Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

I didn't see any VFR into IMC flight The RC needs to lighten up IMO.

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

Please endure the music and watch this video...
What's wrong with the music?

I, personally, like AC/DC ina nostalgic way. I imagine the rules committee being more into classical. Perhaps the occasional jazz flute...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c_uf...e_gdata_player

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

Whats your point?

There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.

Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.

Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.

Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.

Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?

-Dave

Thanks Dave.

The points are intentionally subtle.

To put it into a less subtle form:

....It seems that many or perhaps MOST glide computer & instrument manufacturers (Butterfly, LX NAV, XC SOAR, LK 8000, etc) are indeed building AH capability into their products. Several notables on RAS recently went nuts stating "how dare instrument manufactures include this technology in their wares...etc" Several "organizations" were recently shaken down very directly with ultimatums to ensure new software versions are GUARANTEED not to have the capability to utilize the functionality in ANY WAY etc (or they would be put on a black list and deemed illegal for US contests). Meaning special software versions must be developed by these organizations which absolutely are incapable of utilizing AH functions (BOX OR NO BOX!).

LXNAV seems absolutely untouched in this area even though there product offers highly capably "pro grade" AH functionality complete with a hard mounted fixed gyro, etc. Trust but verify. Here is why...nobody is going to check thru the glider and ID the box. This is a cold hard fact.

So I ask the rules committee VERY DIRECTLY. Is LXNAV going to be required to develop a special US Contest Firmware version (time locked or permanent) which CANNOT utilize the AH box? Thus ENSURING that the AH functionality is unusable on the instrument? Just as ButterflyNAV and XC Soar (and LK 8000) have been forced to do in order to be allowed in US Contests in 2012? Are the LXNAV product owners going to be forced to install these new firmware versions which ensure the functionality is locked out during the entire contest in the same way ButterflyNAV has been asked to do? And in the same way XC Soar is being forced to do for literally no useful reason (its AH functionality is utterly useless).

If not...WHY NOT? Very peculiar. Borderline hypocrisy. Especially when the capability and potential of the new LX NAV AH is considered.

That is my point I guess. I would like to see consistency and all pilots and manufactures inconvenienced equally. ;-)

Sean
F2




On Sunday, April 1, 2012 7:47:31 PM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

Whats your point?

There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.

Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.

Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.

Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.

Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?

-Dave

Thanks Dave.

The points are intentionally subtle.

To put it into a less subtle form:

....It seems that many or perhaps MOST glide computer & instrument manufacturers (Butterfly, LX NAV, XC SOAR, LK 8000, etc) are indeed building AH capability into their products. Several notables on RAS recently went nuts stating "how dare instrument manufactures include this technology in their wares...etc" Several "organizations" were recently shaken down with ultimatums from the USRC to ensure new software versions are GUARANTEED to NOT have the capability to utilize AH functionality in ANY WAY etc (or they would be put on a black list and deemed illegal for US contests). This requires special software versions be developed by these "offending" organizations which absolutely GUARANTEES are incapable of utilizing AH functions (BOX OR NO BOX!).

LXNAV seems absolutely untouched in this area even though their new line of products offers highly capably "pro grade" AH functionality complete with a hard mounted fixed gyros, etc. I love the term, "Trust but verify." Here is why...nobody is going to check thru the glider and ID the existence of the box at a regional. This is a cold hard fact. So why not the same standard that has been set just weeks ago for all the rest?

I will ask the rules committee VERY DIRECTLY so there is no confusion.

Is LXNAV going to be required to develop a special US Contest Firmware version (time locked or permanent) which CANNOT utilize the AH box? Thus ENSURING that the AH functionality is unusable on the instrument? Just as ButterflyNAV and XC Soar (and LK 8000) have been forced to do in order to be allowed in US Contests in 2012 (just weeks ago)? Are the LXNAV product owners going to be forced to install these new firmware versions which ensure the functionality is locked out during the entire contest in the same way ButterflyNAV has been asked to do? And in the same way XC Soar is being forced to do for literally no useful reason (its AH functionality is utterly useless).

If not...WHY NOT? I find this all very peculiar and must say it borders on hypocrisy. Especially when the capability and potential of the new LX NAV AH is considered. This "offensive" :-) contest capability must be absolutely ensured INOPERATIVE during contests. These are not my words...but the standard that has been set for us all (pilots and equipment manufactures (and dealers)).

That is my point I guess. I would like to see consistency and all pilots and manufactures (and dealers) inconvenienced equally. ;-)

Sean
F2

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 7:47:31 PM UTC-4, Dave wrote:
On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

Whats your point?

There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.

Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.

Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.

Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.

Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?

-Dave

So a completely docile and different approach for a LXNAV, a far more "dangerous" system in terms of AH cheating risk in US Contests. Makes perfect sense really...

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4a...e_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

Just because IFR may not be permitted in your country, does not mean it
is not permitted elsewhere.

However, there are moves afoot to facilitate the recording the AH or T&S
state in the .igc file. So that should keep everyone happy ;=

Tim Newport-Peace * * * * * * * * * * *

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."


Just for clarity, the approach of carrying an artificial horizon
enabled instrument, but relying on igc file verification to see it is
turned off, will not work in US contests. US rules say you can't have
the AH in the glider and functional, period.

Why? Pilots carry multiple recorders. So now you have to check all the
files every day, and the scorer needs to know how many you have. Any
broken log now must mean the presumption the AH was on, so zero points
for the day, despite backup logs, and many unhappy pilots. Scorers,
CDs, and our patient software writer Guy Byars have enough to do to
run contests well and monitor basic file security without this extra
step. This isn't the worlds, this is a 20 glider regional with a
volunteer CD and scorer. We have enough, and entirely valid,
complaints about complexity of rules and procedures. We're barely
getting file security checks to work in the field. This would be a
very complex system in practice, with lots of bugs and little
payoff.

If you have an LX, leave the AH module at home for US contests.

John Cochrane

Dear USRC,

Should you not IMMEDIATELY require a special US version of the LXNAV firmware for LXNAV 8000, 8080 and 9000 Flight Computers (as IS now required for pilots using the butterfly vario, LK8000 and XCsoar)?

The rules commitee has CLEARLY established precedent for the other "offending" systems of far less capability. As such only a special US rules firmware can eliminate the risk of cheating.

The LXNAV Artificial Horizon product is a highly capable system which is easily accessible to the contest pilot. As shown off in the video advertisement (see first post in thread) the LXNAV AH funtionality is the "real deal" complete with a fixed installation module, calibrated real spinning gyros, etc. It will be highly accurate and capable of accurate cloud flying.

Astonishingly the USRC has not required the manufacturer of this specific system, LXNAV, to provide its US contest pilot customers with a US rules compliant firmware version which ensures the functiinality is impossible to use? Butterfly was required (asked) to provide this kind of US rules "compliant" firmware very early on and Butterfly has the exactly same level of AH technology.

Even LK8000 and XCsoar have been "required" (forced) to build US rules compliant software versions just weeks ago dispite the fact that accurate IMC flight (let alone safe) is literally IMPOSSIBLE with their unfixed, uncalibrated, highly unreliable mobile based electronic gyro's which are designed for "1g" gaming and not contest level flight as Butterfly and LXNAVs systems are specifically designed for.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2