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

Some limits are necessary



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th 11, 03:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Some limits are necessary

It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.

Letís not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.

Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we must
think about and establish.

It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate their
ability to read the weather in the air.

Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilotís vision. This would rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.

With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.

These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.

XC
Ads
  #2  
Old May 18th 11, 04:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bildan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default Some limits are necessary

On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean wrote:
It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.

Letís not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.

Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we must
think about and establish.

It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate their
ability to read the weather in the air.

Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilotís vision. This would rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.

With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.

These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.

XC


While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
technology be outlawed before it's been invented. It would seem a
better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
another.

It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. For
example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
cannot forecast the future. It might show a good thermal at 10
kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
when you arrive. In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.

If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
a short time scale - often in minutes. A successful pilot will always
need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
cockpit.

As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
will eventually appear in gliders. However, using one correctly
requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
you in trouble fast. For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
you should have left the thermal. Managing autopilots can require
more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.

Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
longer, faster and more reliable flights. Contest tasks will expand
with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. CD: "Well, I
was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."

  #3  
Old May 18th 11, 05:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default Some limits are necessary

On May 18, 11:23*am, bildan wrote:
On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean wrote:





It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.


Letís not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.


Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we must
think about and establish.


It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate their
ability to read the weather in the air.


Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilotís vision. This would rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.


With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.


These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.


XC


While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
technology be outlawed before it's been invented. *It would seem a
better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
another.

It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. *For
example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
cannot forecast the future. *It might show a good thermal at 10
kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
when you arrive. *In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.

If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
a short time scale - often in minutes. *A successful pilot will always
need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
cockpit.

As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
will eventually appear in gliders. *However, using one correctly
requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
you in trouble fast. *For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
you should have left the thermal. *Managing autopilots can require
more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.

Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
longer, faster and more reliable flights. *Contest tasks will expand
with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. *CD: "Well, I
was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
establish and communicate the philosophy of
what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
from developing something that gets outlawed
and puts their investment in the garbage.
The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
BB's article.
UH
  #4  
Old May 18th 11, 05:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Nyal Williams[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default Some limits are necessary

Recall that the very first variometer was used experimentally and
secretively to win a contest in Germany.

At 16:08 18 May 2011, wrote:
On May 18, 11:23=A0am, bildan wrote:
On May 18, 8:01=A0am, Sean wrote:





It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.


Let=92s not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology

from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition

if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout

fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a

gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a

legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.


Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we

must
think about and establish.


It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others

and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate

their
ability to read the weather in the air.


Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent

reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilot=92s vision. This would

rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made

for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.


With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software

to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if

I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should

be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.


These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits

is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.


XC


While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
technology be outlawed before it's been invented. =A0It would seem a
better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
another.

It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology.

=A0For
example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
cannot forecast the future. =A0It might show a good thermal at 10
kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
when you arrive. =A0In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.

If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes

on
a short time scale - often in minutes. =A0A successful pilot will

always
need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
cockpit.

As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
will eventually appear in gliders. =A0However, using one correctly
requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
you in trouble fast. =A0For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
you should have left the thermal. =A0Managing autopilots can require
more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.

Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by

allowing
longer, faster and more reliable flights. =A0Contest tasks will expand
with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. =A0CD: "Well,

I
was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
establish and communicate the philosophy of
what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
from developing something that gets outlawed
and puts their investment in the garbage.
The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
BB's article.
UH


  #5  
Old May 18th 11, 06:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Some limits are necessary

On May 18, 12:08*pm, wrote:
On May 18, 11:23*am, bildan wrote:





On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean wrote:


It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.


Letís not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.


Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we must
think about and establish.


It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate their
ability to read the weather in the air.


Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilotís vision. This would rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.


With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.


These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.


XC


While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
technology be outlawed before it's been invented. *It would seem a
better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
another.


It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. *For
example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
cannot forecast the future. *It might show a good thermal at 10
kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
when you arrive. *In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.


If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
a short time scale - often in minutes. *A successful pilot will always
need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
cockpit.


As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
will eventually appear in gliders. *However, using one correctly
requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
you in trouble fast. *For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
you should have left the thermal. *Managing autopilots can require
more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.


Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
longer, faster and more reliable flights. *Contest tasks will expand
with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. *CD: "Well, I
was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
establish and communicate the philosophy of
what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
from developing something that gets outlawed
and puts their investment in the garbage.
The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
BB's article.
UH


UH,
Thank you for your work on the rules committee. Same to Ken, Mike and
John.

I believe the racing rules committee would do well to outline what
qualities exist in a racing champion.

To use the fishing analogy one more time- I grew up next to the Tioga
river in NY. As I sat there with Zebco reel and a worm, I marveled at
occasional fisherman who would float by with a string of fish hanging
off his boat. I never got into fishing, but as a youngster learning to
fly on Harris Hill, I was very impressed with the great glider pilots
who would come to race and consistently make superior decisions given
the many variables and randomness of a contest task area.

I was drawn to these people. I wanted know what made them tick. This
has lead to my involvement in cross country soaring, racing, and so
many great memories.

So maybe identifying the qualities we seek in a champion would be a
good starting point to evaluate new technologies and how they will
change our sport. In this way we don't have to exactly define limits.
As new products appear on the horizon, we can estimate how consistent
they are with the ideals we seek in a champion.

By the way UH, thanks for taking me on my first cross country flight
in your Lark many years ago. I still remember that flight and what you
taught me.

XC
  #6  
Old May 18th 11, 06:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bildan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default Some limits are necessary

On May 18, 10:08*am, wrote:
On May 18, 11:23*am, bildan wrote:









On May 18, 8:01*am, Sean wrote:


It was a well written and thought provoking article by John. Thanks.


Letís not lose sight of the fact that we have limited technology from
the very beginning of this sport. I could beat all the competition if
they would only let me fly with an operating engine. In trout fishing,
it would be much more productive to use a spot light at night, a gill
net, or even dynamite. But someone was wise enough to say that
wouldn't be sporting. It was not an irrational fear but a legitimate
concern for the sport they loved. This is a sport too and we should
not feel bad about placing some limit on what resources are allowed.


Now bass fisherman use fish finders and big motors so that becomes
another sport entirely. So there are arbitrary guidelines that we must
think about and establish.


It seems logical to me to disallow information compiled by others and
transmitted to the glider. If this were true weather information
compiled by professionals or computer equipped crew would be out of
bounds. Instead the pilot would have to continue to demonstrate their
ability to read the weather in the air.


Another limit could restrain the transmission and subsequent reception
of energy to artificially enhance the pilotís vision. This would rule
out on-board radar and thermal detection. Exceptions could be made for
items that enhance safety like radio transceivers (of course) and
flarm.


With thermal detectors we'll see the use of autopilots and software to
center thermals automatically and to calculate the best energy line.
Yes, it is in the works. Two people talked to me last year to see if I
thought it would be possible for use in drones. Perhaps this should be
placed out of bounds for our sport for it would vastly decrease the
amount of pilot skill necessary to complete a task.


These are just examples of how limits could be thoughtfully imposed.
Other lines could be drawn. My point is that the idea of no limits is
not consistent with the history or spirit of the sport and leads to
more homogenous pilot performance and a less interesting flying
experience.


XC


While a reasoned post, it strikes me as 'a priori' by suggesting
technology be outlawed before it's been invented. *It would seem a
better approach is to wait until a technology exists and outlaw only
if it generates a tilted playing field favoring one competitor over
another.


It also overestimates the effectiveness of potential technology. *For
example, a remote thermal detector, no matter the range or accuracy,
cannot forecast the future. *It might show a good thermal at 10
kilometers range but it cannot say that thermal will still be there
when you arrive. *In fact, you could almost guarantee it won't be
there and heading for the location would be counterproductive.


If soaring weather has one consistent feature, it's that it changes on
a short time scale - often in minutes. *A successful pilot will always
need to be a good forecaster no matter the "data" available in the
cockpit.


As a long time user of autopilots in airplanes, I'm pretty sure they
will eventually appear in gliders. *However, using one correctly
requires a fairly high level of knowledge - otherwise, they can get
you in trouble fast. *For example, if you gave it a task "fly this
thermal while I work on strategy", it would keep circling long after
you should have left the thermal. *Managing autopilots can require
more brain cycles than hand flying the aircraft.


Most likely, new technology will just "expand the sandbox" by allowing
longer, faster and more reliable flights. *Contest tasks will expand
with the sandbox assuring pilots will remain challenged. *CD: "Well, I
was going to call a 300km task but since you guys have all the new
gizmos, it's going to be a 1000km task."- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


On the other hand, if the people responsible for this process
establish and communicate the philosophy of
what will or will not be permitted, it can prevent a small company
from developing something that gets outlawed
and puts their investment in the garbage.
The dialog about how these guidelines could evolve is the basis for
BB's article.
UH


With respect, an a priori "chilling effect" is exactly what we should
avoid at all costs. There's no way to predict the effect of a
technology until people have had a chance to use it. We just don't
have perfect foreknowledge of technology's impact.

Rule making "philosophy" has a spotty history at best - frequently
outlawing tech which later proved extremely useful. Look at the
arguments which raged against GPS. If variometers were invented
today, imagine the RAS discussion. (Wow! if a pilot actually KNEW
they were in a thermal..... Gotta outlaw that!)

Let the market decide which technology gets adopted and write the
rules for it later.
 




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
IS29D2 - Life Limits? T[_2_] Soaring 0 March 27th 11 09:01 PM
CG limits for Ventus 2bx? Frank[_12_] Soaring 9 March 30th 10 03:13 PM
blanik life limits, and new AD john Soaring 1 October 7th 07 12:55 AM
Crosswind rental limits? nrp Piloting 30 November 7th 06 12:26 PM
Insurance - smooth limits Paul kgyy Owning 22 May 13th 05 07:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.