contests, it is NOT
"an obvious safety feature". Obviously, some people wish to have it, and
people with a lot of power time seem feel naked without it, but it would
not have prevented a single fatality in the 35+ years I've been in the
sport.

We seem to be down to "I want it because I want it", not because there
are any cases to point to where it would have helped. That's not
inherently a bad reason, so maybe we should talk about how to allow the
"emergency" use of all these devices, while still discouraging it by
some inspection and by culture.

Walmart phones with prepaid service hours - about $25 when I bought one
last year. That's a throwaway price compared to contest costs and
sailplane expenses; of course, you could save it for the next contest.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 2/15/2012 3:30 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.

Everybody knows this can happen and has happened, but not in USA
contests. Contests are the issue here.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 2/15/2012 2:19 PM, Alan wrote:
As an alternative, hopefully pilots will refuse to particiapte in
activities that prohibit devices that enhance safety.

If you consider flying in a contest without an AH or similar too
dangerous, you should not be considering contests at all. Having a AH in
your panel will decrease the dangers from contest flying by an
immeasurable amount.

I am serious about this: getting sucked into a cloud is not what will
kill you in a contest, and if you believe it is a real risk, you
_really_ need to learn a lot more about contests.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 2/15/2012 3:34 PM, Sean Fidler wrote:
True. But what of iPhones, Andriod phones. They have the same electronic gyro sensors as the Butterfly?

Many of us do not see what message you are responding to, because of the
specific way we read RAS. It would be very helpful if you included the
name of the person and at least a partial quote in your reply, as I have
here. That's usually very easy to do, regardless of the newsreader or
web ready you are using.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz