New Butterfly Vario

Oh, come on, Sean. To quote: "very much accidentally flew into IMC"

What's accidental about intentionally flying under a CB, seeking out the
strongest lift, rejoicing in the rate of climb, and then bemoaning getting
sucked into the cloud?

Don't you see the links forming in the accident chain? He just got lucky.
I very much appreciate that he wrote about the incident as a warning to
others about these risks, but I didn't take his story as a call to have
cloud flying instruments in the cockpit as you seem to.

He didn't accidently get sucked into a cloud - he knocked at the door. An
intelligent and safety couscious pilot wouldn't have knocked.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:15111222.691.1329365870544.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndy9...
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.

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.

John,

I respect your concerns. I really, really do.

But leveraging this rule against a couple yahoo's that might get killed via a midair collision while cloud-flying in an SSA sanctioned contest VS. the vast majority of glider pilots which might honestly benefit from this instrumentation if they accidentally needed to maintain straight and level flight in a cloud one day seems foolish at best. I again sight Kemptons experience. I ask you why do these instruments exists? Why do so many glider pilots use them? To Cheat?

It is illegal to be in the clouds in a glider, PERIOD. No pilot, contest or not, should be in a cloud (technically within 500 ft. of base) ever. Should the rules committee start encouraging protests when pilots witness other pilots within 500 ft. of cloud base? I have a great video camera...and while i am not the best pilot in the world I could leech these illegal cheaters really, really well ;-). Video evidence is stunning. Do we really want to go here?

Consider this... Does the FAA mandate removal of the the Artificial Horizon & turn and bank instruments from power aircraft when a non instrument rated pilot flies the aircraft? Would it be wise (for the same reasons you sight) to remove the gyro based instrumentation every time a non instrument rated pilot gets into the cockpit. Would this be an equally ironclad deterrent which ensures that non instrument rated pilots never get into a IMC? Hmmm?

Doesn't the occasional private pilot or even student accidentally fly into IMC accidentally? Is this how the FAA deals with this problem? Has a private pilot ever saved themselves after inadvertently entering IMC?

Honest pilots make mistakes. The dishonest illegal pilots who goes into the clouds intentionally are not a concern of this discussion. They are on their own. Just as a pilot who flies inverted thru the open hangar should not be a concern of our contest rules committee. Those acts are completely illegal and outside of the area with which we can control.

So lets PLEASE stop worrying about 2 idiots who might cheat and the honest guy who might die in a potentially preventable accident.

The use of blind flying instruments used to be an easy rule to police
in times gone by. There were only a few choices AH, T&B and the Bohli
compass come to mind.

As I understand it, the objective of the no blind flying instruments
rule is to prevent contestants making high climbs in cloud that would
allow them to fly around or through large areas of less or non
soarable conditions affording those pilots an advantage over those who
do not have the skills and or the instrumentation. It has been
mentioned a number of times that it is possible to cloud climb without
an AH or T&B using the information one receives from a GPS display. So
if you have the mind to cheat you just need to perfect the skills and
go ahead and do it. There are other cloud flying situations that we
would maybe deem to be ok rules wise, e.g. penetrating a cloud layer
that we have risen above in wave and have flown over to reach a
turnpoint but must now descend through because we have left the source
of lift that got us to this point and have no other option. So going
up in cloud is not sanctioned but maybe going down or through is ok in
some situations.


The posts citing sportsmanship and current trends in technology when
considered together suggest to me we should accept the inevitable
advances of technology and work on our code of conduct. It seems that
it would be reasonably easy to spot a cheater if all we are concerned
with is an unfair advantage gained from a cloud climb. If a particular
competitor hands in logs that show heights that are inconsistent with
everyone else's then that competitor could be asked to explain how he
achieved this miracle to a jury of his peers. How you deal with a jury
decision that does not accept the pilot's explanation depends on the
severity of the infraction and the desire to prevent this behaviour.
Policing this activity need add no extra burden on contest organizers.
Logs are readily available to all contestants, you can't get a better
police force than the interested parties. They fly in the same air as
the potential cheater and can best assess the validity of that pilot's
story.

If the objective is to disuade cloud climbs, banning instruments won't
stop that, I personally know pilots who have achieved cloud climbs
using only ASI and vario, it's possible. How many pilots do you
believe would be willing to look their fellow competitors in the eye
and bare faced lie about their miserable attempt at gaining
recognition. Hardly seems worth all the fuss and bother to even make a
rule to cover the situation.

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

The moral of the story is he should have had a butterfly vario?

--Stefan

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:45:49 -0600, mike wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:30 pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
Please read Kempton Izuno's article (2005) "Into the Bowels of
Darkness" on page 12 of the link below or in the following copied text.

No. I guess it is that he should not have one. Brilliant.

Nor a smart phone. That dirty cheater...

On Feb 16, 3:38*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
No. *I guess it is that he should not have one. *Brilliant.

Nor a smart phone. *That dirty cheater...

You think instrumentation is the solution to IMC in a CB? Or not?
Pick one. No evasions. Pick one.

Evan Ludeman / T8

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, 4:04*pm, "S. Murry" wrote:
[snipped]
Sorry for the very long post...

--Stefan

That was worth reading. Thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8