A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Butterfly Vario



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old February 16th 12, 05:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default New Butterfly Vario

On 2/15/2012 7:43 PM, T8 wrote:
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.


Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are
available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be
adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a
SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work
some places, especially in the West.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
  #172  
Old February 16th 12, 05:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default New Butterfly Vario

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





1) QT, Dave, and a few others: Â*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. Â*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. Â*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. Â*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: Â*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). Â* Â*But a large number of smartphones have MEMS gyros in
them already. Â*The rules -AS WRITTEN- make it illegal for contest
pilots to fly with these smartphones. Â*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). Â*They say if it *could* be used, then its
forbidden... period. Â*Ergo, you cannot carry that equipment in the
cockpit. Â*This rules out a bunch of PDAs, PNAs, and other cheap/free
software. Â*This is the same software that allows new pilots - like me
- to get into contests and fly them on a reasonable budget. Â*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. Â*It was HUGELY beneficial not to have to buy a $3000
flight computer! Â*If I had been required to do so, I *never* would
have become a contest pilot. Â*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. Â*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)... Â*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? Â*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. Â*And if they're devious enough to do that, what is this rule
doing to stop them?


In Summary: Â*I just don't understand. Â*I simply don't. Â*Yes, cloud-
flying used to happen. Â*Yes, its a danger. Â*Yes, it should be
prevented. Â*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? Â*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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Tom - thanks for reminding all of our friends of the associated rules
shown immediately below which have also been in place for quite some
time. I guess I missed that meeting.
UH

6.6 Restricted Equipment

6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

• Is capable of measuring air motion or temperature at a distance
greater than one wingspan.

6.6.2 An external cleaning device is any device with moving parts
designed to clean the exterior of the sailplane during flight. In
certain

classes (Rule 6.12), the use of such devices is prohibited.

6.6.3 ‡ Carrying any two-way communication device is prohibited, with
the following exceptions, each of which must be a standard,

commercially available model that is not used to provide any in-flight
capabilities beyond those referenced below:

6.6.3.1 ‡ An aircraft-band VHF radio

6.6.3.2 ‡ An aircraft transponder

6.6.3.3 ‡ A wireless telephone (which is not to be used during flight)

6.6.3.4 ‡ A air-to-ground position reporting device

6.6.3.5 ‡ anti-collision device. Rule 6.6.3 does not forbid the use of
a standard GPS output data stream or GPS log produced by

the device.

6.6.4 Other than an aircraft-band VHF radio, any device that allows in-
flight access to weather data is prohibited.

6.6.5 Violations of any provisions of this Rule are considered
Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (Penalty described in Rule 12.2.5.3.)





  #173  
Old February 16th 12, 05:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

Tom C-

So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in case? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were screwed? Ever just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced one? A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men.

What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?

What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here new contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud....be damned! You careless *******! It’s your fault for making that mistake. Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost to safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat.

I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer ;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the standings.
Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe this should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair compromise? Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional? Please say no.

Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. Not sure if that would be a positive result. “Any pilot attending a regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. Yeah sure those cheap crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the country somewhere. But I digress.

Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you’re going to be able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if someone really wants to with today’s technology? Are we going to randomly ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball’s steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of the top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPhone. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb phone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best.

I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely killed. That would not be fun to watch.
  #174  
Old February 16th 12, 05:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

Eric responds, "We seem to be down to "I want it because I want it."

Eric, you have got to be kidding me. We want it because it can save someones life and the chance of someone cheating effectively (almost zero) is MEANINGLESS when compared to safety.

Wow, we are miles apart here Eric.
  #175  
Old February 16th 12, 05:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike I Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default New Butterfly Vario

On 2/15/2012 6:34 PM, Tom Kelley wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:48 pm, 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.


Tom, now I am really scared. I don't know what to do. I really enjoy
contest flying and have done a lot of it. I'm not going to win a Nat's,
but really enjoy ending up in the middle third.

I have a Blackberry 8830. I don't want an A/H. Got enough to do in the
cockpit. Never been sucked up in a cloud and never want to. I trust my
8830 for phone calls in the boonies and email in the boonies. If I have
to give it up for an untrusted, untested $20 phone without email, I
ain't going to fly any more contests.

Maybe my smart phone is a dumb phone. Couldn't find an A/H for it
anyway. If I can't put it in a pocket easily reachable, I won't be
flying either.

Who's going to be responsible for designating those cell phones that
have or could have A/H's?

I sure hope this is resolved by the end of March.
--
Mike I Green
MG - Mighty Gorilla
  #176  
Old February 16th 12, 06:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Marc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 15, 8:07*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Walmart offers over 20 phones online, from $10 to $30. Many are
available at the stores. Voice and text communication would seem to be
adequate for calling your crew if you landout in a contest - and get a
SPOT if you want to improve your chances. Even a smartphone won't work
some places, especially in the West.


Banning just smart phones would do very little:

http://tech.yostengineering.com/3-sp...mily/bluetooth
http://www.x-io.co.uk/node/9

These are just two examples of several such devices on the market. In
essence, to prevent use of devices like this, it woud be necessary to
ban all programmable Bluetooth-capable PDA, PNA, smart phone, and
tablet devices, or search the gliders and frisk the pilots on a daily
basis. I am 100% in favor of the cloud-flying ban in US contests, but
this technology is advancing faster than the RC will be able to keep
up with. Given that I flew (and occasionally won) in regionals for
several years using homebrew software running on various odd PDA-like
devices, I have reason to be concerned with the direction this
discussion seems to be heading. Deal with cloud-flying harshly as
unsportsmanlike behavior when detected, but don't pretend the problem
can be solved by banning entire categories of equipment...

Marc
  #177  
Old February 16th 12, 09:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom Claffey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default New Butterfly Vario

Sean,
The rules against artificial horizons have been around for years.
Although I believe we are an honest bunch it does not hurt to help things
stay that way, we weigh sailplanes at contests too!
I have 22000hrs, 3800 in sailplanes and I have only once inadvertently been
"sucked" into cloud [in South Africa at the top of a 15knot thermal] In
that case I pushed hard and came out of cloud - I then cruised at almost
VNE with the wheel down and airbrakes open for 60 kms!!]

I am sure the butterfly people can build a vario without the AH.

I reckon if the capability to cloud fly is there then some will try,
without training this is unsafe [let alone illegal]

I have cloud flown legally in the UK and NZ and do not believe it enhances
safety.

Tom

At 04:17 16 February 2012, Sean Fidler wrote:
Tom C-=20

So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? Please
a=
llow me a brief moment to probe this statement. How exactly would it be
ba=
d for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much
accidental=
ly flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in
c=
ase? Did you read this article? Have you ever had to perform a benign
spi=
ral because, essentially, you=92ve made a mistake and you were screwed?
Ev=
er just had to ride it out and hope? Have you ever practiced one? A

rule
=
leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to

chance,
=
at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be
fun=
, enjoyable and of honest men.

What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the
o=
pportunity to install a proper AH instrument? Please weigh that with the
r=
est of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may,
howe=
ver slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon
instrument=
if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not

have
=
to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?

What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands
at=
this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that
so=
meone is going to be able to cheat =93past=94 them that safety for any
fair=
pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. If you, (insert your name here
n=
ew contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a
cloud.=
...be damned! You careless *******! It=92s your fault for making that
mist=
ake. Tough taffy. But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if
someo=
ne really wanted to? Can all the instruments be policed? At what cost

to
=
safety? At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? All because a
f=
ew of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant
liv=
e with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat. =20

I won=92t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I
kno=
w) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last
su=
mmer ;-0! See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the
s=
tandings. =20
Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a
throw=
away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that

you
=
recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and
i=
ncreasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. Maybe
this=
should be for National contests only guys? Would that be a fair
compromis=
e? Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little
regiona=
l? Please say no.

Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide
e=
mail from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today

-
=
any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA,

most
=
Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. Then perhaps consider locking your
d=
oors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down

tight.
=
Not sure if that would be a positive result. =93Any pilot attending a
reg=
ional should go and get a throw away phone,=94 etc. Yeah sure those

cheap
=
crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in
the=
country somewhere. But I digress.

Think about this carefully. Do you really think that you=92re going to

be
=
able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if
some=
one really wants to with today=92s technology? Are we going to randomly
ra=
nsack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found
is=
a DSQ? Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a

smartphone
=
in his pocket? If yes, then what of the last 3 years? Like baseball=92s
s=
teroid investigations, should we hold investigations? Subpoena phone
recor=
ds to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of
th=
e top pilots? Confirm the device model of these calls? Or are we just
goi=
ng to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available?


=
Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an
iPh=
one. Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb
p=
hone, program in some numbers, etc. Seems paranoid to me at best.

I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC
fata=
l accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread
w=
hile suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. Absolutely
kil=
led. That would not be fun to watch.


  #178  
Old February 16th 12, 01:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 15, 11:17*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
Tom C-

So Flarm is good (I fully agree) and artificial horizons are bad? *Please allow me a brief moment to probe this statement. *How exactly would it be bad for an honest pilot (such as Kempton for example who very much accidentally flew into IMC) to have a quality artificial horizon instrument just in case? *Did you read this article? *Have you ever had to perform a benign spiral because, essentially, you’ve made a mistake and you were screwed? *Ever just had to ride it out and hope? *Have you ever practiced one? *A rule leaving the lives of honest pilots (many who may be newer, etc) to chance, at least to me, seems completely insane for a sport that is meant to be fun, enjoyable and of honest men.

What percentage of pilots do you, Tom C, feel would cheat if they had the opportunity to install a proper AH instrument? *Please weigh that with the rest of the honest, no cheater (your opinion of course) pilots who may, however slim the chance, benefit GREATLY from the artificial horizon instrument if they were allowed to include it as an everyday instrument and not have to turn it on, off, uninstall, install, etc for contests?

What is being demonstrated by those in support of the rule (as it stands at this moment) is that they are fierce competitors so deathly afraid that someone is going to be able to cheat “past” them that safety for any fair pilot is utterly outlawed to prevent it. *If you, (insert your name here new contest pilot) ever get caught making a mistake and flying into a cloud...be damned! *You careless *******! *It’s your fault for making that mistake. *Tough taffy. *But does this rule really prevent cloud flight if someone really wanted to? *Can all the instruments be policed? *At what cost to safety? *At what cost to contest attendance and enjoyment? *All because a few of you really competitive types (in control of the rules today) cant live with any chance that some crazy fool could cheat.

I won’t get into the fact that I (and a whole bunch of other pilots I know) have unknowingly been flying illegally with my Android phone all last summer ;-0! *See, nobody cares until you start getting close to them in the standings.
Tom K, I have to disagree that forcing pilots to go to Sears to get a throw away phone is smart, good or not irritating...but it comforts me that you recognized that under the current rules smartphones (65% market share and increasing about 10% per year) are illegal and pointed this out. *Maybe this should be for National contests only guys? *Would that be a fair compromise? *Should we really have this kind of rule in place for our little regional? *Please say no.

Whatever the result of your decision, I strongly suggest another SSA wide email from the rules committee specifically pointing out that as of today - any usage of an iPhone, Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone (or PDA, most Tablets, etc) are absolutely illegal. *Then perhaps consider locking your doors and hiding under your desks for a few weeks and hunkering down tight. *Not sure if that would be a positive result. *“Any pilot attending a regional should go and get a throw away phone,” etc. *Yeah sure those cheap crapola throw away phones are going to work in BFE when you land out in the country somewhere. *But I digress.

Think about this carefully. *Do you really think that you’re going to be able to prevent any pilot truly intent on cheating via cloud flying if someone really wants to with today’s technology? *Are we going to randomly ransack everyone's cockpits on the grid assuming that any contraband found is a DSQ? *Throw the new guy out of regional who is caught with a smartphone in his pocket? *If yes, then what of the last 3 years? *Like baseball’s steroid investigations, should we hold investigations? *Subpoena phone records to ensure that data and calls did not occur during contest flights of the top pilots? *Confirm the device model of these calls? *Or are we just going to let that slide and start now that the butterfly vario is available? * Nobody is going to cloud fly let alone manage any level flight with an iPhone. *Now we have to tell all the pilots at the regional to go buy a dumb phone, program in some numbers, etc. *Seems paranoid to me at best.

I really hope for all of our sakes that an inadvertent flight into IMC fatal accident never happens, because if the lawyers get ahold of this thread while suing us we are probably going to get killed in court. *Absolutely killed. * That would not be fun to watch.


Sean,

The real issue is not the cheating. The real issue is that the
behavior (cloud flying) has in the past resulted in IMC mid-airs. As
Eric pointed out there have been no AH-preventable fatalities in his
memory, but there have been mid-airs as the result of cloud flying.
It's a matter of basing the rules on known facts rather than
speculation about situations that have not caused one contest
accident.

It is a real concern that technology advances are making this rule
extremely hard to enforce, and human nature being what it is we will
unfortunately likely see a repeat of IMC mid-airs as a result.

QT
  #179  
Old February 16th 12, 02:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
T8
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 15, 9:34*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:

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


Thomas Kelley #711.


Yes, it is. Who doesn't get that?

Show of hands please. Then we can work on the real problem.

-Evan Ludeman / T8
  #180  
Old February 16th 12, 04:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tim Mara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default New Butterfly Vario

I have already made the below notes on all of my flight computer, data
logger pages to hopefully make competition pilots aware of the position the
US contest rules committee has made prohibiting the use of AHRS and other
blind flying instruments and devices
please see my page
http://wingsandwheels.com/lx_nav_lx8...ano_flight.htm
and other pages as well

"Instruments or devices equipped with any form or AHRS system (Artificial
Horizon) or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying" that cannot be
completely disabled or removed are not permitted in any
SSA sanctioned competition!"
More details are available on link above or may be found on Contest Rules
and Rules Committee Documents

regards
Tim Mara
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com



wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 4:15 pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi,

The LX8000 and LX9000 use an AHRS sensor box with built in g-meters,
etc.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-AHRS

Paul Remde

"Mike" wrote in message

...
On Feb 14, 12:08 am, Max Kellermann wrote:



Mike wrote:
XCSoar has an artificial horizon? I did not know that.


Yes:


http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xc...enderer/Horizo...


The code has been there for many years, but is disabled, the comment
says why. (Not my opinion/decision, I would not put artificial limits
on technology used by XCSoar)


This code will be reinstated when Johnny (and the rest of the
OpenVario project) finishes his new vario design, which includes a
real AHRS. The OpenVario project started long before Butterfly
announced their vario, but since it's a spare time project of a few
soaring geeks, it takes a bit longer.


Max

Is this also the source of the faux AH found in L8000?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Paul:
As in my warning about Butterfly, you and other vendors should ensure
that the pilots buying the devices from you that are represented to
have A/H functionality, know that these devices are not permitted
under current and future SSA competition rules.
Notwithstanding the disagreement by a vocal few, this policy is not
going to change any time soon.
It would be a big service to your customers to ensure that they are
informed and an even bigger service if you make a point of ensuring
that your suppliers know that there is a clarification of policy in
effect and a methodology for compliance.
There is adequate time before the majority of the contest season to
get this accomplished.
If there is a question about whether a product falls into this
catagory, the RC will work hard to give you a determination.
I guess Richard, Rex?,and Tim and I don't know who else would also be
well to heed this suggestion.
I don't think you want to be getting the angry call from your customer
on contest practice day that you sold him an instrument he can't use.
Thanks for you cooperation and service to the contest community.
UH
RC Chair

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6889 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6889 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Butterfly iGlide Reed von Gal Soaring 4 May 2nd 12 06:00 PM
WTB: 57mm Cambridge Vario/FS: 80mm Cambridge Vario ufmechanic Soaring 0 March 24th 09 06:31 PM
TE vario G.A. Seguin Soaring 8 June 8th 04 04:44 AM
WTB LD-200 Vario Romeo Delta Soaring 0 June 4th 04 03:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.