Turn coordinator? How dare they!

On 2/21/2013 6:41 AM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Same hardware as LX NAV's AH:
http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm, but instead of needed a 5-10k
LX unit, your iPhone will work!
http://www.aviation.levil.com/AHRS.htm

How do we enforce the no cell phone rule again? Why do we have it
again?

You've now officially used up the "Attaboys" from the Delorme fee waiver.

That was quick!

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

If soaring is a sport of ladies and gentleman, why ask them to store the one reliable communication device out of reach while flying? Let's think about that for a moment from a safety and general intelligence prospective. What happens of the pilot is forced to bail out and has no cell phone on his person? What happens if the pilot crashes, is injured and cannot move? Perhaps he or she can use their cell phone? There Spot is all but useless, trust me. ;-) Why not allow gentlemen to be gentleman without the overbearing, unenforceable rules? The answer to this question is obvious. KISS.

Ask yourselves this question. Was the pilot in Mifflin last year who crashed in the tree's disqualified for having his cell phone in reach when he was handing in the tree and called his wife? Hmmm? Was he cheating? Why not? What we he have done if he could not have reached his cell phone? Hmm? You cannot imagine how amazed I was that nobody mentioned this. I held back but cannot any longer.

Today, (as far as I am aware) it is ILLEGAL to have a cell or smart phone in the glider in the US during a contest. In or out of reach. I'll pause for a minute. You are asked to instead go "buy a disposable at Walmart (with terrible brand X service and no stored numbers) in order to participate in a US SSA sanctioned sailplane contest." I'll pause again. With that fact now sunk in a bit, it is worth mentioning that absolutely nobody enforces these rules at contests? If that is the case, why have the rule again? Everyone has smart phones, why not simply allow them because LIKE IT OR NOT, EVERYONE IS FLYING WITH THEM ANYWAY AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS BECAUSE THE RULE IS ANNOYING AND USELESS!



On Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:52:21 PM UTC-5, Richard Walters wrote:
At 21:57 21 February 2013, Don Johnstone wrote:

At 22:21 20 February 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:

Oh yes, Mobile phones are absolutely cardinal sins to the

SSA and US

Rules

Team.



We are all assumed guilty until proven innocent here. The

installation

of

an AH is absolute admission of your intention to cheat.

It has no safety purpose other than to cloud fly and cheat

your opponents

of course.

Given that an iPhone is very small and easily concealed how

does the SSA

get round the 4th amendment. Are they exempt?







Dan and Sean,

In what was formerly a gentlemen and women's sport, we would

ask that cell phones be stored out of reach during flight. No

fourth amendment rights were harmed and a fair competition

could result.

Richard Walters

Regionals and Nationals CD

the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telephones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable.

And if they need the phone for an emergency? And what advantage do you think having a cell phone in your pocket (illegal according to the SSA) provides? So what if they have it on the panel running a nav software or displaying weather. Why should they be forced to by another device which by the way requires special software to disable its AH capability (that does not work in cloud). Stupid rules add up and = annoyance and aggravation. There is a cost to these pointless rules.

On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telephones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable.

And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons. makes no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other.

On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:12:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:

the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telephones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable.



And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons. makes no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other.

There is a big difference between a cell phone, in your pocket, of very questionable use in flight anyway, and a real, gyro-operated, trustworthy, artificial horizon staring you in the face from the instrument panel. They AH is very useful indeed for someone hearty enough to head up into a cu to get some altitude before heading through the big blue hole, or to get through the rain and storm that the rest of us go way around or even land out rather than penetrate.

It's a matter of social dynamics as well. Nobody else is going to be bothered by the thought of you having a cell phone in your pocket and you might want to waste some time in flight playing with it. The rule just clarifies "don't do it" so you know if you do that you're cheating.

If people show up with real artificial horizons a on/off switch from operation, it's pretty clear that everyone will assume it's being used illegally and think "I have to get one too." They can justify cheating on the idea "well, everyone else is doing it."

Spring cannot come soon enough.

John Cochrane

I know that we have some math whizes on RAS. Would it be possible to ferret out the cheaters by an automated statistical analysis of flight logs? To forestall rancor, gentle_pilots would agree beforehand to accept the arbitration of the AI.

At 17:22 22 February 2013, wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:12:20 AM UTC-6,
wrote=
:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
=20
the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless
telep=
hones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How
reasonable.
=20
=20
=20
And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons.
make=
s no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other.

There is a big difference between a cell phone, in your pocket, of very
que=
stionable use in flight anyway, and a real, gyro-operated, trustworthy,
art=
ificial horizon staring you in the face from the instrument panel. They
AH
=
is very useful indeed for someone hearty enough to head up into a cu to
get=
some altitude before heading through the big blue hole, or to get
through
=
the rain and storm that the rest of us go way around or even land out
rathe=
r than penetrate.
=20
It's a matter of social dynamics as well. Nobody else is going to be
bother=
ed by the thought of you having a cell phone in your pocket and you might
w=
ant to waste some time in flight playing with it. The rule just clarifies
"=
don't do it" so you know if you do that you're cheating.=20

If people show up with real artificial horizons a on/off switch from
operat=
ion, it's pretty clear that everyone will assume it's being used
illegally
=
and think "I have to get one too." They can justify cheating on the idea
"w=
ell, everyone else is doing it."=20

Spring cannot come soon enough.=20

John Cochrane

Firstly some facts. I can only speak for the iPhone but I suspect the same
applies to the software on any smart phone. The Artificial Horizon app is
pretty accurate over the 10 of 15 minutes that it is likely to be used to
carry out a climb (or descent) in cloud. (I know this because I have tested
it). Over time it does become un-reliable.
It is almost impossible to detect a iPhone if it is being carried on the
person and switched off so if a person gets into a glider with an iPhone it
will be impossible to detect without a search. In the USA you have the
forth amendment so conducting a personal search is unlawful and I suspect
that a competition rule requiring competitors to submit to a search would
fall foul of the first amendment. The conclusion is that any rule banning
the taking into the air of a smart phone is completely un-enforceable.
So you have a rule. Some people will comply with the rule, because they are
honest and playing the game is more important than winning. These people
would not use, or even fit, an artificial horizon in their aircraft,
because they know that IFR flight is illegal so such an instrument is
unecessary, so the rule is unecessary for them.
Some people will see that there is a great advantage to having a smart
phone with the app. They would not normally cheat but they will know that
there are some who will take advantage and do not feel that they should be
disadvantaged by a rule which they know cannot be enforced, and that others
will break, so they will consider using their smart phone.
Then there are the others who will use every means possible to win, they
will take a smart phone because they know it might give them the advantage
and that they cannot be caught.
I think you will see that having a rule which there is absolutely no
chance of being able to enforce is far worse than having no rule at all.
The solution is simple, forget about rules about carrying unlawful items
and deal with the real offence of flying IFR, while that may be difficult
to enforce it can be done. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
Thankfully in the UK we can still fly in cloud so we do not have the
problem, we do have a law banning unlawful searches and a wonderful
organisation called the European Court for Human rights, which is similar
to your first amendment with bells and whistles and which changes on a
regular basis. (They make it up as they go along). Probably best not to get
me started the lands the other side of the English Channel, especially that
one. :-)

For the record I am completely against cloud flying in contest or at all. It is illegal here in the US for very good reason. Pilots who do so are doing so COMPLETELY ILLEGALLY and should have their license revolked. My issue is that the "opportunity cost" of trying to "enforce" the cloud flying issue via addition US rules is punishing everyone by inconvienent ALL CONTEST PILOTS (fact). If people choose to cloud fly, eventually they will either get caught or pay the price for their irresponsibility. I think that approach is far cleaner than the great lengths it takes to try and regulate it. Basically, it is what we are relying on now anyway.

Furthermore, the LX instruments (8000, 8080, 9000) have the capability as does the butterfly vario. Many other instuments and systems provide thr capability ALONG WITH NUMEROUS OTHER MODERN FEATURES! Agreed these are fully reliable AH instruments which will allow said pilot a fighting chance at safe flight in cloud. But the reason I see these units demanded is not to cloud fly. It is the Butterfly and thenp LX units are amongst the very best soaring instruments available today. As is XC Soar for low cost soaring nav software. The ability to also have a quality AH as part of the feature set of these instruments is mainly considered a backup encase a chance encounter with cloud occurs.

As with sailing, eventually all cheaters are caught. Lets assume honesty and cut the needless hassle out of the equation for the rest of us. Cell and smart phones should be fine. Common soaring instruments (modern, etc) should be fine too. Let this silly crusade go. If someone is found to be cheating in a contest the punishment should be harsh. Why not make the penalty public and severe? They should be turned into the FAA and banned from the SSA. This is a better enforcement policy than I enforceable and inconvienent rules for everyone within the sport from pilots to USRC to manufactures of hardware and software (pure fact).

Sean

On Friday, February 22, 2013 1:12:16 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 17:22 22 February 2013, wrote: On Friday, February 22, 2013 11:12:20 AM UTC-6, wrote= : On Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05:01 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote: =20 the rules do take the 'gentlemanly' approach. they allow wireless telep= hones to be carried as long as they are not used in flight. How reasonable. =20 =20 =20 And yet that same approach is unacceptable for artificial horizons. make= s no sense to trust the gentlemen in one instance and not the other. There is a big difference between a cell phone, in your pocket, of very que= stionable use in flight anyway, and a real, gyro-operated, trustworthy, art= ificial horizon staring you in the face from the instrument panel. They AH = is very useful indeed for someone hearty enough to head up into a cu to get= some altitude before heading through the big blue hole, or to get through = the rain and storm that the rest of us go way around or even land out rathe= r than penetrate. =20 It's a matter of social dynamics as well. Nobody else is going to be bother= ed by the thought of you having a cell phone in your pocket and you might w= ant to waste some time in flight playing with it. The rule just clarifies "= don't do it" so you know if you do that you're cheating.=20 If people show up with real artificial horizons a on/off switch from operat= ion, it's pretty clear that everyone will assume it's being used illegally = and think "I have to get one too." They can justify cheating on the idea "w= ell, everyone else is doing it."=20 Spring cannot come soon enough.=20 John Cochrane Firstly some facts. I can only speak for the iPhone but I suspect the same applies to the software on any smart phone. The Artificial Horizon app is pretty accurate over the 10 of 15 minutes that it is likely to be used to carry out a climb (or descent) in cloud. (I know this because I have tested it). Over time it does become un-reliable. It is almost impossible to detect a iPhone if it is being carried on the person and switched off so if a person gets into a glider with an iPhone it will be impossible to detect without a search. In the USA you have the forth amendment so conducting a personal search is unlawful and I suspect that a competition rule requiring competitors to submit to a search would fall foul of the first amendment. The conclusion is that any rule banning the taking into the air of a smart phone is completely un-enforceable. So you have a rule. Some people will comply with the rule, because they are honest and playing the game is more important than winning. These people would not use, or even fit, an artificial horizon in their aircraft, because they know that IFR flight is illegal so such an instrument is unecessary, so the rule is unecessary for them. Some people will see that there is a great advantage to having a smart phone with the app. They would not normally cheat but they will know that there are some who will take advantage and do not feel that they should be disadvantaged by a rule which they know cannot be enforced, and that others will break, so they will consider using their smart phone. Then there are the others who will use every means possible to win, they will take a smart phone because they know it might give them the advantage and that they cannot be caught. I think you will see that having a rule which there is absolutely no chance of being able to enforce is far worse than having no rule at all. The solution is simple, forget about rules about carrying unlawful items and deal with the real offence of flying IFR, while that may be difficult to enforce it can be done. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. Thankfully in the UK we can still fly in cloud so we do not have the problem, we do have a law banning unlawful searches and a wonderful organisation called the European Court for Human rights, which is similar to your first amendment with bells and whistles and which changes on a regular basis. (They make it up as they go along). Probably best not to get me started the lands the other side of the English Channel, especially that one. :-)

i'm no constitutional scholar but i'm pretty sure the bill of rights are a contract between the people and the government, not between pilots and the SSA. Either way it is expected that pilots will carry their phones with them in flight and if it is suspected or reported that they are using them to gather in flight data during an SSA contest flight it will be between the pilot and the CD to determine the appropriate outcome.