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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Jan 27, 10:07*am, wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:32*am, Mike the Strike wrote: On Jan 27, 7:44*am, Richard wrote: On Jan 27, 6:12*am, johngalloway wrote: On Jan 27, 4:10*am, "Paul Remde" wrote: Hi, I added some photos of it in flight to my web site earlier today. *It looks quite impressive to me.http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butte...utterfly-Vario Best Regards, Paul Remde Cumulus Soaring, Inc. "Brad" wrote in message ... On Jan 26, 12:07 pm, Mike the Strike wrote: On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, wrote: On Jan 25, 12:15 am, "Paul Remde" wrote: Hi, I have just added the new Butterfly Vario to my web site. It is a very impressive new vario with FLARM display (when attached to a FLARM), GPS flight recorder, simple navigation, simple final glide, artificial horizon, and many other very nice features. You can see details hehttp://www.cumulus-soaring.com/butterfly.htm Good Soaring, Paul Remde Cumulus Soaring, Inc. It will be worth informing your customers that fly in US sanctioned contests that this instrument, as described, will not be legal for use in US contests due to the incorporation of the artificial horizon. UH I raised the same issue when I first read about it and was told that the horizon feature can be disabled for use in sanctioned contests. It looks like a very interesting new instrument and I'm looking forward to hearing some flight reviews. Mike I would like to see some real images of it, the CAD renderings are cool, but nothing like seeing the "real" unit. Brad The real question about this vario is whether the inertial measurement unit information is successfully utilised in a way that could shift variometry up a notch. *There were hopes that the 302 would develop that way when it was first introduced and similar hopes for the development of the CearNav vario but have Butterfly got there first?? If so, then the price seems not unreasonable - add a display such as a PDA or Oudie and you have all the functionality of an LX 8/9000 including its expensive *compass and Artificial Horizon options.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Some additional information about the Horizon from Butterfly *FAQs The Butterfly Vario features an artificial horizon. Will it be allowed to use the Butterfly Vario in competitions? The artificial horizon can be deactivated. The deactivation is logged by the integrated IGCLogger and thus is tamper-proof. Butterfly urges rulemaking bodies to introduce new competition rules that forbid the use of equipment that enables cloud flying but allows the installation and deactivation of such equipment during competitions. Several Customers have order the Butterfly for use with the Craggy Aero Ultimate Le. *http://www.craggyaero.com/ultimate_systems.htm Richardwww.craggyaero.com Perhaps as this technology becomes more widely available we should re- examine the rules against cloud flying in competitions. *In my experience, these rules are frequently infringed by pilots who fly up to cloud base, into, round or over cumulus clouds! I'd be interested to hear from contest pilots who can honestly say that they have never infringed regulations regarding clearance from clouds. *I suspect the rule is probably unenforceable. Mike- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So you are suggesting that we make IFR flying a part of our competions? I'm curious as to how you think that might work. UH As Andy pointed out earlier, prohibiting cloud flying is largely unenforceable and a number of pilots already do this for competitive advantage. I'm just suggesting leveling the playing field! Last year, I spotted a fellow competitor exiting a cloud and ribbed him over a beer afterwards. His comment - "a good job clouds aren't shown on igc files!" Mike |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. Not the just the IFR flying part. The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes.
That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots? Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation. If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved. But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. What I care about is safety. And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. This rule is out of date. The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank? Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. Let me know. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Jan 27, 3:58*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
To me, cloud flying is entirely unenforceable. *Not the just the IFR flying part. *The part where a King Air is descending thru a cloud into a regional airport hits a glider in or just under the cloud and crashes. That said, it seems to me that forcing all pilots to remove, disable or strongly encourage them not acquire a vital safety tool (artificial horizon or turn and bank) because a few pilots might cheat is irresponsible. *Perhaps I am naive about the competitiveness of contest glider pilots? Another perhaps more effective way of enforcing cloud clearance regulations would be simply to encourage law abiding pilots protest or call out such pilots. *In competition the protesting pilot can assemble a group of "witness" pilots who can testify as to what maximum experienced cloud base was in a particular range of time on task & compare this with the protested pilots IGC trace. *In other words, peer pressure and public humiliation. If found guilty, the powers that be can choose to give the protested pilot a warning or deduct points based on the perceived advantage for her/his violation. *On the second infraction, automatic disqualification from the day would result. *On the third, disqualification from the contest and ban them for 1 year, etc. Whatever. *Once this began to happen and honest pilots felt empowered, problem solved. But to be perfectly honest I could care less about this aspect of the discussion. *What I care about is safety. *And the bigger concern in safety is the pilot who accidentally (or intentionally for that matter) flies into a cloud. *This rule seems to invite disaster for some poor pilot who makes a mistake (and or one who tries her/his luck at cloud flying and becomes disorientated). *I am sure the reason for this rule was the pilots who bought the instruments to be able to cheat. *But dont you think outlawing an AH is a little extreme? *I think most pilots would be safer having one in their glider just encase. *New solid state instruments can easily incorporate at very little cost. *This rule is out of date. The artificial horizon rule is & unsafe for the vast majority of law abiding pilots. *Gliders can get pulled into clouds inadvertently. *We should encourage safety over the ability to cheat. *In my opinion the rule should be completely removed in favor of the pilot protest method outlined above. *I had just begun looking into getting a turn and bank instrument for safety reasons. *I sold my LX5000 and will have an extra 80mm hole in my panel. *What better to install then a vertical compass card or a turn and bank? Are turn and banks also illegal or just a gyro AH? *I would really like to buy one and install it this spring. *Let me know. Read rule 6.6.1 Also note that flying in cloulds is an FAR violation and obviously it makes no sense to permit equipment in competition that wouls have the purpose of making it possible to cloud fly. The cloud flying that I'm talking about is climbing within the cloud as a tactical part of the flight. If we fly legally, there is no significant liklihood of needing an artificial horizon. Do you want to be circling up in a cloud with half a dozen of your friends? Pilots can always report unsafe flying. I am aware of several cases where pilots spent too much time in the rags of the clouds and were reported to the CD. A little wood shed action broughtthat to a halt. This is also why CD's are encoraged to put the maximum start height 500 feet below cloud base. UH |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
There are times when you might get into clouds unintentionally. Years
ago, on another continent, I got trapped above a layer of low cloud that formed near storms and had to descend through it. My trusty Jantar-1 had an SZD gyro turn and bank that enabled me to make the descent with wings level. I almost never used that instrument, but was glad I had it on that occasion. A couple of years ago on a cross-country flight in Arizona, I thermalled up high on mountains and then flew over lower terrain and found myself over the tops of cumulus clouds and had to dodge my way round them to the thermals underneath. In contests, pilots I observe routinely get up into the wispies (yes, we all do it!). When you're climbing in a ten-knot thermal it can be hard to judge when to stop and suddenly you're in the cloud. Where there is a dome of increased cloudbase under a cumulus, you can end up exiting through the side of the cloud. I suspect this happens a lot, even unintentionally. No-one, let alone a CD at a distant airport, has any clue where the clouds or cloudbase are. I'm with Sean in that, if you have an instrument that might improve safety, it would be stupid to disable it. More fun for the Rules Committee! Mike |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at
the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. I would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now disabled. How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if that feature is used? It would still be available if the crap hit the fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero points for the day. Some of the best pilots I know who are also very safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can accommodate that. Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. Bruno - B4 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Jan 27, 3:31*pm, Bruno wrote:
I am planning on getting my order in for the Butterfly next week at the convention so this topic is of great interest. I don't understand why the instrument needs to be disabled. I agree that it could give a competitive edge in competition so why not just make sure the igc records if the artificial horizon feature was used and we are good. *I would hate to disable an instrument for a contest and then need that instrument due to a life or death screw up on my part but it is now disabled. How about a rules consideration that says if an artificial horizon is available during a contest that it must be associated with the logger of the files being used for judging and that a log must be recorded if that feature is used? *It would still be available if the crap hit the fan to save the pilot's butt, however if used, the pilot gets zero points for the day. *Some of the best pilots I know who are also very safety conscious have confided in me that they have been trapped above clouds without an artificial horizon and really scared themselves getting out of it. I for one want the safety of having an instrument to help me if my life depends on it. I am sure the rules can accommodate that. Looking forward to seeing you all next week at the convention. Bruno - B4 I would suggest to all that unless you are a trained and current instrument pilot your probably should not rely on a butterfly horizon to get you out of a jam. Many accidents in power aircraft are attruibted to flight into IMC with perfictly good instrument aircraft and unprepaired pilots. Entering a cloud in a glider is usually not a benign manuever, possibly you will be at VNE already in turbulent conditions and quite easily can go past VNE and flutter the wings off. Richard www.craggyaero.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly
how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says the artificial horizon was used. Like you say I think that is a good way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud (See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for zero points. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Jan 27, 9:45*pm, Tony wrote:
bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says the artificial horizon was used. *Like you say I think that is a good way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud (See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for zero points. This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC file markers. Are there standards defined for such inclusions within IGC files? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
I think there are a lot of straw men being constructed here w.r.t.
contest rules. The *only* times I have been the least bit concerned about getting caught in cloud have been when I was deliberately "twisting the dragon's tail". Can you honestly tell me differently? Our current rules philosophy is that we do not encourage this sort of thing in competition, witness recent revisions to finish height rules. I... somewhat reluctantly... agree that this is probably best for all concerned. -Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
New Butterfly Vario
On Jan 28, 7:57*am, Ron Gleason wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:45*pm, Tony wrote: bruno my quick read on Paul's website indicates that that is exactly how the Butterfly works, it triggers a line in the IGC file that says the artificial horizon was used. *Like you say I think that is a good way to address this. If **** happens and you get sucked into a cloud (See "Into the Bowels of Darkness" by Kempton Izuno) you have the instrument available to save your life, but you trade your life for zero points. This is fine as long as WINSCORE is updated to check for these IGC file markers. *Are there standards defined for such inclusions within IGC files? There are no provisions for this in Winscore . The RC position on these devices is that they are not permissible under the long established rules philosophy and they will not be allowed to be used, The RC is working with Butterfly to determine how best to remove this feature during competition while not adding to the work load of the scorer and other contest workers. This has not yet been determined. I will provide more information on this as it becomes available. UH RC Chair |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Butterfly iGlide | Reed von Gal | Soaring | 4 | May 2nd 12 06:00 PM |
WTB: 57mm Cambridge Vario/FS: 80mm Cambridge Vario | ufmechanic | Soaring | 0 | March 24th 09 05:31 PM |
TE vario | G.A. Seguin | Soaring | 8 | June 8th 04 04:44 AM |
WTB LD-200 Vario | Romeo Delta | Soaring | 0 | June 4th 04 03:08 PM |