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
  #201  
Old February 17th 12, 03:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Papa3[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 753
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:17:31 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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.)


Hank, John Squared, et. al.,

You guys already know how much I appreciate your service and dedication, so I'll move right along...

Look at rule 6.6.3.3. Now let's think about it. We CAN carry a "wireless telephone", but we are on the honor system not to use it in flight. Frankly, it's a completely unenforcable rule, right? I could easily use it to cheat. I could call my crew and ask them to bring up the latest hi-res satellite loop on the laptop. "It looks like it's ODing toward the second turn -how's it look to you?" Heck, I could call my friend 2,000 miles away if he or she is sitting at a computer. Obviously, it's less convenient than doing it right in the cockpit using my smartphone. But, it's somewhere on the cheating continuum. Of course, I could do that on the "company frequency" using my good old VHF radio, running a slight risk that someone might be snooping on that frequency. Don't tell me it's never been done. So, following the logic of banning instruments with the potential to give an unfair advantage to someone willing to cheat...

I for one am certainly NOT arguing for cloud flying, nor am I buying the argument that having these instruments enhances safety. I am in the camp that says technology is moving faster than the rules can keep up (Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns). I have more computing, communications, and sensing power in my Android phone than the Space Shuttle had when it first came out for less than the cost of a NASA toilet paper holder. We can't even imagine what's going to be possible in just a couple of years.

I think it's time to get back to communicating the broad principles and get out of the business of trying to police cockpit technology. Yes, a few unscrupulous sorts will try to take advantage. A few may even succeed. Those few will have to live with the knowlege that they violated the trust of fellow pilots. That should be punishment enough.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann

  #202  
Old February 17th 12, 04:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default New Butterfly Vario

On 2/16/2012 9:55 AM, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

I respect your concerns. I really, really do.


I'm still trying to understand why this is such an important safety
issue to you. So far, your concern seems to be based entirely on the
possibility of it happening, as you haven't shown how it would have made
contests safer in the past. It doesn't seem like it's something we need
to speculate about, with a rule that's been in force for 40 years or so.
There should be plenty of incidents to talk about if the danger is as
high as you claim.

Please humor me on these questions:

Have you ever been sucked into a cloud during a contest, or do you know
someone that has?

Was there an incident that occurred outside of contest that made you
think getting near clouds was so dangerous, you'd rather sit on the
ground than fly without an AH?

Why do you think no one teaches students about using an AH, and why the
FAA doesn't require it to get a license?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
  #203  
Old February 17th 12, 05:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike I Green
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default New Butterfly Vario

On 2/16/2012 6:51 PM, wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:07 pm, wrote:
I have a (err...only partially facetious) solution:

A new class at contests "Open IFR".

Coordinate with ATC, get them to grant you a piece of airspace with an
altitude block. Keeps the IFR/VFR traffic away. Hopefully, it will be
sparsely populated enough under the airspace to permit a light shower of
carbon fiber or fiberglass to occur without much complaint from the
populace residing there.

Let all the yahoo's who desire to cloud-fly have at it. Heck, you could
count on the "Big Sky" theory and even make FLARM optional for these
folks. Darwinism should make the problem smaller and smaller each
year...until extinction occurs.

Seriously, this debate simply reminds me of the old saw about closing
the gate after the cow has left the barn.

The technology is already here and not going away. It will be installed
in more and more hardware, not less. Going to Luddite phones and dumbing
down our panels will not stop the technological advance. The rules are
not enforced and are unenforceable, a situation which I understand, when
it occurs, promotes a public attitude of ignoring other rules and laws
as well. Anyone ever lived in an area where few traffic laws are
enforced? I rest my case.

To me, Andy Gough's post is spot on and exactly how this type of
behavior should be handled. "By their behavior, ye shall know
them"...and when you do "know them", you hammer 'em...DQ their day, kick
'em outta the contest, banning them from competition completely...throw
the stinkin' book at 'em.

If you think the uproar about this is big on the internet now....wait
till you get guys pulling a trailer a 1000 miles to compete and then get
told their results are invalid because of the cell phone they forgot to
leave on the ground, the PDA software version they didn't know they
weren't allowed to fly with or that their vario was a no-no.

I can't wait for the debate to begin when we get cockpit mounted
low-draw FLIR systems that can thermal-detect from 5 miles off
integrated into our FLARMs, varios, PDA's and PNA's. Somehow, I get the
feeling it will be a "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" of this topic with the
rules-makers trying to capture or contain the technology rather than
direct it's integration into soaring in a safe and positive way.

--
RAS56


If you were to look back 10 years or so, you would find that the RC
anticipated much of what has occurred and wrote the rules previously
shown to make it clear that these elements were not going to be
permitted. In fact the door was closed and the cow was outside. Then
along came some young bulls and tried to knock the door down. In
truth, I suspect that most of these folks honestly had no idea they
were outside the rules. They simply did not become aware of them.
As far as the debate about thermal finders- Read the rules. We have
made it quite clear that we will not permit them. This is, in part so
someone who bothers to read the rules and see how they might affect
the potential market, will see the barrier before they invest.
What are we going to do about phones? The RC is discussing this. We
understand pilots don't want to give up their phones.
That said, we will have to come up with a way to deal with this that
we all can live with. That includes the scorers who right now rely on
our no cloud flying rule so they have no task involving this. We can't
ask them to become cloud flying monitors. We have to ensure another
way that this is not happening.
But make no mistake- the RC can not outright permit the use of AH
equipment. As I said in an earlier message, the first midair resulting
or appearing to result from our allowing these devices would raise the
obvious question "why did you abandon a safety rule
that was in place for more than 40 years with no history of negative
consequences?".
All this said, we will continue to work this out and we are listening.
The fact that we do not accept the positions of some well meaning and
strongly believing people does not mean that we have not listened or
that they have not been heard.
The vast majority of pilots don't have equipment that would truely
infriinge on the intent of the rule. In my PERSONAL view, the presence
of a "modern" phone does not imply intent to cheat.
Be patient and we'll work this out. In the meantime understand that
the rules are set for 2012 so do what you can guys to avoid the
problem.
Hint- no AH displays on the panel. Phone off and in the pocket.
FWIW that is exactly what the pliots at the WGC in Uvalde are expected
to do.
UH

Thank you Uncle hank.
I'm glad I am not in your shoes.
Respectfully,

MG

--
Mike I Green
  #204  
Old February 17th 12, 03:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

dan,

i believe that you are wrong. this in no way makes you a bad person for being wrong. i think your starting to get it now. this rule is simply not going to survive as it stands. its just bad (the cell phone thing too).

grammer (capitalization, etc) is rarely a concern for me from a cell phone as I travel throughout the day. i really dont care about editing this stuff. if you dont like it, dont read it. i type once and move on. get over it. is that all you have now? lol! but i guess you are trying to call me dumb in your own little way there, huh dan? ok. fine.

dan, this is not a personal thing with anyone (at least with me). it is a very healthy argument and is worthwhile. just because you dont like it i should take your example (which i highly doubt) and stop? it has meaning to many and there are alot of people who share my opinion. it is really about a principle we apparently do not share. safety focus or pure competition? trust pilots or dont. go with technology smoothly or fight it tooth and nail as old foggy's have with every new advancement in this sport and others for years (gps, vario's, smartphones, etc)

i vote safety in favor of honest sportsman. let people use AH if they choose, its more of a pain in the ass to remove them now then not allowing them.. they are everywhere. i vote to let new technology such as smart phones in (as literally everyone has them right now as I type) rather than making everyone instead go to walmart and screw around buying some other useless cheapy phone for the contest. come on guys! seriously? this clearly is really going to irritate alot of people as you can already see. its so dumb its literally sad. the rules committee has been focused on safety recently in certain areas but it needs to refresh a few more rules in order to be consistent. these two rules (no ah and no smart phone) clearly stand out as not focused on safety. not to mention they are dumb rules based on today's reality.

do you really think that a pilot with a smartphone is going to be flying in the clouds and disseminating weather information well enough to win contests? is this the same protest the slow movers in soaring had to electronic vario's in the 70's and GPS in the 90's? i praise tom k for standing up and calling out the rule in the past but that does not make the rule right. and i did not hear a peep from anyone in the 3 contests i flew last season. why...because its a dumb rule and only a couple people care about it.

lets not be dumb anymore everyone. lets be smart and change these silly rules and move on. ;-)

Sean
F2
  #205  
Old February 17th 12, 03:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

Have you ever been sucked into a cloud during a contest, or do you know
someone that has?
NOT I BUT YES I KNOW SEVERAL OTHERS WHO HAVE. I ALSO KNOW ALOT OF PRIVATE POWER PILOTS WHO HAVE MADE THE SAME ERROR. IN GLIDERS, KEMPTON, AND 3 OTHERS I WILL NOT NAME. ONE LITERALLY THOUGHT HE WAS WITHOUT WINGS FOR SEVERAL MOMENTS AND TOO HIS SURPRISE THEY WERE STILL THERE (SOUNDS LIKE FUN TO ME).. I AM NEW TO THE HIGH LEVELS OF THIS SPORT BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MORE WHO HAVE MADE THIS ERROR. I DONT BELIEVE EVERYONE IS LIKE KEMPTON AND WRITES ARTICLES ABOUT IT. I BELIEVE THE AH WOULD HELP FAR MORE THAN WOULD EVER CONSIDER CHEATING BY THIS MEANS.

Was there an incident that occurred outside of contest that made you
think getting near clouds was so dangerous, you'd rather sit on the
ground than fly without an AH?
I AM AN INSTRUMENT RATED PILOT, I GET IT. I FEEL THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS A SAFETY MEASURE AND NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT THE CHANCE IT IS RIDICULOUS TO START HAVING PEOPLE DEBILITATING INSTRUMENTS TO REMOVE THE TECHNOLOGY AS IT CAN BE A LIFE SAVER TO A PILOT WHO MIGHT NEED IT. SIMPLE FACT.

I WILL FLY WITHIN THE RULES, ULTIMATELY. I AM NO WAY AM CONSIDERING NOT FLYING. END EVEN THOUGH SOME PERHAPS DISLIKE ME KNOW FOR ARGUING THIS TOPIC, I THINK ITS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO STAY WITH.

Why do you think no one teaches students about using an AH, and why the
FAA doesn't require it to get a license?
DONT CARE AND BECAUSE WE ARE LAZY IN GENERAL AS AN INDUSTRY. I FEEL MOST CONTEST PILOTS ARE GOOD "HHOONNEESSTT" PILOTS EASILY CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING LEVEL FLIGHT WITH A GOOD AH OR T&B IF THEY HAPPENED TO GET PULLED IN, RATHER THAN PULLING THERE WINGS OFF IN A BENIGN SPIRAL OR UNCONTROLLED DECENT OR PARACHUTE JUMP.

Im starting to think that some think I am arguing so that I can personally cheat. I hope not. I just think that going against the tide of technology here is a waste of time. stop, and go with it.

Why do you, eric, think it is bad to allow AH for everyone and smartphones? Just go with it? Would that be bad? Why?
- show quoted text -
  #206  
Old February 17th 12, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 17, 8:14*am, Sean Fidler wrote:
dan,

i believe that you are wrong. *this in no way makes you a bad person for being wrong. *i think your starting to get it now. *this rule is simply not going to survive as it stands. *its just bad (the cell phone thing too).

grammer (capitalization, etc) is rarely a concern for me from a cell phone as I travel throughout the day. *i really dont care about editing this stuff. *if you dont like it, dont read it. *i type once and move on. *get over it. *is that all you have now? *lol! *but i *guess you are trying to call me dumb in your own little way there, huh dan? *ok. *fine.

dan, this is not a personal thing with anyone (at least with me). *it is a very healthy argument and is worthwhile. *just because you dont like it i should take your example (which i highly doubt) and stop? *it has meaning to many and there are alot of people who share my opinion. *it is really about a principle we apparently do not share. *safety focus or pure competition? *trust pilots or dont. *go with technology smoothly or fight it tooth and nail as old foggy's have with every new advancement in this sport and others for years (gps, vario's, smartphones, etc)

i vote safety in favor of honest sportsman. *let people use AH if they choose, its more of a pain in the ass to remove them now then not allowing them. *they are everywhere. *i vote to let new technology such as smart phones in (as literally everyone has them right now as I type) rather than making everyone instead go to walmart and screw around buying some other useless cheapy phone for the contest. *come on guys! *seriously? *this clearly is really going to irritate alot of people as you can already see. *its so dumb its literally sad. *the rules committee has been focused on safety recently in certain areas but it needs to refresh a few more rules in order to be consistent. *these two rules (no ah and no smart phone) clearly stand out as not focused on safety. *not to mention they are dumb rules based on today's reality.

do you really think that a pilot with a smartphone is going to be flying in the clouds and disseminating weather information well enough to win contests? *is this the same protest the slow movers in soaring had to electronic vario's in the 70's and GPS in the 90's? *i praise tom k for standing up and calling out the rule in the past but that does not make the rule right. *and i did not hear a peep from anyone in the 3 contests i flew last season. *why...because its a dumb rule and only a couple people care about it.

lets not be dumb anymore everyone. *lets be smart and change these silly rules and move on. *;-)

Sean
F2


I propose a compromise: If you can suffer without your gyros for one
more season, I will put a question on the Fall pilot opinion poll. We
can ask pilots if they would like to remove the ban on carrying cloud-
flying instruments. While the poll is advisory, not a vote on the
rules, such a poll would give all of us a much clearer view of the
matter. Would pilots prefer the "safety" option of having a gyro
installed, or the reassurance that other pilots are not using their
"safety" instrument to win contests? Let's find out.

Then we could get off this topic for a season and go flying!

John Cochrane.
  #207  
Old February 17th 12, 03:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

Eric- i understand that in europe cloud flying training was part of the private glider pilot requirements. not sure if this is still the case today.

in general i think basic instrument skills should be a part of all pilot training, even sport & glider pilot. every pilot should have some basic understanding of how to maintain control of their aircraft if forced into imc. im not saying they will all live, but that doesn't mean they should not have some training.
  #208  
Old February 17th 12, 03:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

John,

as long as you change the poll to read: "carrying inadvertent imc safety instruments which many already have disabled according to current rules", and smart phones. ;-)

calling them cloud flying instruments is perhaps a little biased and really goes down the same old path which assumes everyone is a cheater at heart.

  #209  
Old February 17th 12, 05:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 17, 8:42*am, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

as long as you change the poll to read: "carrying inadvertent imc safety instruments which many already have disabled according to current rules", and smart phones. *;-)

calling them cloud flying instruments is perhaps a little biased and really goes down the same old path which assumes everyone is a cheater at heart..


I'll use the language of the rules, with a pro/con and also poll
satisfaction with the disabling protocol.
John Cochrane
  #210  
Old February 17th 12, 06:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default New Butterfly Vario

Fair enough.

At the end of the day this is all about having fun and being safe. If I am massively naive in the level by which people will push the rules in this matter, I apologize.

It is unfortunate that we cannot simply have all of these tools in the gliders and trust that our fellow pilots would fly legally, fairly and within the rules. But I do understand that this may not be the case and that their may not be a perfect solution here.

I enjoyed the discussion for the most part and look forward to seeing where this all goes. For the record, I was going to exchange my V7 for a butterfly, but have decided to keep the V7 which has no AH.

I think its better to let this play out before investing $3500 in a modern Vario. It would be too easy to be accused of foiling any safeguards in the Butterfly firmware. Im not sure that butterfly will be successful in removing all of the risk of cheating with their effort.

What of the LX Zues? What of all the others that come along, etc. Probably better to see where this rule goes. Probably better for the soaring instrument manufactures to rethink their product marketing, etc.

Sean
F2
 




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 05:38 AM.


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