New Butterfly Vario

On Feb 16, 1:17*pm, T8 wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:04*pm, "S. Murry" wrote:
[snipped]

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan

That was worth reading. *Thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

ditto.

The last time I believe a thread got much over 100 was a few years ago
and it was titled "the future of soaring"
I think this thread follows along those same lines. I have been very
entertained and informed and feel quite pleased to be able to
participate with such a group of smart people.

Brad

I already did say "or Instruments that could be used for "Cloud Flying"
I'd hope that was clear enough that anyone would then go to the actual SRA
rules page.
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 8:52 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:

"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!"


Tim,

You may need to edit that note. Your note as written implies that
AHRS means Artifical Horizon and that's not accurate.

AHRS means Attitude and Heading Reference System. An AHRS is a much
more capable system than an AH since it provides (at a minimum) pitch
attitude, roll attitude and heading.

Wouldn't it be better to just quote the rule?

To go off on a tangent - I wonder how many CDs would recognize a Bohli
compass and know what to say about it.

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6890 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6890 (20120216) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Im 100% with Marc on this one. You only create division with this type of
Rule. I guess I have been in violation for the past 2 contests by carrying
my Droid. And frankly I don't think I would fly in contests if required to
buy another phone dedicated to contests. I really thought that the RC was
heading in the right direction and trying to make the rules simpler, but
alas-- this.

I appreciate all the work that they do and bless them for taking on the
responsibility but you can't write everything out and expect people to
come and enjoy contest flying. I thought the goal was simplify and to get
more people into contest flying. You are making it difficult for me to
convince the newbies to get involved.

And while we are at it lets bring up the instant change to insurance rules
which is going to prevent me from flying at least the first half of the
year as I am insured with Avemco. That change sure smacks of nepotism and a
monopoly.

Don't worry guys Ill still try and fly into the contest sites and visit,
but guess I won't be competing with you Ill just settle for OLC and fly
home for points

CH Ventus B



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

On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Cliff Hilty
wrote:
Im 100% with Marc on this one. You only create division with this type of
Rule. I guess I have been in violation for the past 2 contests by carrying
my Droid. And frankly I don't think I would fly in contests if required to
buy another phone dedicated to contests. I really thought that the RC was
heading in the right direction and trying to make the rules simpler, but
alas-- this.

I appreciate all the work that they do and bless them for taking on the
responsibility but *you can't write everything out and expect people to
come and enjoy contest flying. I thought the goal was *simplify and to get
more people into contest flying. You are making it difficult for me to
convince the newbies to get involved.

And while we are at it lets bring up the instant change to insurance rules
which is going to prevent me from flying at least the first half of the
year as I am insured with Avemco. That change sure smacks of nepotism and a
monopoly.

Don't worry guys Ill still try and fly into the contest sites and visit,
but guess I won't be competing with you Ill just settle for OLC and fly
home for points

CH Ventus B


Cliff,

I'm sure someone with official knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong,
but I'm pretty sure there has been no change to the insurance
requirements for contests. However it does seem that in the past
people have not understood the requirements or their coverage and it
hasn't been checked closely, resulting in some people flying contests
with less than the required coverage. This was not an "instant change
to insurance rules"

On Feb 16, 4:53*pm, Tony wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Cliff Hilty



wrote:
Im 100% with Marc on this one. You only create division with this type of
Rule. I guess I have been in violation for the past 2 contests by carrying
my Droid. And frankly I don't think I would fly in contests if required to
buy another phone dedicated to contests. I really thought that the RC was
heading in the right direction and trying to make the rules simpler, but
alas-- this.

I appreciate all the work that they do and bless them for taking on the
responsibility but *you can't write everything out and expect people to
come and enjoy contest flying. I thought the goal was *simplify and to get
more people into contest flying. You are making it difficult for me to
convince the newbies to get involved.

And while we are at it lets bring up the instant change to insurance rules
which is going to prevent me from flying at least the first half of the
year as I am insured with Avemco. That change sure smacks of nepotism and a
monopoly.

Don't worry guys Ill still try and fly into the contest sites and visit,
but guess I won't be competing with you Ill just settle for OLC and fly
home for points

CH Ventus B

Cliff,

I'm sure someone with official knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong,
but I'm pretty sure there has been no change to the insurance
requirements for contests. However it does seem that in the past
people have not understood the requirements or their coverage and it
hasn't been checked closely, resulting in some people flying contests
with less than the required coverage. This was not an "instant change
to insurance rules"

Cliff,

OK I take it back. "with no reduction in coverage for persons outside
the insured sailplane." is being added for 2012. I was under the
impression all the talk about insurance was a clarification of already
existing rules. Understand your frustration, I would be too if I was
not insured with Costello.

No, Sean, it's your thought process (and by the way, your grammar) that are
at fault. The point that you can't seem to understand is that there is a
chain of errors leading up to an accident. Break the chain and there's no
accident. I never said that the pilot in question intended to fly into the
cloud. I said that a series of bad decisions led him to that point.

Frankly, I don't care what instruments you have in your cockpit. Why can't
you simply accept that there's a rule in place and either abide by it,
attempt to change it by due process, or flaunt it (which you've already
stated that you will do).

Your hysteria is becoming tedious, so I'm going to bow out now. Flail away
at me; I won't respond to you on this thread again.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:13397322.587.1329413342124.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynii32...
Your thought process is the problem Dan. You are plain wrong about this.
Kempton did not intend to fly into the cloud. He looked at his panel a
second too long. Are you saying he is a schmuck? That he was cheating?
That he was trying to get an extra 200 feet for his OLC distance? That is
so ridiculous that I have a hard time restraining myself here...

The relevant facts are that this example (Kempton) is very much how contest
pilots fly (like it or not). This will happen again and again until one day
a pilot panics and dies. That is very poor decision making in my opinion.

1)People makes mistakes.
2)Pilots make mistakes.
3)Contest pilots make mistakes.
4)Gliders are dangerous enough.
5)People, pilots and contest pilots are honest sportsman in general.
6)If someone makes this mistake they might just die. It is a mistake that
we are concerned about. It does happen...read the article again.
7)We should allow any & all instruments which aid this situation WAY before
outlawing it because one idiot somewhere, someday might cheat. In fact,
cheating should not even be a consideration.
8)Safety should have ALL the weighting.
9)This rule in unenforced.
10)This rule is unenforceable.

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 elsewhere, 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.

Well said, Stefan!


"S. Murry" wrote in message
news OK, I've made a couple of smart-assed remarks on this thread. But clearly
it is not going to die (ever!) and I suppose at this point I might point
out my "real" opinion on this.

First off, I am an instrument-rated airplane pilot, glider CFI, and
(beginning) competition glider pilot. I have been a licensed glider pilot
for 26 years, and power pilot for 24 year. I only bring this up so that
everyone here will know where I am coming from when I ask the following
question:

Question: "Has anyone actually tried cloud-flying with their smartphone?"

The reason why I ask is my reading of the rule, which I quote below (from
another post, so I hope it is accurate):

"6.6.1 Each sailplane is prohibited from carrying any instrument which:

• Permits flight without reference to the ground.

"
does not seem to prohibit carrying a smartphone, as some have asserted in
this thread.

John C. posits that it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS
moving map. I disagree about this point. Or I suppose I can't argue with
the "theoretically" part, since the definition of "cloud flying" itself is
not 100% clear (I mean, if you shoot through a vapor tendril under a CU
are you "cloud flying"? Inertia is enough to cloud fly for a least a
couple of seconds...). But, as a practical matter (as opposed to
"theoretical") I disagree that your smart phone enables cloud flying.
Here is why.

I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

If you are in a less stable machine (like a glider), and trying to use one
of these devices to gain competitive advantage by thermalling (i.e.
turning) into a cloud, I would argue that these devices are useless. Yes,
you might live, but I know the story of a guy who jumped out of a B-17 in
WW-II without a parachute, fell 14,000 feet and lived. This does NOT mean
that flapping your arms when in freefall "permits flight without the use
of a parachute." You might get lucky, but most of the time jumping
without a parachute will be fatal.

Similarly, trying to use a smartphone to cloud fly is highly likely to
have a bad outcome.

The rule does not appear to prohibit any device that any person on RAS
believes might possibly be used to somehow "cloud fly." It prohibits
instruments that "permit flight without reference to the ground." My
smart phone does not do that and therefore if anyone challenges me in a
contest, I will maintain that this is not an instrument that permits
flight without reference to the ground and therefore is not prohibited by
the rules. If anyone disagrees with me, I'll ask them to go up and use my
phone to demonstrate "flight without reference to the ground" while
circling in a thermal (in their glider, of course, not mine because I'd
like mine to come back in one piece).

I do think that dedicated glider instruments that have greater
capabilities may exist, and probably are under development. Some of these
may actually "permit flight without reference to the ground." The rules
committee it seems to me has done a great job in clarifying how these
devices may be disabled such that they can be used (without the cloud
flying enabling features operating), or at least mentioning that the
possiblity of disabling certain features may allow one to use the
instrument sans cloud flying features in a contest. It seems to me that
this is eminently forward-looking and an attempt to accommodate these new
devices without making contest flying more dangerous by giving contestants
a little voice in the back of their head telling them that it's OK to gain
just another hundred feet in this booming thermal since I've got a "cloud
flying" instrument on board "just in case." All very sensible to me.

I just don't see that being alarmed about being called a "cheater" at a
contest because you have a smart phone with you is a realistic scenario.
I note also (and perhaps this is a suggestion for the rules committee),
that the rule bans any device that "permits flight without reference to
the ground." It does not ban anything that "permits flight without
reference to the horizon." Imagine a situation where you are in VMC above
a solid cloud layer. You can see the horizon (thus an AH is not needed),
but not the ground. In this case, a GPS or other navigation system is what
"permits flight without reference to the ground," since it enables you to
compensate for the normally visually-derived navigational information that
you lack due to your inability to see the ground. Thus, GPS devices
should be banned in contests, because they "permit flight without
reference to the ground." Clearly, a literal reading of this rule will
not have the intended effect. Thus, arguments that attempt to postulate
some imaginary scenario under which a contest pilot could innocently run
afoul of this rule and be penalized seem to me to be missing the point.
CDs and other competitors need to have some common sense, in conjunction
with the clarification provided recently by the rules committee, and I
think usually is enough to prevent the kind of dire outcomes that have
been mentioned in this thread.

Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan





On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:56:42 -0600, John Cochrane
wrote:


Yes, it is theoretically possible to cloud fly using a GPS moving map,
or your iphone, or watching a pendulum. It's also possible to sneak
off on to other frequencies and team fly, or use your iphone to look
at the visible satellite loop, or sneak in walkie talkies to team fly.
If you do that, you're nuts, and you know you're cheating. There's no
prize money or groupies. There's also no paid staff of CDs and
scrutineers. For the moment at least, all these options are so
unreliable that it's really not worth putting in the enforcement
costs. Enforcement is, we just don't do stuff like this.







--
Stefan Murry

On Feb 16, 1:04*pm, "S. Murry" wrote:
I have several hundred hours of actual instrument time in single engine
airplanes. *I've had vacuum failures in solid IMC (i.e real-world
partial-panel flying), and lots of instrument training on instrument
flying with all sorts of limited instrument situations (as have all rated
instruments pilots). *I also have a Garmin GPS 496, that features a
GPS-derived AH display. *I have taken up a safety pilot in a fairly stable
(compared to most sailplanes) airplane and attempted to see if I could fly
IMC using my Garmin 496 (which I note is a dedicated aviation instrument,
thus I believe a step or two ahead of smartphones in terms of refresh
rate, etc.). *My conclusion is that it is NOT possible to use this
instrument to "cloud fly." *It MIGHT be possible in a very stable plane if
already configured in wings-level attitude to stay that way using a GPS
derived AH, but probably even this would not be possible for a very long
time. *To me, the ability to maintain wings level for a short period falls
short of "permit[ting] flight without reference to the ground".

Thank you for this informative post. The above paragraph,
unfortunately, contains an incorrect assumption. The new
"smartphones" being discussed are capable of more than just a GPS-
derived AH display. They contain full 3-axis solid state gyroscope,
accelerometer, and magnetometer (3D compass) sensors. Given the huge
size of the phone market, a single integrated circuit containing all
of these sensors now costs under $10. They are there primarily for
game playing and "augmented reality" applications, allowing the
orientation of the phone in 3D space to be determined in a stable,
repeatable, and accurate fashion, to within fractions of degrees, with
update rates upwards of 100 Hz. Software already exists (typically $5
in the appropriate app store) for some of these phones to implement a
full inertially-based (not GPS-derived) artificial horizon. With
properly implemented software, the performance can easily exceed that
of the spinning mechanical device in your IFR panel. Competition has
resulted in all new high end phones (like iPhone 4S) and tablets (like
iPad 2) being produced with this full sensor suite. This will filter
down to lower end smart phones and smaller tablets over the next few
years.

Converging from another direction are devices built, using the same
low cost sensor chips, for use in hobbyist autonomous UAVs. There are
huge online communities of people developing open source software and
hardware to allow these things to fly in a stable and controlled
fashion. Given that there is no pilot directly controlling what are
in some cases highly unstable aircraft (helicopters, quad rotors, high
speed ducted fans, even jets), accurate high rate attitude
determination is a must. This is why we're suddenly seeing phones,
tablets, varios, flight computers, etc., with usable artificial
horizons. This capability will only become more ubiquitous as time
goes on...


Marc

On Feb 16, 7:07*pm, RAS56 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