My sailplane lists an Artificial Horizon as part of the minimum
equipment list, I made it that way for safety. Am I now prevented from
flying in competition?
On Feb 9, 10:04 am, Brad <apispi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My sailplane lists an Artificial Horizon as part of the minimum
> equipment list, I made it that way for safety. Am I now prevented from
> flying in competition?
> Brad
Seems to be a strange thing to have done. Nothing stops you adding
anything on top of the minimum listed equipment. If I had the choice
I'd include only airspeed indicator and altimeter and I'd include the
option for those both to be electronic.
Someone will say - what about the compass? That's not on my minimum
list now and when PF is finally available the useless compass will go
away to make room for the PF display.
> On Feb 9, 10:04 am, Brad <apispi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My sailplane lists an Artificial Horizon as part of the minimum
> > equipment list, I made it that way for safety. Am I now prevented from
> > flying in competition?
> > Brad
> Seems to be a strange thing to have done. Nothing stops you adding
> anything on top of the minimum listed equipment. If I had the choice
> I'd include only airspeed indicator and altimeter and I'd include the
> option for those both to be electronic.
> Someone will say - what about the compass? That's not on my minimum
> list now and when PF is finally available the useless compass will go
> away to make room for the PF display.
> I believe the answer to your qustion is - Yes.
> Andy
It may seem like a strange thing to pilots never caught in a cloud or
trying to descend thru a rapidly closing blue hole, but I would rathar
have the unit in place for obvious reasons.
Flying competition was a fleeting fancy for me, and the AH issue
pretty much resolves my decision to stay a recreational flyer. Perhaps
when Bob get's another HP-24 made he will learn from my mistake.
If I was a little smarter I might be able to craft a reasonably
coherent argument conflating all the safety talks we are regularly
treated to with the AH/Competition issue, but since I am not a comp
pilot, or a literary wiz I will let it go at that.
On Feb 9, 10:27 am, Brad <apispi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it looks like my Tetra-15 will not be able to compete because I
> elected to install an AH for safety reasons.
No, that is not necessarily the case. It should be fairly easy to have
your paperwork amended to remove the equipment list. Then you can
carry the AH when you want, and deactivate it for contests.
When I was campaigning the HP-11 I had a 1940s vintage turn gyro in
the center of the panel, but with no vacuum source. It was mostly for
ballast, but it also had a working skin/slip ball. During contests I
just put a Post-It note that said "INOP" on the glass over the turn
needle. Nobody ever dinged me on it.
On Feb 9, 10:27 am, Brad <apispi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it looks like my Tetra-15 will not be able to compete because I
> elected to install an AH for safety reasons.
[Apologies if this is a double-post]
No, that is not necessarily the case. It should be fairly easy to
amend your paperwork to reduce or eliminate the equipment list.
When I campaigned the HP-11 in Region 11, I had an old turn gyro in
the panel, mostly for ballast. I just used a Post-It note to tag it
"INOP" during contests. Nobody ever batted an eye at it.
> On Feb 9, 10:37 am, Andy <a.dur...@netzero.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 10:04 am, Brad <apispi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My sailplane lists an Artificial Horizon as part of the minimum
> > > equipment list, I made it that way for safety. Am I now prevented from
> > > flying in competition?
> > > Brad
> > Seems to be a strange thing to have done. Nothing stops you adding
> > anything on top of the minimum listed equipment. If I had the choice
> > I'd include only airspeed indicator and altimeter and I'd include the
> > option for those both to be electronic.
> > Someone will say - what about the compass? That's not on my minimum
> > list now and when PF is finally available the useless compass will go
> > away to make room for the PF display.
> > I believe the answer to your qustion is - Yes.
> > Andy
> It may seem like a strange thing to pilots never caught in a cloud or
> trying to descend thru a rapidly closing blue hole, but I would rathar
> have the unit in place for obvious reasons.
> Flying competition was a fleeting fancy for me, and the AH issue
> pretty much resolves my decision to stay a recreational flyer. Perhaps
> when Bob get's another HP-24 made he will learn from my mistake.
> If I was a little smarter I might be able to craft a reasonably
> coherent argument conflating all the safety talks we are regularly
> treated to with the AH/Competition issue, but since I am not a comp
> pilot, or a literary wiz I will let it go at that.
> Brad- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You arguments support installing an AH but nothing you said explains
why you chose to include it in the minimum equipment list.
Of course I completely understand that you are under no obligation to
explain that choice.
On Feb 9, 2:01 pm, Andy <a.dur...@netzero.net> wrote:
> You arguments support installing an AH but nothing you said explains
> why you chose to include it in the minimum equipment list.
> Of course I completely understand that you are under no obligation to
> explain that choice.
> Andy
Have to agree with Andy on this, Brad. By all means, install it if
you want it. Just understand that now you cannot fly it if your
battery isn't charged and it is a blue day. Is that really what you
wanted to do to yourself? There are planes out there that are only
required to have an airspeed indicator. So you can mark and stay
within airspeed limitations. Everything else is "extra".
Interesting that Steve would relate that some gliders are only required to have an ASI...
In Canada, the regulations require ASI, Alt and Compass... possibly a two-way radio (depending on the airspace).
There's a lot of overlap between Canadian and U.S. regs; that's an odd deviation.
On Feb 9, 9:14 pm, "C-FFKQ (42)" <cffk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting that Steve would relate that some gliders are only required to have an ASI...
> In Canada, the regulations require ASI, Alt and Compass... possibly a two-way radio (depending on the airspace).
> There's a lot of overlap between Canadian and U.S. regs; that's an odd deviation.
Those only required to have an airspeed are 1-26 and 2-22. Old
stuff. I think the 2-33 is required to have more. Altimeter and
compass, I think. I am more than willing to add more than the
absolute minimum to my panel, but I am always cautious of requiring
more than I need to safely fly under certain conditions. And if I
don't have what is needed to fly a specific day, well then, I won't
fly that day.
Some U.S. glider type certificates have pretty sparse minimum
equipment lists. The 1-23 only specifies an altimeter and shoulder
harness. Some type certificates get ridiculous, going to the extent of
stating make and model of instruments. I've never bothered delving
into the FAR's regarding equipment as the Transport Canada regulations
give me enough of a headache, but I'd be surprised if they didn't also
require ASI, Alt. and compass as required for day VFR flight.
This part of the CAR's has always baffled me:
"522.1303 Flight and Navigation Instruments
The following are required flight and navigation instruments:
(a) For all gliders:
(1) an air-speed indicator;
(2) an altimeter.
(b) For Powered Gliders. In addition to the instruments required in
522.1303(a):
(1) a magnetic direction indicator.
(c) For Gliders of Category A. In addition to the instruments required
in 522.1303(a) and (b):
(1) an accelerometer capable of retaining maximum and minimum values
of acceleration for any selected period of flight.
(d) For gliders equipped for water ballast. In addition to the
instruments required in 522.1303(a), (b) and (c).
(amended 2007/07/16)
(1) An outside air temperature gauge."
So, pure gliders don't need a magnetic compass right? Well:
"Gliders - Day VFR
605.21 No person shall operate a glider in day VFR flight unless it is
equipped with
(a) an altimeter;
(b) an airspeed indicator;
(c) a magnetic compass or a magnetic direction indicator; and
(d) subject to subsections 601.08(2) and 601.09(2), a
radiocommunication system adequate to permit two-way communication on
the appropriate frequency when the glider is operated within
(i) Class C or Class D airspace,
(ii) an MF area, unless the aircraft is operated pursuant to
subsection 602.97(3), or
(iii) the ADIZ. "
WHY don't they just put the compass requirement in the first part too?
As to the original post, if you have a choice with a minimum equipment
list (and aren't bound by a manufacturer's type certificate) it makes
sense to make it as minimum as possible. Just enough to satisfy the
bare legal requirements. Then you can go ahead and install anything
you want in addition to those things so long as you have the room and
payload for them.
On Feb 9, 7:14 pm, "C-FFKQ (42)" <cffk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting that Steve would relate that some gliders are only required to have an ASI...
> In Canada, the regulations require ASI, Alt and Compass... possibly a two-way radio (depending on the airspace).
> There's a lot of overlap between Canadian and U.S. regs; that's an odd deviation.
> Some U.S. glider type certificates have pretty sparse minimum
> equipment lists. The 1-23 only specifies an altimeter and shoulder
> harness. Some type certificates get ridiculous, going to the extent of
> stating make and model of instruments. I've never bothered delving
> into the FAR's regarding equipment as the Transport Canada regulations
> give me enough of a headache, but I'd be surprised if they didn't also
> require ASI, Alt. and compass as required for day VFR flight.
> This part of the CAR's has always baffled me:
> "522.1303 Flight and Navigation Instruments
> The following are required flight and navigation instruments:
> (a) For all gliders:
> (1) an air-speed indicator;
> (2) an altimeter.
> (b) For Powered Gliders. In addition to the instruments required in
> 522.1303(a):
> (1) a magnetic direction indicator.
> (c) For Gliders of Category A. In addition to the instruments required
> in 522.1303(a) and (b):
> (1) an accelerometer capable of retaining maximum and minimum values
> of acceleration for any selected period of flight.
> (d) For gliders equipped for water ballast. In addition to the
> instruments required in 522.1303(a), (b) and (c).
> (amended 2007/07/16)
> (1) An outside air temperature gauge."
> So, pure gliders don't need a magnetic compass right? Well:
> "Gliders - Day VFR
> 605.21 No person shall operate a glider in day VFR flight unless it is
> equipped with
> (a) an altimeter;
> (b) an airspeed indicator;
> (c) a magnetic compass or a magnetic direction indicator; and
> (d) subject to subsections 601.08(2) and 601.09(2), a
> radiocommunication system adequate to permit two-way communication on
> the appropriate frequency when the glider is operated within
> (i) Class C or Class D airspace,
> (ii) an MF area, unless the aircraft is operated pursuant to
> subsection 602.97(3), or
> (iii) the ADIZ. "
> WHY don't they just put the compass requirement in the first part too?
> As to the original post, if you have a choice with a minimum equipment
> list (and aren't bound by a manufacturer's type certificate) it makes
> sense to make it as minimum as possible. Just enough to satisfy the
> bare legal requirements. Then you can go ahead and install anything
> you want in addition to those things so long as you have the room and
> payload for them.
> On Feb 9, 7:14 pm, "C-FFKQ (42)" <cffk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting that Steve would relate that some gliders are only required to have an ASI...
> > In Canada, the regulations require ASI, Alt and Compass... possibly a two-way radio (depending on the airspace).
> > There's a lot of overlap between Canadian and U.S. regs; that's an odd deviation.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Ah the beauty of Air Regs! Section 522 covers Airworthiness i.e
requirements of the aircraft/equipment. Section 605 covers Airmanship
i.e requirements of the Pilot. For instance, if you put a gum machine
compass in your pocket, you are compliant. Same goes for a hand-held
radio - it doesn't need to be installed in the airplane, but if you,
as pilot fly into controlled airspace you need to dig it out of the
baggage compartment.
The minimum equipment list is similar. What should be on the MEL is
what the AIRPLANE needs installed to FLY. What the Pilot adds to that
is whatever the pilot needs to fly in the conditions he expects to
encounter.
This whole AH / contest debate has reached the point that this morning XCSoar posted the following on Facebook:
"XCSoar is about to be banned from US soaring competitions. In fact they are thinking about banning all free, open source applications because they can not control whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and other functionality. Apparently the rule makers don't seem to understand how easy it is to install and use a different app for that... We would like to ask our US fans to talk to their contacts and put some pressure on the rules committee to prevent this. If the US will go through with this it is only a small step until the FAI/IGC think about similar "solutions" to much greater problems!"
I have flown with both XCSoar and am currently flying with LK8000. These are great pieces of free software that have evolved to the point that they have surpassed the capabilities of most, if not all, commercially available products.
I do hope the XCSoar's Facebook posting is in error allowing resource limited pilots to compete without having to purchase an inferior product just for the purpose of contest flying.
> This whole AH / contest debate has reached the point that this morning
> XCSoar posted the following on Facebook:
> "XCSoar is about to be banned from US soaring competitions. In fact they are
> thinking about banning all free, open source applications because they can
> not control whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and
> other functionality. Apparently the rule makers don't seem to understand how
> easy it is to install and use a different app for that... We would like to
> ask our US fans to talk to their contacts and put some pressure on the rules
> committee to prevent this. If the US will go through with this it is only a
> small step until the FAI/IGC think about similar "solutions" to much greater
> problems!"
> I have flown with both XCSoar and am currently flying with LK8000. These
> are great pieces of free software that have evolved to the point that they
> have surpassed the capabilities of most, if not all, commercially available
> products.
> I do hope the XCSoar's Facebook posting is in error allowing resource
> limited pilots to compete without having to purchase an inferior product
> just for the purpose of contest flying.
> On Feb 9, 10:07 am, Bob Kuykendall <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote:
> > To be clear, the requirement is not part of the HP-24 design.
> > Thanks, Bob K.
> So it looks like my Tetra-15 will not be able to compete because I
> elected to install an AH for safety reasons.
> That's ok................it makes it easier now to continue with
> recreational flying rather than see how well it and I might have done
> in competition.
> Brad
I believe you will find that the artificial horizon generated from GPS
data is not accurate enough for cloud flying. I have heard some talk
of integrating accelerometers.
I've been working with the Dell Streak 5 using XCSoar as part of my
preparation to be as ready for the WGC as possible. Compared to my 10
year old hx4700, with an 8 year old operating system and a 5 year old
version of WinPilot, it is more advanced in every possible way. I've
invested a few $$ and far too many hours to get it integrated into my
panel and other sytems, plus training. If they ban XCSoar, I will be
pissed.
We should probably just go back to cameras. Oh wait! - people figured
out how to cheat with those too.
Regarding AH apps for Androids - I've downloaded and installed a couple of them just to see how they work. They're so jittery as to be totally useless. The other day, I stuck my Android to the window using a suction cup mount and the talking in the room caused the window glass to vibrate sufficiently as to render the AH useless. Imagine how it would work in the cockpit... I've tried it there, too, and, believe me, I'd never attempt to use it for cloud flying!
"Derek Mackie" <itshd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> I've been working with the Dell Streak 5 using XCSoar as part of my
> preparation to be as ready for the WGC as possible. Compared to my 10
> year old hx4700, with an 8 year old operating system and a 5 year old
> version of WinPilot, it is more advanced in every possible way. I've
> invested a few $$ and far too many hours to get it integrated into my
> panel and other sytems, plus training. If they ban XCSoar, I will be
> pissed.
> We should probably just go back to cameras. Oh wait! - people figured
> out how to cheat with those too.
> This whole AH / contest debate has reached the point that this morning
> XCSoar posted the following on Facebook:
> "XCSoar is about to be banned from US soaring competitions. In fact they are
> thinking about banning all free, open source applications because they can
> not control whether these applications may implement artificial horizons and
> other functionality. Apparently the rule makers don't seem to understand how
> easy it is to install and use a different app for that... We would like to
> ask our US fans to talk to their contacts and put some pressure on the rules
> committee to prevent this. If the US will go through with this it is only a
> small step until the FAI/IGC think about similar "solutions" to much greater
> problems!"
> I have flown with both XCSoar and am currently flying with LK8000. These
> are great pieces of free software that have evolved to the point that they
> have surpassed the capabilities of most, if not all, commercially available
> products.
> I do hope the XCSoar's Facebook posting is in error allowing resource
> limited pilots to compete without having to purchase an inferior product
> just for the purpose of contest flying.
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"
It has nothing to do with free. XCsoar can put in the same features to
turn off the AH in competitions as other software can do. This is a
tiny amount of programming compared to the enormous amount they have
already done.
John Cochrane
On Feb 24, 9:42 am, Sean Fidler <smfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you dont think that someone who wants to cheat will write his own code or us the many existing apps to get an AH working?
> YOU CANNOT CONTROL THIS GUYS! There are too many gyro equipped electronic devices available for you to ban...........
> ALL YOU ARE DOING IS AGGRAVATING US! Soon the sport is going to consist of 15 guys and we will all be flying OLC...
> If someone really wants to cheat they will find a way...
There are many ways for people who want to cheat to do so, far more
effective than sneaking an AH on board.
How do we "control" it? A: we don't. We do what we can for the obvious
easy and public temptations, and we have a strong culture of
sportsmanship for the rest. The only reward in this game is the sense
of accomplishment and the respect of your peers.
I thought we agreed that the RC would poll the AH ban in the fall, so
we could all get facts on what pilots actually want, and you would
leave this crusade alone for a season?
Apparently the definition of AH is expanding...beyond an AH or Turn and Bank.
It now seems to include XC Soar, LK 8000 and any instrument manufacturer/software firm with any related technology. Apparently if they do not immediately comply with the rules committee's requirements to adjust (rewrite code) for a rule they will be banned from competition as soon as the new (black) "list" is released. This is a rule that has been exposed for years. And now everybody (pilots and manufactures have to JUMP!
I am not pleased. Crusade is back on for now...sorry.
The cheater will simply build his own capability into a PNA or whatever...and cheat nonetheless.
And I have not really even begun to run here. I am honestly try to stay away here. Its not about ME...its about the many who have spend $500 (new Dell PDA/Android, new comm board, research, practice, etc) and many days getting their XC soar ready for this season so they could have a sunlight readable display at the one regional contest they do a year. Just makes me sad.
Now they likely (according to Hanks conversations with XC Soar) have to get something else for the contests. They are pissed off. We all listen to what XC soar has to say, take them at their word and take it seriously.
Yes...this is upsetting to me and many others. Words matter.
Brad's mention of the OLC brings up a XCSoar/LK8000 feature for all of those who are still flying with the "old" Cambridge flight recorders. As you all know, the IGC files from these recorders are no longer accepted by the OLC software. However, both XCSoar and LK8000 create acceptable OLC IGC files. In the past these files were also accepted at US Contests.
I have tested the LK8000 AH in VFR flight conditions and found it not to respond to attitude changes fast enough for cloud flying. The AH screen is titled "Experimental - Not for IFR usage" for a reason!!!
