US Competition in the cyber future: Call for comments.
karl h striedieck
in November the subject of increased "technification" of our sport,
particularly the likely availability of data through devices like cell phone
connections to cockpit computers in the not-too-distant future.
We are asking for a discussion in this forum that covers two areas:
Predictions of just what might be possible and then how do competition
pilots feel about this potential.
Although our rules were altered to prohibit remote thermal detection devices
(see rule 6.6.1.2 for definition), it is likely that more complicated
information devices will soon be available. If any action is required by the
rules committee we would like to do so before events overtake us.
Thanks for your input.
Karl Striedieck, Chair
US Rules sub-committee
Mike Culver
As this applies to competition, it means a real-time connection to the
Internet from the cockpit. That connection is bi-directional, and the
interface can vary.
Weather maps, position reports showing other contestants, etc. will be
received (at up to 11MB/second with the next year or so). Integrated with
GPS data, possibilities are wild...
Transmitted data is likely to be telemetry: position, altitide, etc. Could
be used by contest, also by ATC. Uplink also likely to be 1MB/sec or
greater.
BTW, these predictions are not Buck Rogers stuff. I am involved in
implementing similar services that will be in production by the end of this
year. The only missing piece for soaring is that much bandwidth in remote
locations such as we fly in. (But I see an affordable solution soon --
perhaps as early as next year.)
Mike
Paul Remde
I think it will be fantastic (a few years from now) to be able to view a current weather or radar map in flight. I imagine,
however, that it will be cost prohibitive for a few years.
In the long run I'm sure we'll have issues where pilots are all transmitting their positions, and some pilots would (if we let
them) have a moving map which displays the position and altitude of all the competitors. That would certainly enhance safety, but
may detract from the fun by making it extremely easy to play follow the leader.
In regard to safety - I do look forward to the day when I can go on a cross-country flight (non-contest) and view a small moving map
which displays ALL nearby aircraft and their altitudes. I hope it happens sooner rather than later because I think it will
dramatically improve safety.
In regard to contests - I can see the contest results now...
Day 1 - No one started due to fear of being used as a thermal marker.
Day 2 - No one started due to fear of being used as a thermal marker.
Day 3 - No one started due to fear of being used as a thermal marker.
etc.
Perhaps we'll have to completely rethink how races are started and when each pilot starts. One option would be to randomly
pre-assign start times. Pilots can start late, but their start time would still be marked down as their pre-determined start time.
There would still be people who would use other sailplanes as markers, but the advantage would be random. I suppose that randomly
assigned tasks (within a specified task distance range) would also spread out the pilots, but then luck would play a larger role in
the results (some pilots would be sent on difficult tasks or into difficult weather). Pilot option tasks wouldn't help much because
everyone could see where you are going and follow you even if you pick your own task in flight.
Ultimately we have to try to balance two strong alternatives - safety, and the ability to reward the best pilots. Ideally, pilots
would like to fly their task as fast as possible without the need to be concerned with any other pilots. Forcing pilots to fly
"blind" could be considered "unsafe" by lawyers. I really believe that in 10 years there will be inexpensive displays that show all
local traffic. We will get used to the safety offered by those devices very quickly and wonder how we ever survived without them.
Our kids will think we were stupid to fly around without real-time air-traffic information.
One thing I find interesting is that the best pilots always do well even though there is a lot of leeching and start gate roulette.
I imagine that would continue to be the case even if all the pilots knew exactly where everyone else was at all times.
Those who know me know that I am a verified techno-nerd. I love how technology can (sometimes) make our lives better. Just as I
would never fly without my seat belts fastened, or an aviation radio, I look forward to being able to fly through southern Minnesota
armed with real-time air-traffic information. I hate being "surprised" by a commuter airliner that seems to come out of no-where.
I'm picturing a moving map which displays arrows for other planes in the area. Real-time radar and weather info. will also be very
nice.
Paul Remde
Ventus b
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
"karl h striedieck" <ka...@uplink.net> wrote in message news:xn5v5.25489$wS1.1...@nntp2.onemain.com...
John Cochrane
We are asking for a discussion in this forum that covers two areas:
Predictions of just what might be possible and then how do competition
pilots feel about this potential.Although our rules were altered to prohibit remote thermal detection devices
(see rule 6.6.1.2 for definition), it is likely that more complicated
information devices will soon be available.
The potential is great. This sort of equipment can dramatically increase the safety, pleasure, and size of our sport.
Any sort of thermal detector will eliminate gaggling, leeching, and start gate roulette. No need to follow the pack if you can find your own lift just as easily. This alone is enough reason to encourage their development and use in racing.
Thermal detectors will reduce landouts and landout accidents. Obviously, if you know where the thermals are, you are more likely to get home. Less obviously, knowing for sure that there is no lift out there is very valuable; you can plan a landing much better without the nagging fear that you should be pressing on.
Thermal detectors and other on-board weather information will open cross-country to the masses. The reason most pilots don't go xc now is simple: fear. Notice every silver pilot has a brand new GPS. They will certainly all want thermal locators and a palm pc connected to weather radar, and this will really help move pilots out to cross-country flying. But it will only happen if the equipment is developed, and the equipment will only be developed if it can be used in racing.
Doppler radar and lidar are available now on a pc board. Wireless internet can connect you to ground-based doppler radar and lidar that can show thermals.
Wireless internet that hooks say a palm pc to ground based weather radar or even just weather.com would be cheap and very useful for safety. Is that an isolated storm ahead, or a squall line? Which way is the squall line moving and how fast? It's amazing that we fly without this information.
Weather equipment will never remove the challenge and uncertainty of our sport. Even if you had a real-time plot of all the thermals in a 30 mile radius, how do they line up? Which will be there when you get there? Will the day get better or worse? Once the thermal detector eliminates gaggles and leeching, racing will be more about weather evaluation, and less about start time strategy.
Cost. Everyone gripes about cost, yet look how many pilots spend the $30k to upgrade from discus to discus 2, ventus to ventus2 20, to 27, etc. for 1-2% performance. Worse, look how many pilots are now buying 2 or 3 gliders so they can fly all the classes. Let's not even talk about what open and 18m pilots spend in dollars per percent improvement. Even if the first generation of equipment costs $10k, this is amazingly cheap performance per dollar. Standard cirrus plus thermal detector will beat nimbus 4 without it. But cost is inverse to size of the market, so we should be encouraging the market.
I think the rules committee should remove the prohibition against thermal detectors. Really, prohibiting technology before it has been invented, and its capabilities and costs even evaluated is a really luddite approach.
In the interest of fairness and of the advancement of our sport, put in instead a disclosure requirement, of this sort:
"Any competitor who uses an on-board thermal detector or a connection to any ground-based weather information service must disclose the nature and capabilities of the equipment in a letter to the contest manager, and the contest manager will make this letter public. The contest director has the right to disallow the use of some or all of this equipment if he feels that it presents a clear threat to safety"
If we know what the winners are using, equipment will develop rapidly, costs will come down, any problems can be evaluated, understood and surmounted.
We live in an era of astounding advances in information and remote sensing technology. Let's see what this can do for soaring before we write rules to keep it out. Thank goodness we didn't rule out composites in favor of good old wood and fabric. Or else, let's be pure and get rid of those pesky varios.
John Cochrane
Robert W. Cunningham
First and foremost would be to make soaring competition more of a spectator
sport (and thus involve more advertisers and sponsors). Toward this end, I
feel it is vital that a simple system such as an APRS beacon should be added
between the existing instruments and radio gear. With extra equipment (a radio
receiver, a TNC and a PDA), an APRS receiver could be added, allowing pilots to
monitor the position, altitude and heading of all other competitors.
From a safety standpoint, the LOSS of the APRS signal would yield an immediate
last-known position, and prompt people on the ground to try to raise the pilot
in question by voice radio (to tell him he has a loose APRS cable), or failing
that, to start an immediate visual search.
Taken to an extreme, I can envision the use of VR modeling to show the
positions of all pilots in real-time over the real terrain. Remember how
effective the VR modeling used during the last America's Cup was? That's
another non-spectator sport that hit the "big time" due to technology. I think
it is past time for soaring (sailplanes, hang gliders, paragliders and even
balloons) to do the same.
An APRS beacon will add less than $100 to the total aircraft instrumentation
and communications equipment costs, if designed in from the start. Prices for
add-on APRS beacons and receiver/display systems vary according to your own
engineering skills, the equipment you already posses, and the depth of your
pockets (as is true with most things aeronautical).
I feel it is about time the three Rules of Real Estate should apply to all
soaring sports: "Location, Location, Location!"
-BobC
Chris Ashburn
"Robert W. Cunningham" wrote:
> First and foremost would be to make soaring competition more of a spectator
> sport (and thus involve more advertisers and sponsors).
...SNIP good ideas about position reporting ...
>
> -BobC
Why not a participant sport?
I would like to think your great (and entirely practical) ideas for
position reporting
were targeted at the crew and contest support personnel. This would
allow them be more
involved in the day's racing. From the 'advertisers and sponsors'
comment it must be
members of the general public.
As a pertinent question, how many contest directors want to be involved
with any
more crowd control than they already have to deal with?
THESE are the key people you need for a contest, not a crowd watching
(in reality
or virtually)
The rules surrounding contests should be tailored to major goals.
I'll suggest these three for a start:
1. Fair competition between pilots/planes
2. Enjoyment of all involved (support staff, crew and pilots. Maybe
in that order!)
3. Ease/simplicity/cost of competing in and scoring contests.
We could have discussions about how to achieve these, but it sounds like
there's a
larger issue of what the rules should be encouraging.
Participation or Viewers?
Chris
Barbara MacLean
Chris Ashburn wrote:
> Participation or Viewers?
>
> Chris
How about both? I think the idea is that viewers facilitate participation. You
know, they see it, never knew it existed, decide to try it. Or the viewer tells
a friend and that person decides to look into it because it sounds interesting.
And some of the benefits of more participation in the sport include the more
people soaring, the more people buying gliders and glider accessories which will
ultimately (hopefully) bring prices down for all of us. Plus, the more of us
there are, the stronger we are to fight for our air space. Those sorts of
ideas. Sports grow when brought to the general public. Look at how many of us
now participate in synchronized swimming? Okay, bad example. But you catch my
drift.
18
Kilo Charlie
What qualities do we wish to assess and encourage in a competition
pilot?
We have eliminated the need to navigate and the need to be able to calculate
a final glide. Both of these were at least once thought of as necessary
qualities of competition pilots.
Are we suggesting that any and all technology is appropriate? Do we want to
eliminate the ability to find lift and the "best line" to take? At some
point what will be left?
I am all for encouraging the best technology that we can muster, BUT......it
should be limited to the open class where any and all things should be
allowable. For the other FAI classes there should be some restrictions
placed upon devices that detract from those qualities that we have decided
should be virtues in a competition pilot.
Casey Lenox
Phoenix
Robert W. Cunningham
Most important: Sponsored competitions means more competitors. Lower entry fees.
Larger (and more) prizes. Cheaper T-shirts (partly paid for by sponsor logo
placements). Stuff like that.
-BobC
Gary Boggs
public to watch, I only hope that we don't turn the pilot into a spectator
too.
Gary Boggs eye five
Barbara MacLean wrote in message <39BD8124...@uswest.net>...
jbreite...@my-deja.com
new technical feature came up, the soaring community discussed if this
feature should be allowed or not.
These discussions started with the invention of the vario and have not
stopped today with other technical equipment.
To my opinion, there is no way to stop technical progress. It should be
allowed and supported by the institutions also for competition soaring.
To my opinion, there should be given some general rules to the operation
ability of the equipment. If all pilots would start hacking in data on
some small keyboards during thermalling, and watching the results on
small monitors, the safety would dramatical decrease.
If the handling of new technical advices is in a way that the handling
and monitoring can be done safely, without using too much time and
attention, everything should be allowed what can be done.
If I think about the PDA-devices mounted directly in front of the pilots
face decreasing the sight dramatically and perhaps in the future some
other equipment mounted in the same way, then I would rather stay away
of those pilots.
But all the new equipment allowed in competition will make our sport
more and more expensive.
Jo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerhard Wesp
John Cochrane <john.stop.s...@anderson.ucla.edu> wrote:
[...great posting full of interesting ideas snipped...]
>In the interest of fairness and of the advancement of our sport, put in instead
>a disclosure requirement, of this sort:
i'd generalize this disclosure requirement. every pilot should disclose
information about any modifications made to the glider and about every
instrument he has on board. in case of equipment digitally gathering
data about position, thermal activity, wind speeds, etc, we might even
require that the information be broadcast for the other competitors.
if many gliders had this sort of equipment, i'm sure the data collected
during a soaring day would give us lots of new insights into what's
happening in our atmosphere!
>[Alternative: text/html]
please---no html!
-gerhard
--
Mag. Gerhard Wesp -- Institut f"ur Mathematik -- Universit"at Salzburg
-- Hellbrunnerstr. 34 -- A-5020 Salzburg -- Tel. +43 662 8044 5329
Mike Borgelt
I once had a next door neighbor into motorbike racing in Soth
Australia.
When sponsorship came it became impossible for a private
individual(unsponsored) to participate and do well in competition.
Besides, watching sailplanes race is like watching paint dry or grass
growing. Aren't there enough spectator sports now? Do we need another?
Mike Borgelt
Kaido Tiigisoon
competition. But there's few things, that I want to comment.
1. What the soaring is all about? What are those things, where do the pilots
compete? IMHO all the soaring competitions are about, is how the pilot can
find thermals and how one can go fast on the distance utilizing them. In
that case, every device, that will help to find thermals eliminates one of
the elements of sportmanship from the competitions. It's not about "feeling
the air". It's about the skills, which ones the soaring pilots compare in
competitions.
2. Think twice, before You allow overtechnicize one technical sport. We
already have a very expencive sport for individuals and It's very though to
get some sponsors in there (because the lack of the public interest compared
for example to CART racing). The result can be like a Formula One in Europe.
Where winners are those, who'se budget is biggest. At the start of the Year
You can say almost for sure, which two teams will compete for championship
and most likely eaven predict the winner of the year. In that way we end up
with few millionaires, who can spend most on their shps and win the race
almost on the autopilot.
3. Comparision to the vario is not correct, because variometer is comparably
inexpencive instrument.
The moral of the story is:
Welcome to all the technical improvements, until they don't make winning a
budget-dependent thing.
Regards,
Kaido Tiigisoon
www.purilend.ee
_____________________________
"John Cochrane" <john.stop.s...@anderson.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:39BD07AF...@anderson.ucla.edu...
Bob Greenblatt
ka...@uplink.net wrote on 9/11/00 9:59 AM:
My vote on this topic is to take full advantage of whatever technology is
available to aid in scoring, contest management and administration,
spectator appeal, and in-flight safety. However, we seem to be losing track
of what we are trying to measure here- I think it's supposed to be an
individual's skill at navigating and interpreting and taking advantage of
weather conditions. Therefore, I'd very much like to see real limits placed
on cockpit navigation aids, and other real time feed-back to the pilot. Cost
of all this stuff is to me a secondary issue, but we still need to allow
"mere mortals" to feel they can be competitive.
-----------------------
Bob Greenblatt
bobgre...@msn.com
Robertmudd1u
<rcun...@acm.org> writes:
>Most important: Sponsored competitions means more competitors. Lower entry
>fees. Larger (and more) prizes. Cheaper T-shirts (partly paid for by sponsor
logo
>placements). Stuff like that.>
If we take this idea to the logical extreme it means we may have to look at
Karl's ugly mug on the front of the local Coke machine! Do we really want this?
:-)
Robert Mudd
Pilotnx211
wroke about this back in the 70's. GPS was to replace turnpoint
photos........now theirs Win Pro......it will bring too much information from a
few to the many.......and the many need to practice to be better. Remember the
gaggle starts..when the flock all left at once.....keep it simple. And then
what prevents the top dogs hooking up with just each other?? Jammers?? Soaring
is a individual sport....human.....weather....and glider....together learning
more from thier experience to improve themselfs for tomorrows flight.....ifs it
in the local area or racing or cross country.....look outside...see, .learn,
enjoy.......inside the box.....its dark........
Steve Sovis
track: create different technology classes. They essentially exist re the
physical dimensions (open and 15 meter) and mechanical characteristics
(standard) of the gliders now. Extend the concept to all forms of technology,
eg.:
Open - as KC suggests, anything goes. This is the development class for big
buck players to test all the new theories and toys
15 Meter - include the proven concepts that develop from the open class
experiments, that are "judged" ( the key word) to be worthy of encouragement for
use by competition pilots. Sanctioning these technologies essentally targets
them for cost reduction and development by creating a 15 meter market. Here I
favor thermal sensors and external data links for weather, position etc. as soon
as they are "proven" (ah another weasle word).
Standard - allows those technologies "judged" to be of large benefit to all x-c
oriented soaring pilots. E.g. gps is a safe bet here. I hope. Sanctioning at
the Standard level creates even a larger market and ultimately reduces cost of
these developments to all pilots.
Since you asked, more advice:
- Assume technology will progress at a rapid rate and the appearance of new
technologies is continuous.
- Set up a mechanism to arrive at the required "judgements" about
appropriateness, cost/benefit on an ongoing basis as new canidate technologies
emerge from the open class experiments and other sources. KS' call for comments
on the internet is a great first step.
- Actual class rules should probably change at most yearly to allow new
approved technologies to take root.
- Leverage this approach by ensuring world-wide participation by the FAI and
other national governing bodies. I know, this makes it much more time
consuming, but a united front by the world gliding community sends a strong,
clear signal to industry and the entreprenures about risk/reward. In any case,
the open class provides a sandbox without constraint for the most technically
driven.
What about the technophobes? Well these folks are the ones that resist
technology and would vote even now to outlaw the progress that the GPS has made
possible. As a techno zealot, I say let them come up with a maximum allowable
(but minimum, e.g. are you sure you really need a variometer?) insturment
package for all the classes and saction their own events. Unfortunately, by the
time they staff the gate, film development and scoring functions there won't be
many left to compete (BTW a hearty THANK YOU to Dave Ellis and his Cambridge
crew and others I don't know for making this really happen, I'd much rather fly
than develop film)
Steve Sovis
mike_th...@my-deja.com
technology really helpful. GPS maps and flight loggers/computers have
removed most of the need to do precision navigation and provide great
information on alternative landing sites - a safety issue here out west
for someone new to the area. I now fly further and more often than I
used to.
Last Sunday, I flew my longest cross-country task ever - 220 miles. I
couldn't have done it without the knowledge that others were finding
lift ahead - a great confidence boost. Information on the location of
other gliders in a contest would encourage us more tentative cross-
country pilots to push on more aggressively.
I can't say whether or not this would be an advantage or disadvantage
for hot-shots, who already tend to stick together.
I don't expect to see a working (affordable) thermal detector in my
lifetime.
Mike Stringfellow
ASW 20 WA
Robert W. Cunningham
> Maybe I'm not the right person to comment it. Cause, I've never flown any
> competition. But there's few things, that I want to comment.
>
> 1. What the soaring is all about? What are those things, where do the pilots
> compete? IMHO all the soaring competitions are about, is how the pilot can
> find thermals and how one can go fast on the distance utilizing them. In
> that case, every device, that will help to find thermals eliminates one of
> the elements of sportmanship from the competitions. It's not about "feeling
> the air". It's about the skills, which ones the soaring pilots compare in
> competitions.
> 2. Think twice, before You allow overtechnicize one technical sport. We
> already have a very expencive sport for individuals and It's very though to
> get some sponsors in there (because the lack of the public interest compared
> for example to CART racing). The result can be like a Formula One in Europe.
> Where winners are those, who'se budget is biggest. At the start of the Year
> You can say almost for sure, which two teams will compete for championship
> and most likely eaven predict the winner of the year. In that way we end up
> with few millionaires, who can spend most on their shps and win the race
> almost on the autopilot.
> 3. Comparision to the vario is not correct, because variometer is comparably
> inexpencive instrument.
>
> The moral of the story is:
> Welcome to all the technical improvements, until they don't make winning a
> budget-dependent thing.
Nice argument, but completely wrong.
1. Computer and electronics technology gets cheaper over time. Unlike Formula
One cars. In electronics, today's Cadillac is tomorrow's Yugo. Are you still
using a 5 year old PC? No matter what the millionaires put in their cockpits
today, Joe Six-pack will have the same thing in his cockpit in a few years, for
1/10 the price.
2. Location information has extremely important safety implications that are
addressed by no other technology. While the decision to allow APRS receivers
in the cockpit has its pros and cons, the decision concerning APRS beacons
(transmitters) is a slam-dunk: Do It Now.
Think about it: Do you want family and friends to enjoy what you do? Do you
think they'd be more willing to drive after you when you land out if they could
follow your flight all along? Wouldn't you like to have a faster retrieval
after landing out? And what about emergencies? With an APRS beacon in your
cockpit, your last reported position will always be known. If you are down and
injured, wouldn't it make sense for people to be able to find you without
having to send out a Search and Rescue team?
I also think it would be a blast to monitor an event in real-time over the
Internet. Team members on the ground can still do all they do now (especially
weather reporting), but with location information they can do it better. Event
organizers can keep tabs on all competitors in real-time.
The benefits to larger groups of fans, bystanders, enthusiasts and event
sponsors are all secondary. They don't matter at all next to the safety
issues. But they would still be very good for the sport.
If money is the issue, then deal with the money: It is *stupid* to blame the
technology! For example, allow sponsorship at the event level only, and not
directly to competitors, except in the form of equal and fair subsidies from
the event itself (mainly in the form of lower fees). And, if the sponsorship
thing works, it may even extend to the event providing the APRS equipment
itself, at no charge to the pilot! But this will happen only after APRS proves
its value in the cockpits of the early adopters.
Eventually, the combination of an APRS beacon and inexpensive video cameras and
transmitters will make it possible to inexpensively "wire" pilots, just as they
wire race cars and America's Cup yachts. Can you imagine ESPN covering an SSA
National Event? Don't you think that would stimulate the sport a thousand
times more than a brief shot in "The Thomas Crown Affair" did? Don't you want
to unload your old bird to a newbie and get a new one?
Real-time location information has no significant drawbacks to it. It is good
for several safety reasons. It is good for meet organizers. It is good for
the sport. And it is cheap, proven, and available today.
-BobC
Chris Ashburn
No, I think that's a good example.
There's a sport where the equipment is cheap, there are plenty of pools
close to people
and most people can already do the sport at some level.
Olympic coverage, advertising featuring the sport and sponsorship has
STILL not lead
to an obvious increase in participation. (At least from me ;->
Can anyone come up with a successful example?
Add the fact that gliding (soaring if you will) is the opposite
(expensive, far away and hard
and/or time consuming to learn) and extrapolate how many will seriously
try it after watching
an hours coverage on the TV.
On the other hand, exposure to the public is good. We need people to not
want to actively
STOP gliding activities. This may be through not complaining and closing
airports,
understanding and supporting uncontrolled airspace or funding through
youth training
programs.
To be honest, achieving any of these three things at a national level
would be amazing.
Chris
Chris Ashburn
"Robert W. Cunningham" wrote:
> Most important: Sponsored competitions means more competitors. Lower entry fees.
> Larger (and more) prizes. Cheaper T-shirts (partly paid for by sponsor logo
> placements). Stuff like that.
>
> -BobC
Most important Bob!
May I suggest making your soaring activities a registered charity and
request donations
from the participants of r.a.s.
Seriously, the additional costs of competing in a FAI racing meet (in
the US) seems to be
less than $100.
Tows, accommodation and food would all have to be paid for even if one
were just on a
week's flying vacation.
OK, lets add gps/logger for those contests that REQUIRE them and we see
how technology is CURRENTLY impacting the financial commitment.
The $100 would probably include 2 t-shirts.
There seems to be enough participation at the National comps. (USA
again)
Local regionals do struggle to get a full field for Std, 15M and open
though.
We don't need to target the cream/sponsor worthy competitors who is
already footing
the bill for $80,000 gliders and $15 t-shirts.
We do need to encourage existing club members and private owners to
participate in something
that will add to their enjoyment of the sport.
The cyber-future should make it EASY for people who are current pilots
to try competition
at ANY level to keep their interest in the sport.
On many other threads we've discussed how to retain the folks who start
learning to soar.
Having easy to enter/score local contests they feel comfortable
participating in
can be achieved by suitable technology used to implement appropriate
rules.
Chris
Barbara MacLean
> Can anyone come up with a successful example?
>
Golf, tennis, bowling, gymnastics.....exposure leads to demand. How can you want
something if you don't know it exists? One of the main benefits of zoos is to get
people to care about the animals and their plights as endangered species. So that
thinking corresponds with your remark about getting the public to at least not
actively want to close gliderports. Yes, gliding is a lot more expensive than any of
the activities I mentioned, but there is also not much demand for it (even though you
wouldn't know it by the waiting list for new gliders. However, manufacturing would be
set up differently if there was a consistent demand.)
And about gliding being about as interesting as watching paint dry...it could be made
interesting with the proper technology. Y'all are so negative!
18
Michael
If anything, I am a technophile. I hold a Ph.D. in engineering, and for a
living I design noninvasive ultrasonic flowmeters. I am a patent holder
and a published author in technical journals. I am also an instrument
rated power pilot, and when I fly IFR in instrument weather I have the
best equipment I can afford in the cockpit - including digital VOR/ILS
and moving map GPS. When I fly IFR, I have a need to be in a particular
place at a particular time, and the technology helps me get there as
reliably as possible. I believe in technology - when it serves a purpose.
What purpose does it serve in soaring?
> Back in 1923 or so, the first vario was introduced to soaring. It won the
> meet, and everyone decried the increased technification of the sport.
> "True piloting will be lost; they'll be flying around watching the
> instrument not really feeling the air."
And what happened? People now tell me I'm nuts to fly without
audio (I just find it annoying). A friend of mine was making a flight,
a personal best, and turned back early because his battery was
dying and he was down to just one vario. People did soar without
them, didn't they? What happened to the skill of feeling the air?
> Thermal detectors and other on-board weather information will open
> cross-country to the masses. The reason most pilots don't go xc now is
> simple: fear. Notice every silver pilot has a brand new GPS.
Bullshit. Last week I flew from SCOH to Coulter and back - about 60km
each way. My personal best (cut me a break - when I launched on
that flight I had less than 40 hrs in gliders). No GPS. No electric
vario (visual or audio). I did carry a radio, because one of the
airports along the route had a tower, and I knew I might need to
talk to them. I didn't do it in glass, either. I flew a metal ship,
obsolete for decades, that falls out of the sky when you exceed
65 mph. I fought my way back against a 25+ mph headwind
anyway. More than once I had to turn back to work some known
lift, get higher, then try again.
So who cares that I did this? Nobody but me. I'm the only person
that flight has any meaning for. There was no practical purpose to
it. I spent four hours in the air, I worked very hard, and I wasn't
sure until the final few minutes that I would make it home. And
at the end of it, I arrived at the same place I started! It was a
challenge, and done for the challenge and for no other purpose.
That's soaring, isn't it? It's a sport, isn't it? If we could be sure
of always making the goal and returning home for supper, there
wouldn't be any point to it, would there?
If I had fast glass, GPS, real-time weather updates, that new
gadget that tells you which way to turn to center a thermal, maybe
electronic thermal detection - I bet I could have gone twice as
fast and twice as far. But would it have been twice the challenge?
Of course not. So what's the point?
What keeps pilots from going XC now is that they don't need the
challenge! They get what they want out of soaring by flying in the
local area like lazy soaring birds. Those of us who need the
challenge, need to test ourselves, need to push our personal
limits inevitable drift into activities that do that - and soaring XC is
one of them.
There are skills in XC soaring. Visual navigation is a skill. It's a
skill I brought to soaring from my days as a power pilot, but it's
amazing how different the practice is. Pilotage is still applicable,
but much of the terrain scanning must be done while circling.
Dead reckoning is a whole different game when you fly short
stretches and never really hold airspeed, and when each stretch
is flown at a different altitude and heading. And, just like in a
power plane, it must all be done in short bursts, so that head
down time is minimized. It can be done, but it's a challenge - and
one most soaring pilots no longer care to meet. The GPS is too
cheap, too easy.
Watching the weather is a skill. Little cues - changes in wind,
temperature, clouds. Ignore them and you can find yourself
landing out - or worse. Misread what looks like an isolated cell,
and you can find yourself facing a line of thunderstorms. This,
too, can be done - but real time weather displays are now
becoming available. In a few years, coverage will get good
enough that they'll be worth having. Then the important skill
will be reading the display, not the clouds and the wind.
Finding lift is a skill. Which cloud is working, and which side
of the cloud? And then there are days when the clouds are
just not working, and the lift is in the blue. Where will it be?
We all know the basics - lower down you look at the ground,
higher up you look at the sky, etc. We get off tow low,
explore the air at lower altitudes, scratch around and see
what's working today. It can be done. I flew my first XC
flight on a day like that. But that too is going to be an
interim skill - one day there will be electronic thermal detection,
and you'll just follow a little pointer to the place the gadget
will tell you to go.
Centering lift is a skill. Feeling the bumps and the smooth
spots, watching and building that mental picture of where it's
strongest. But the vario, and especially the electronic audio
vario, has devalued that skill. And you can already buy a little
gadget that tells you which way to turn and how much. Why
sense the lift in the seat of the pants and feel the wind in
your wings when the little gadget tells you what to do?
Why not reach the logical conclusion? Install an autopilot,
a GPS, a weather map, thermal detection, and that little
gadget for coring thermals, and work up a custom flight
director. Then just punch in the tasks, have the flight
director optimize your route, and we're off. Maybe we can
even serve peanuts.
Michael
Andrew Ainslie
disconnect all your instruments. Then place a layer of grease on the outside
of the canopy, thin ehough to distort without totally obscuring. And
finally. loosen up all your connections so that the reactions of your
controls are random. I'm sure that you'll feel very rewarded if you succeed
in returning, and will feel happy walking past the oafs trampling the
flowerbeds who just flew 300 miles.
<AA>
"Rich Carr" <r...@fc.hp.com> wrote in message
news:8pm2hp$lem$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com...
>
> To quote a (kinda stuffy) article that appeared in Soaring a few years
ago:
>
> One of the main rewards of cross-country soaring is succeeding in
> the face of uncertainty. When the outcome of the undertaking is in
> doubt to the very end, the reward is sweetest. More data and
> technological aid reduces uncertainty, makes fewer demands on skill
> and self-reliance, and diminishes the achievement. As we cultivate
> the remaining seeds of adventure in our culture, automation and
> effortless access to information have become the oafs trampling the
> flowerbeds.
>
> - Rich Carr
Bill Daniels
"Robert W. Cunningham" <rcun...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:39BE66C2...@acm.org...
Agreed, Bob. The technology will not remove the challenge of XC but it will
require newer and higher goals. Reaching THOSE goals will be a LOT more
interesting.
Bill Daniels
Steve Sovis
competitions. Certainly we are all free to choose or not choose gadgets for our
own purposes, but how should the competition rules encourage or discourage the
use of technology?
A spectrum of performance/automation classes (antique w basic insturments to no
holds barred unlimited) could allow broad participation. However, too many
choices inevitably dilutes the competition in any one class. What choices will
other countries make? How will international competitions be govern vis a vis
technology?
Surely we can find a way to satisfice the desires of all who chose to compete.
An article in the most recent Soaring suggests that less than 500 pilots compete
in any one year in the US. The same article made the case that small
improvements in pilot decisions impact performance far more than recent progress
in aerodynamic design. What a fertile field for the application of information
and communications technology! How should we choose to compete with technology?
Steve Sovis
Mike Borgelt
<bmac...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>
>And about gliding being about as interesting as watching paint dry...it could be made
>interesting with the proper technology. Y'all are so negative!
At which point you might as well watch people competing at video
games.
Mike Borgelt
Robert W. Cunningham
> Seems the call is for comments on how to govern the use of technology in US
> competitions. Certainly we are all free to choose or not choose gadgets for our
> own purposes, but how should the competition rules encourage or discourage the
> use of technology?
>
> A spectrum of performance/automation classes (antique w basic insturments to no
> holds barred unlimited) could allow broad participation. However, too many
> choices inevitably dilutes the competition in any one class. What choices will
> other countries make? How will international competitions be govern vis a vis
> technology?
>
> Surely we can find a way to satisfice the desires of all who chose to compete.
> An article in the most recent Soaring suggests that less than 500 pilots compete
> in any one year in the US. The same article made the case that small
> improvements in pilot decisions impact performance far more than recent progress
> in aerodynamic design. What a fertile field for the application of information
> and communications technology! How should we choose to compete with technology?
Well, one way would be to introduce a flexible handicapping system that takes
technology factors into account. Over time, pilots could try to minimize their
handicap by eliminating technology they feel they can't use well enough to overcome
the handicap cost. Other pilots may see the same handicap as a small cost for
achieving greater gains.
The particular handicaps will need some adjusting over time, but I suspect no
matter what handicaps are used, the best pilots will always come out on top.
To put it another way, could any amount of technology overcome the differences
between a 15m and 18m glider? Or a 30:1 and a 40:1 L/D? If you think it can, then
you should favor handicaps. If not, then you shouldn't care about them either way.
My personal view is that electronic technology used in competitions never creates
opportunities: It merely helps you avoid mistakes!
-BobC
Snead1
Data Logger Required, No GPS position display, No L-Navs ect. Real time
Position reporting to ground OK. Everyone should have equal information
Bill Snead
6W
.
Douglas Bell
to fly, TE, audio, glide computers, GPS, etc.) the reaction seems to always
be a chorus of proponents and opponents voicing their particular views on
the latest technique/technology. While I have no objection to this, I think
it ignores the basic issue.
The first thing we need to define is what skills are we are trying to
measure in a contest. Once we have a clearly defined of what the purpose of
the contest is, it makes it much easier to evaluate any particular idea
against the specified criteria and determine if it enhances or detracts from
what we are trying to measure.
For example, at one time, pilotage navigation skills were one of the
significant skills being evaluated in a contest. Likewise, the ability to
take turnpoint photos was an important skill. Since GPS navigation and
electronic flight logs have made these skills obsolete, I have to assume
that someone decided that those skills were not ones that should be measured
during a contest.
More realistically, there was probably no concentious decision at all since
I don't belive there is any statement of the skills to be measured. GPS and
flight log turnpoint evaluation were simply adopted due to their
considerable advantages in contest management, staffing, turn-around time,
etc. As a result, some of the skills that were important at one time, were
no longer so.
So Karl, is there any statement of what skills a contest is designed to
evaluate? If not, I think there should be. I think it would certainly help
to bring some focus to the discussions when these issues come up.
Doug
KD
Mark Navarre
Where are the comments from the pilots who actually fly in competition at the
national level? The comments so far
are "bottom heavy" (no offense meant, I belong in that group, too).
Second, I vote for a slow infusion of technology into the sport, particularly
where electronic sharing of info while airborne is concerned. If participation
is an issue, more expense in the form of electronics will not help, no matter
how cool it makes soaring look on a website during a race.
Casey Lennox writes:
>Are we suggesting that any and all >technology is appropriate? Do we want to
>eliminate the ability to find lift and the >"best line" to take? At some
>point what will be left?
PilotNX211 writes:
>Soaring is an individual >sport....human.....weather....and
>glider....together
This is the primary reason I enjoy soaring,
and glider racing. Just me and my wits against the wonderful natural energy in
the atmosphere of our planet. It just wouldn't
be the same with internet access in the cockpit. If I wanted that, there would
be no need to leave the very desk where I now sit. The VISCERAL experience of
soaring is where it's at, my friends. Sadly, it seems that ever fewer humans
want to pursue an activity "greater than themselves".
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
(Feels good to step on the soapbox sometimes)
-
Gerhard Wesp
Pilotnx211 <pilot...@aol.com> wrote:
>what prevents the top dogs hooking up with just each other?? Jammers?? Soaring
>is a individual sport....human.....weather....and glider....together learning
personally, i enjoy team flying much more than flying alone!
-g.
hatrim
puts the emphasis in the wrong place, and any conclusions following
from it will be equally misplaced.
The only reason to fly round and round in circles in an airplane with
no motor is because it's fun. And to (mis)quote George Moffat, contests
are even more fun, and winning is the most fun of all. Contests do measure
skills, but that's not why we fly in them.
As much as we like to talk about the challenges of our sport, it is my
experience and observation that we have more fun when it's easy --
that's why people trailer their ships thousands of miles to fly in places
like Texas. The reason we all fly around with a GPS is that we tried it
and it made flying XC easier.
While airing these things out in a public forum is useful, the decision
whether or not to adopt a new technology is not going to be decided
here, or by the rule-makers, but ultimately by those of us who fly, who
try it and discover whether it adds to or detracts from our enjoyment
of the sport. And the rules ultimately will have to accomodate what
we decide.
If a new technology comes along that make it easier to fly fast and far,
I don't imagine many except the true Luddites will choose to fly without it.
Calvin Devries
LT
Robert W. Cunningham
> It seems to be human nature to find loopholes in the rules, or to just plain
> cheat. We need to think hard about how to simplify the rules, yet allow
> innovation and prevent creative interpretations that give the unscrupulous
> person an unfair advantage.
When everyone has access to the same information and technology, that is, they
share all the same "advantages", then by definition, none can be "unscrupulous".
What if the use of fiberglass technology were outlawed, because it was an "unfair
advantage"? Do not allow technology to draw you into an argument about the
"haves" and the "have nots". Possession is NOT the issue here!
In general, technology seems to ALWAYS level the playing field. It can help new
and inexperienced pilots to quickly learn to fly at an advanced intermediate
level. That is good for both the pilot and the sport. It may even encourage
pilots to enter competitions sooner, and place better. (And, it can be shown
that technology confuses and annoys some pilots - they are always free to turn it
off!)
But technology never seems to help any pilot reach true greatness, or to sprout
feathers. At least, not quite yet... Varied experience and massive airtime are
still the best teachers, something even the best technology can only mildly
assist.
A far more threatening technology, IMHO, would be micro-vortex detectors built
into the wing surface. Paying closer and more detailed attention to precise
airfoil performance would likely have a far greater payoff than most other
technological assists. Many pilots are unsure how different a wet or dirty wing
performs from a clean polished one, at least not in any quantifiable way.
Continuous optimization of the available flight envelope could be a decisive
factor in a contest.
Or not! I was using that rather contrived example mainly to try to show that,
initially, ALL new technology can be viewed as "disruptive". Until it becomes
"commonplace", that is. The current pace of technological advancement will NOT
be slowed, no matter what rules are passed. IMHO, it is far better to actively
encourage early and innovative use of technology in all aspects of soaring. Past
experience shows that technology makes the sport safer and more fun for the vast
majority of participants.
This should also be reflected in all competitions and the rules for same.
-BobC
Andy Durbin
"Robert W. Cunningham" wrote:
Real-time location information has no significant drawbacks to it. It is good
for several safety reasons. It is good for meet organizers. It is good for
the sport. And it is cheap, proven, and available today.
My observation is that anyone carrying the equipment has a significantly increased
probability of landing out. This may be a coincidence, but having someone watching
"over your shoulder" in what used to be a very private activity, may influence in
flight decisions.
I'm sure that influence will go away when the novelty wears off.
Andy Durbin
Dave Nadler
Let's start with some history, on our way to repeating it:
* When the first commercial flight computer I did introduced
two-dimensional navigation (earlier gear just counted down
distance out), the USA rules committee attempted to ban it.
Fortunately, saner heads prevailed.
* When we introduced GPS navigation, the rules committee did
not permit it in USA. Never mind the numerous other countries
where pilots had and happily used & benefited from this
technology. Funnily, the objections disappeared when Cambridge
finally came out with limited GPS functionality (after many
other vendors). Please recall at the time, I explained to
those involved with the rules committe, that the cost would
come down quickly and it would become universal. "It'll ruin
the Sport" they cried ! Never mind the reduced heads-down
looking at maps, reduced airspace incursion problems, and
so forth. Karl, remember a nationals at Chester and some
"airspace + navigation issues" near Monroe the last day ?
* Competition leads the development of technology that all
eventually enjoy. Especially in soaring, but in all other sports
as well. If nobody pushes the limits, there's never any
progress. Competition provides the motivation, the market,
and the proving ground.
* Downlink and position reporting have been in use for
some time. I flew with such a system at the '98 pre-worlds
(thanks to team ILEC for watching the screen, and sadly,
fetching me repeatedly, and thanks to the club at Troestau
for the honorary membership after repeated visits). And
I watched sadly as your trace stopped moving the last day
of the worlds, Karl. Readers of this newsgroup should have
a look at the European contests (most recently Euroglide)
to see how much fun this is for everybody. Definitely beats
watching paint dry.
* We already use remote thermal indicators. They're
called CLOUDS (well, also GAGGLES, BIRDS, DUST
DEVILS, UPTURNED TREE LEAVES, etc.).
* In March 1992, I gave a talk at the SSA convention in
Charlotte called "Soaring Instruments: Past, Present,
and Future", with the following points:
- GPS will become prevalent,
- Moving Maps will appear in a few years,
- Partially televised race within 5 years (sorta correct
if you count Web broadcast),
- No remote thermal sensing this decade,
- Downlinks, Uplinks, and Sidelinks will be available
soon (sorry, I didn't givee a date),
- No fiber-optic Brain Link for at least 15 years.
- Satellite weather onscreen (sorry, I didn't give
a date, but several products are just now coming
available, certainly in time for next season).
You may remember that most didn't believe me at the time
(seems kinda ovious now, doesn't it ?). But, I don't
just forecast the future, I try to build it.
* I revised the forecasts for my talk last spring,
anybody wanna place some bets ? Slides were "the
well-connected sailplane" and...
OK, enough history, how 'bout some opinions (the
newsgroup's been really boring lately)...
* Competition measures who has the drive, determination,
skill, perserverence, and yes talent, to figure out how
to win. Through all of the amazing technology changes
of the last 30 years, we would do well to note that
some of the same pilots keep winning, right Karl ?
Do you think some bit of technology is likely to
change this ? Karl, would you really like to go back
to your Ka-8 ?
* The most important thing we do with instrumentation
is reduce heads-down time and reduce pilot workload -
hopefully increasing safety. There are some damn silly
things out there right now. Karl, didn't you present
the Terrible-Dactyl to the designer of a product from
a well-known USA instrument manufacturer after he
caused a TOWPLANE UPSET whilst trying to tap on
the silly screen while flying ? If you want to increase
safety, how about thinking about banning stuff that
increases heads-down time with terrible user interfaces,
or purports to show you how to thermal if you stare
at the little screen ? Yikes !
* Rules to prevent increased "technification" are
kinda like passing a law dictating the height of
the lake.
* USA pilots are gonna be REALLY pissed if they can't
have the thermal detector like the foreign pilots.
Before I forget, are we going to ban the Eta ?
Or just let our provincial weight-limit rule make it
non-competitive in the USA ?
I think we'd better not take chances !
Ban it outright !
Its got increased "technification" high-modulus spar caps !
> We are asking for a discussion in this forum that covers
> two areas: Predictions of just what might be possible...
Sorry, can't tell you what we're working on, 'cause you
guys will try to ban it (again). Though I mighta spilled
the beans a bit at the convention talk...
> ... and then how do competition pilots feel about
> this potential.
Well, they keep buying our gear, and,
they tell me that they really like it ! ;-)
Hey Karl, when are you going to get some proper
instruments, like everybody else on the team ?
Gotta go now. (He laughs demonically, winks, and slips
through the door through which we can catch just the
quickest glance of infernal machinery, boiling test
tubes, massive electronics gear, and the muffled
shrieks of a test animal under beta-test....)
See ya, Dave "YO" (Hey ! No peaking under the hood !)
Barbara MacLean
Douglas Bell wrote:
> The first thing we need to define is what skills are we are trying to
> measure in a contest. Once we have a clearly defined of what the purpose of
> the contest is, it makes it much easier to evaluate any particular idea
> against the specified criteria and determine if it enhances or detracts from
> what we are trying to measure.
Just plain old speed around a course (whatever it takes)? Is the skill being
measured that basic? I think perhaps I'm the only one that likes that idea.
I'm for sure at the bottom of the racer barrel so I guess my opinion doesn't
count for much but I like technology. I like gliding. I like how it can be
done in any configuration. But I really am interested in how much faster a
course could be flown with whatever technology is available. I, however, will
probably not be a participant in races of those types since at this time I
cannot afford a top-of-the-line glider (getting closer though, thanks Arnd) nor
top-of-the-line instrumentation available even at this moment. And while this
type of technology does get cheaper as it gets better, it always starts out
pretty damn expensive and takes a few years to come down. But I still like
observing it being done and aspiring to it. I just like new stuff, I think.
18
Kaido Tiigisoon
I'm not against any technical improvements. Until they don't change the
competing between thw pilots technology-depedent.
If the tech is used mainly to provide a better overview of the competition
to the publlic in an inexpencive way, who can be against it?
Some other comments follow:
> Nice argument, but completely wrong.
>
> 1. Computer and electronics technology gets cheaper over time. Unlike
Formula
> One cars. In electronics, today's Cadillac is tomorrow's Yugo. Are you
still
> using a 5 year old PC? No matter what the millionaires put in their
cockpits
> today, Joe Six-pack will have the same thing in his cockpit in a few
years, for
> 1/10 the price.
Yes. Youre right about the tech developing fast. But You're again missing
the point. Which is, that the Caddy-man and the Yugo-man compete in the same
year.
>
> 2. Location information has extremely important safety implications that
are
> addressed by no other technology. While the decision to allow APRS
receivers
> in the cockpit has its pros and cons, the decision concerning APRS beacons
> (transmitters) is a slam-dunk: Do It Now.
I don't know, what is the APRS beacon. But what I know, is that the Cellular
operator, where I work, can measure user's position within 500m accuracy
today and moving towards 125m in a near future. Without any special devices
(except an usual GSM phone, which is in a pocket of every soaring pilot by
us. I don't know about the States). This is what I call the proper use of
technology.
>
> I also think it would be a blast to monitor an event in real-time over the
> Internet. Team members on the ground can still do all they do now
(especially
> weather reporting), but with location information they can do it better.
Event
> organizers can keep tabs on all competitors in real-time.
Tht's OK. Nothing against it. But it's not the matter of the discussion.
>
> The benefits to larger groups of fans, bystanders, enthusiasts and event
> sponsors are all secondary. They don't matter at all next to the safety
> issues. But they would still be very good for the sport.
>
> If money is the issue, then deal with the money: It is *stupid* to blame
the
> technology!
Again. Issue is not about the technology at all. Issue is about the
technology, that will make winning a budget dependant. That's the thing,
what I'm against it. This would not be anymore dealing with the soaring.
It's about dealing with the money and they matter of the sport will be lost
in this way. We end up with a soaring F1.
For example, allow sponsorship at the event level only, and not
> directly to competitors, except in the form of equal and fair subsidies
from
> the event itself (mainly in the form of lower fees). And, if the
sponsorship
> thing works, it may even extend to the event providing the APRS equipment
> itself, at no charge to the pilot! But this will happen only after APRS
proves
> its value in the cockpits of the early adopters.
>
> Eventually, the combination of an APRS beacon and inexpensive video
cameras and
> transmitters will make it possible to inexpensively "wire" pilots, just as
they
> wire race cars and America's Cup yachts. Can you imagine ESPN covering an
SSA
> National Event? Don't you think that would stimulate the sport a thousand
> times more than a brief shot in "The Thomas Crown Affair" did? Don't you
want
> to unload your old bird to a newbie and get a new one?
This is the matter, where we are on the same wave. I totally agree with You
here.
Regards,
Kaido Tiigisoon
Dennis Brown
Let's put it a bit less nice. You make the contest rules fit who you
want to win. If you think about it, this is the way all competition goes.
It's really saying the same thing, but less politically correct.
Dennis Brown
In article <39BF1318...@sentex.net>, hat...@sentex.net wrote:
>I think this notion that the purpose of contests is to "measure skills"
>puts the emphasis in the wrong place, and any conclusions following
>from it will be equally misplaced.
To reply:
After the word glide in my address, put the 3 digit
model designation of the Glasflugel Mosquito
Paul Remde
all there competitors were. As I've stated in other postings, I think the improved safety of knowing who's out there and where to
look for them is phenomenal. I also think that this will be available for less than $500 U.S. in less than 10 years. But what
keeps coming up as a question in my mind is whether it would be less fun to compete if we knew where our competitors were (for badge
and record flying it's a no-brainer - of course it would be great to know where everyone else is so we don't bump into one another).
The competition question made me think of an interesting comparison - sailboat racing. I raced small sailboats for years and we
always could see where the competitors were. That made it much more fun. It would have been dull to race around with different
start times - not knowing who won until the day was over. No one called it leaching to follow a leader. At times you could be
rewarded for following (at least for the novice who could learn by watching), at other times you were rewarded for striking out away
from the pack. If you saw that the leader of the race just found a good shoreline lift - you would followed him/her. If he/she was
in an area with low wind, you avoided that area of the lake. Perhaps soaring is similar. We are used to flying around in the dark,
not knowing where anyone else is. Because of this experience, we start to wonder if that was part of what made it challenging. I
think sailboat racing was just as challenging and more fun when I could see the competitors - and I was a leader much of the time
(it was a small club). I think it would be very fun to see an electronic map which displays everyone's location while flying around
the contest task. I'd learn faster and have more fun. That would encourage me to stick with this expensive sport.
The question of thermal detectors may be a similar thing. I used to agree with Bob Wanders wonderful quote, "It wouldn't be any fun
if the thermals were painted pink". That implies that the challenge lies in finding the thermal. Perhaps the challenge is in
making the most of the thermals you find and optimizing how you fly between them. In lake sailing we could see gusts of wind by
looking at the texture of the water surface. You could see areas on the lake that had strong wind and areas that had low wind.
That didn't mean that we didn't have fun. The challenge was in learning to interpret the texture of the surface of the lake, and
then optimize the setting of your sail and strategize how to get around the course as quickly as possible. I think soaring is
similar. We are all used to being more or less blind as to where the strong thermals are, or where the best lift is found under a
large cumulus. I now believe that if the technology were available to spot thermals and determine their strength from a distance -
I'd have even more fun flying around a badge, record, or contest task. I don't believe that technology will be available in the
short term anyway, but I'm sure that I don't want contest rules to dictate how I have fun. Of course we have to be careful to keep
the extremely expensive toys in the open class, but in the long term, if thermal detectors became inexpensive, I think it could
dramaticaly add to the fun. I think the technology could easily help us go 25% (just a guess) further on a given day, maybe more.
That would give me a greater sense of accomplishment. It is fun to tell your friends that you flew 400 miles in a glider. It's
even more fun to say you flew 500 miles. That's one reason I fly a Ventus rather than a 1-26. 1-26's are a blast to fly, but if
the technology is available to go faster and farther with my (limited) skills. I want to take advantage of it.
Did I ramble a bit? I guess I did.
Good Soaring,
Paul Remde
Tom Serkowski
flying and crew assistance limitations in US rules.
If a pilot is able to see the position of other gliders on a map display, then
this could be considered team flying. Granted, this already happens to some
degree if two or more pilots are within visual range.
It would be possible for the crew to digest large amounts of data about
weather and electronically send a summary to the pilot. As communications
device features increase and size/cost decreases, it will be very difficult to
police such behavior.
It seems to be human nature to find loopholes in the rules, or to just plain
cheat. We need to think hard about how to simplify the rules, yet allow
innovation and prevent creative interpretations that give the unscrupulous
person an unfair advantage.
--
T...@Serkowski.com
ASW-20b
http://www.Serkowski.com
Kirk Stant
I want to know where everybody is - because it makes a long flight more fun,
and a LOT safer (especially if we can include power traffic as well!). For
you hairy-chested luddites who forage for food and make your own clothes
before walking to the gliderport; well go ahead and enjoy your 1-26 (sports
canopy, of course). No one is forcing you to get any of the new toys. And
there are times when going retro is a lot of fun. But unless you have tried
it, please don't knock the new technology. I can read a map with the best
of them (used to do it at 500knots and 300feet), but why? I like to fly,
far and fast, not read maps! (OK, charts, to be accurate).
And from my limited (4 seasons) racing experience, knowing where everybody
is isn't going to make me go a lot faster. Even when I follow the hotshots
they usually walk away from me! It may lure me into going the wrong way,
but that works both ways. I like the sailing comparison, that was my
experience too.
Kirk Stant
LS6 UU
Paul Remde <paul....@soarmn.com> wrote in message
news:95Mv5.5374$6i1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I've been thinking about the whole question of whether is would be a
problem if all pilots had in flight (real-time) access to where
> all there competitors were. As I've stated in other postings, I think the
improved safety of knowing who's out there and where to
> look for them is phenomenal. I also think that this will be available for
less than $500 U.S. in less than 10 years. But what
> keeps coming up as a question in my mind is whether it would be less fun
to compete if we knew where our competitors were (for badge
> and record flying it's a no-brainer - of course it would be great to know
where everyone else is so we don't bump into one another).
SNIP
Alan Reeter
competitions?" As they say, "If you don't know where you're going you'll
probably get there."
Having a specific goal for competition (such as to "win the world FAI
competitions") greatly simplifies discussions about technology and rules.
Ambiguous goals create an environment characterized by divisiveness,
derision and groping for direction.
The SSA "National FAI-Class Competition Rules" (sec 1.0 Purpose) says,
"The purpose of a National FAI Class Soaring Championship is to determine a
National FAI Class Champion and to rank all other entrants. Ranking in the
Nationals will be used to select pilots for the U.S. Team in International
Competition."
This is quite ambiguous. I'm sure that we could develop a healthy thread and
argument about what it means.
I propose that we a specific goal... that of winning at the worlds. This
would benefit all of us. Consider this:
1. Having a healthy competition ladder is an essential component of nearly
all successful sports. Not everyone wants to race, of course. However, the
most enthusiastic pilots need a path that provides them with a continuing
challenge after they get their glider rating. Without that, they lose
interest and drop out.
2. Success at world competitions almost guarantees growth in membership.
Lance Armstrong's success has reportedly increased the sales of road bikes
by some 30%. Long distance running, tennis, and sky diving, to name a few,
experienced large increases in membership after they began winning at the
worlds.
Everyone wins... racing and non-racing pilots. (oops, with the possible
exception of those who want the sport to stay small.)
Alan Reeter
Seven One
"karl h striedieck" <ka...@uplink.net> wrote in message
news:xn5v5.25489$wS1.1...@nntp2.onemain.com...
Robert W. Cunningham
> "Robert W. Cunningham" wrote:
>
> Real-time location information has no significant drawbacks to it. It is good
> for several safety reasons. It is good for meet organizers. It is good for
> the sport. And it is cheap, proven, and available today.
>
> My observation is that anyone carrying the equipment has a significantly increased
> probability of landing out. This may be a coincidence, but having someone watching
> "over your shoulder" in what used to be a very private activity, may influence in
> flight decisions.
Reminds me of an old line:
"But I WAS using my instruments! I was watching them closely, until I hit the
ground..."
-BobC
Gerhard Wesp
Paul Remde <paul....@soarmn.com> wrote:
>all there competitors were. As I've stated in other postings, I think
>the improved safety of knowing who's out there and where to
>look for them is phenomenal. I also think that this will be available
i agree with all of your posting, but i think we have to be _very_
careful with the issue of digital position information of the others.
it may well be that pilots come to rely on the electronic gadgets and
neglect looking out of the canopy. please, let this never happen!
there may always be a glider without position reporting around, or the
system might fail, or whatever. it will _always_ be necessary to watch
the airspace.
for the same reason, i think gliding computers should adopt acoustic
user interfaces. speech recognition and synthesis is readily
available today and can---i'm quite sure of it---theoretically be packed
into palm or windows ce computers.
perhaps i'm a bit biased here, but our club lost a pilot in a midair
(the other one also died), which _may_ have been caused (we'll never
know for sure...) by his playing around with the flight computer.
-gerhard
Bill Daniels
demanding of environments for information display given the pilots high
workload, cramped panels and harsh lighting. System designers will have to
pay extreme attention to the way data is presented so it performs a useful
function and doesn't overwhelm the pilot. Presenting data just because it
can be presented without analyzing of the usefulness of the data will
certainly be counterproductive and dangerous. A sailplane pilots' workload
is probably comparable to fighter pilots and the need for simple, instantly
digestible data is the same.
I think a case could be made for "see-through" head mounted displays coupled
with a voice command systems or the glider equivalent of HOTAS (HOFAS?).
This would allow the pilots eyes to be outside the cockpit almost all the
time. Head mounted displays are available now although they are somewhat
clunky. New designs will be as light as sunglasses and the price will fall
quickly since they are aimed at consumers.
HMD's coupled with a head tracker and voice command would effectively use
the sky as a gigantic ultra-high resolution display screen. This could be
the ultimate solution for information presentation.
I imagine that a planform "gods-eye" view of other sailplane positions would
only be marginally useful since the interpretation of the data would require
time and effort. A simple "he's over there" warning box, displayed in 3D by
a HMD, accompanied by an aural warning, would be the same as a prime visual
contact and instantly useful in collision avoidance.
The above will require a LOT of computing power, however, Moore's Law
predicts it will be available inexpensively. Once it is available, the
information displayed will only be limited by the desires of the pilot.
Bill Daniels
CTO
"Gerhard Wesp" <gw...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> wrote in message
news:8pptra$olq$1...@esel.cosy.sbg.ac.at...
> In article <95Mv5.5374$6i1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Paul Remde <paul....@soarmn.com> wrote:
> >all there competitors were. As I've stated in other postings, I think
> >the improved safety of knowing who's out there and where to
> >look for them is phenomenal. I also think that this will be available
>
Michael
> First, a new question:
> Where are the comments from the pilots who actually fly in
> competition at the national level? The comments so far
> are "bottom heavy" (no offense meant, I belong in that group, too).
What comments COULD they make? Let's face it, the top
competitors do not represent a crossection of the sport. They
never do. A top competitor will use whatever technology he
can use to win. Some will forego the technologies that
are against the rules; others will cheat. Rememer that the
recreational xc pilot only competes against himself; a competition
pilot competes against others. There's a huge difference.
The fact is that competition drives 'progress' in the sport. The
question is, what measures progress? I would argue that since
we do it for fun and for the challenge, the only meaningful
measures of progress are fun and challenge. Speed and
distance are not a measure of progress. I'm not inherently
against technology - as long as that technology makes soaring
more fun and more challenging, not less.
Soaring is a mental sport. A conditioned athlete has little
advantage over a couch potato in a glider. We don't pull gees,
we don't run, we don't jump - we sit in one place for hours
and make little motions with hands and feet while we sip
water through a tube and occasionally even much on granola
bars. After a difficult flight of several hours we land exhausted,
but it's a mental exhaustion.
What makes soaring so much fun is that it's challenging on so
many levels. The pilot must juggle awareness of weather,
navigation, traffic, the motion of the air - it's an incredibly
complex game. The game does not get less complex as you
increase the performance of the aircraft - if anything, it becomes
more complex. I can do far more in my HP-11 than I could in
the club 1-26, but the demands on me are higher, not lower.
Thus I do not object to the fast glass I see proliferating, even
though I can't afford to buy it and have no desire to build it.
This is technology that makes flying more fun and more
challenging, and thus it is good technology.
What I object to is technology that takes some of the fun and
challenge out of soaring. Technology that substitutes for
headwork. Technology that makes decisions for the pilot.
"Your next turnpoint (and emergency landing field) is 4.5 miles
on a heading of 030. From your current altitude, you will
make it if you fly at 62 mph. There are two gliders within 1
mile of the direct course, they are 2000 ft above you." One
day, the technology to have a voice in the cockpit tell you
these things will be here. Most of it is here now, the rest is
only a couple years away. Is that the future you want for
soaring? Because rest assured, if you allow it in competition
it will filter down into recreational flying. People will then be
taught to fly that way, and they will be dependent on the
technology and they'll wonder how we did it any other way.
That's the technology I object to - and it's the very same
technology I embrace for power IFR flying, where the
goal is safe arrival at your destination with your passengers,
in minimum time.
Just recently, we had a club pilot set off on a record attempt.
It was to be a goal flight to another soaring club. With good
lift and a stiff tailwind, the pilot made the distance easily. But
the batteries in the GPS died, and so the pilot landed in a
field after being unable to find the soaring club. Welcome to
the future. It's here.
Michael
Mike Parker
couple of weeks ago at the contest in Estrella.
Yes I did abandon the task on one day for fear of landing out without a
crew, but I made it back to Estrella. (I think that Andy won that day).
The next day, I think that everyone who attempted the task landed out. I
had the second longest distance that day, so I don't think you can say that
it affected me more than other contestants.
I don't really think that it affects my mind, but another user suggested
that it did make him a little more on edge realizing that spectators might
be watching (and I suppose judging) his performance.
I have observed abnormally poor lift the last two weekends that I have flown
with a tracker. Maybe the trackers are affecting the weather :-)
karl, I will try to compose some detailed comments on tracking, data links,
etc. and get them to you when I have a chance. But here is the short
version of my comments on glider tracking.
I have been interested in glider tracking more for casual flying and record
attempts than for contests. I believe the technology that will benefit
casual flying is finally practical and affordable.
Once tracking is prefected, it will certainly make long-distance flying
alone safer. It will also make cross-country flying with a buddy more fun
and simplier. With current tracking technology, when your buddy says "I am
in a fantastic thermal somewhere near you", you will be able to find him
simply and hit the thermal's location even if he has already left it. This
should make for more fun flying as well as perhaps giving a little
performance edge if two ships are buddy flying in a record attempt.
Having displays for ground crews has also received positive feedback. I
would certainly demand one if I were stuck being a crew.
Use of trackers in contests might make things more interesting for the
competitors. After I abandoned the task mentioned above, I started looking
at the other ship carrying a tracker. First I was dismayed that he was 26
miles ahead and 4,000 feet above me when I abandoned the task. But after he
rounded the turnpoint and we got close together again it was sort of fun to
see if I was gaining or losing along the leg back to Estrella. The feeling
was a little like how I used to feel when racing sailboats when one can see
the locations of all the competitors. I think that it is more fun than
cruising along alone.
Current displays and software have a long way to go before I would see much
advantage in tracking contest opponents that weren't cooperating with me.
However, with significant human factors improvements, one can see the day
when the computer could keep track of all the opponents for you and give an
advantage in special circumstances. For example, how many times would you
have changed your tactics when crossing a blue hole if you knew that gliders
10 miles ahead were either a) circling in 10 knots lift at 10,000 feet or b)
scraping the rocks trying to stay aloft.
Would it be a good idea to allow (or even promote) air-to-air glider
tracking in contests? I feel that I should be allowed to carry a tracker if
I wish. I can certainly arrange the transmission parameters make it
impractical for my fellow contestants to get an advantage. That is, if I
worried about such things. I don't have to transmit very often, or I don't
have to transmit altitude, heading, speed, etc. How would you know that I
hadn't arranged with a buddy to "team fly" for advantage? I don't have any
quick answers to that one. But it is probably managable with some thought
if anyone considers it a real problem.
Should we force anyone racing to carry trackers? Absolutely not. However,
this should be rexamined in the future after the technology has matured and
evolved. It would certainly change the nature of racing. Whether this
would be for the good or not is debatable. I believe that the nature of the
debate will change once people have real experience with this sort of thing.
Would pilots "heads down" focused on the tracking displays be unsafe?
Without proper displays and human factors, the answer is almost certainly
yes. The answer may always be yes when thermaling with other gliders.
However, the technology could be of significant assistance in collision
avoidance at other times if it, and associated human factors displays or
warnings, were properly developed. I can recall several times when cruising
that I passed very near another glider or airplane. I believe that a simple
warning to "wake up, someone is near" would be be really useful during
cruising flight.
Regards,
Mike Parker, IC
"Andy Durbin" <andrew...@cas.honeywell.com> wrote in message
news:39BFC350...@cas.honeywell.com...
>
>
> "Robert W. Cunningham" wrote:
>
> Real-time location information has no significant drawbacks to it. It is
good
> for several safety reasons. It is good for meet organizers. It is good
for
> the sport. And it is cheap, proven, and available today.
>
>
>
> My observation is that anyone carrying the equipment has a significantly
increased
> probability of landing out. This may be a coincidence, but having someone
watching
> "over your shoulder" in what used to be a very private activity, may
influence in
> flight decisions.
>
Bill Daniels
as old as the introduction of 4-function calculators in classrooms thirty
years ago. Students are smart enough to insure they have fresh batteries
when they know they will need them. Sailplane pilots who intend to rely on
battery powered devices should be just as smart. My GPS will run 40 hours
on a fresh set of alkaline AA's. They will be fresh on any XC flight.
Bill Daniels
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:5O5w5.6813$oc3.4...@news.flash.net...
> Mark Navarre <glide...@aol.comUnSpam> wrote
> > First, a new question:
> > Where are the comments from the pilots who actually fly in
> > competition at the national level? The comments so far
> > are "bottom heavy" (no offense meant, I belong in that group, too).
>
Michael
> The old, "the batteries will give out just when you need them" objection
is
> as old as the introduction of 4-function calculators in classrooms thirty
> years ago.
The objection was valid then, and it's valid now. Don't believe me?
Try to get a teenage checkout clerk to make change when the
electronic cash register doesn't work. It's not a handful of them - it's
the vast majority that can't do simple mental math.
> Students are smart enough to insure they have fresh batteries
> when they know they will need them. Sailplane pilots who intend to rely
on
> battery powered devices should be just as smart.
I think my example from last weekend showed they are not.
> My GPS will run 40 hours
> on a fresh set of alkaline AA's. They will be fresh on any XC flight.
And if the gadget dies, or loses satellite lock, well, I guess you
can just land out.
Michael
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:5O5w5.6813$oc3.4...@news.flash.net...
> > Mark Navarre <glide...@aol.comUnSpam> wrote
> > > First, a new question:
> > > Where are the comments from the pilots who actually fly in
> > > competition at the national level? The comments so far
> > > are "bottom heavy" (no offense meant, I belong in that group, too).
> >
Robert W. Cunningham
> Mark Navarre <glide...@aol.comUnSpam> wrote
> > First, a new question:
> > Where are the comments from the pilots who actually fly in
> > competition at the national level? The comments so far
> > are "bottom heavy" (no offense meant, I belong in that group, too).
>
> What comments COULD they make? Let's face it, the top
> competitors do not represent a crossection of the sport.
So what? Look at the subject line of this thread. If you want a
different topic ("Tech for non-comp and never-gonna-comp pilots"), then
please start it!
-BobC
Robert W. Cunningham
> Bill Daniels <wdan...@uswest.net> wrote
> > The old, "the batteries will give out just when you need them" objection
> is
> > as old as the introduction of 4-function calculators in classrooms thirty
> > years ago.
>
> The objection was valid then, and it's valid now. Don't believe me?
> Try to get a teenage checkout clerk to make change when the
> electronic cash register doesn't work. It's not a handful of them - it's
> the vast majority that can't do simple mental math.
They are the same ones who probably couldn't do the math with a calculator
either. Setting up and solving a problem is non-trivial, and US schools need
to improve in this area.
Hopefully, anyone who can pass a pilot's exam won't have any such problem.
-BobC
Stefan
>
> Try to get a teenage checkout clerk to make change when the
> electronic cash register doesn't work. It's not a handful of them - it's
> the vast majority that can't do simple mental math.
Even worse: When I was a student, I earned some money with teaching
physics at schools. (Age of pupils from 16 to 18, somewhat different
school system over here.) When I gave them problems to solve, they just
wrote down what the calculator displayed and believed it. Results ranged
from rivers flowing at supersonic velocity over apples falling from
trees in microseconds to anything you can or can't imagine. They just
had no idea at all what all those numbers could mean. (To be fair: There
were others, too, but not too many.)
Stefan
Robert W. Cunningham
> I think a case could be made for "see-through" head mounted displays coupled
> with a voice command systems or the glider equivalent of HOTAS (HOFAS?).
Abso-bloody-lutely!
I think it was Olympus that recently demo'ed a see-through head-mounted display
with headphones supplying 3-D audio cues and a microphone for voice control.
The entire gadget was small and light, and could be broken down and mounted on
prescription glasses (though it would seem preferable to put your own
prescription lenses into the included frames). Combine that with a chorded
keyboard mounted to the control grip, and you would have the complete ability
to interact with an arbitrarily complex computer system while still being able
to simultaneously control your aircraft and scan the skies.
Of course, I suspect the most-used commands would be "Shut the f**k up!" and
"Get the hell out of my face!". (Synonyms for "Audio off" and "Video off",
respectively.)
-BobC
Alan Reeter
original trackers about 6 years ago.)
With a tracker I did have the sense of an audience watching, but not enough
to be distracting. It feels a bit more like other spectator sports I've
participated in except I couldn't hear the boo's when I get low or applause
when I hit a good one. Perhaps Mike can arrange for some feedback from the
audience.
My wife Ginny and a couple of other crews watched on a rather primitive
display. She said that she enjoyed "seeing" what was going on. She's
encouraging me to buy my own tracking equipment.
"Mike Parker" <par...@rincon.com> wrote in message
news:8pqu90$rrc$1...@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net...
Michael
> Even worse: When I was a student, I earned some money with teaching
> physics at schools. (Age of pupils from 16 to 18, somewhat different
> school system over here.) When I gave them problems to solve, they just
> wrote down what the calculator displayed and believed it. Results ranged
> from rivers flowing at supersonic velocity over apples falling from
> trees in microseconds to anything you can or can't imagine. They just
> had no idea at all what all those numbers could mean. (To be fair: There
> were others, too, but not too many.)
And when I taught materials engineering to college students
(3rd year) while I as working on my Ph.D., I saw the same
thing. My favorite was the student who computed
interatomic spacing in a crystal lattice at something
like 0.03 cm. He was upset when I took off the usual
points for the math mistake, and then extra points for writing
down an answer that made no sense at all. He felt it was unfair.
Michael
Eric Greenwell
In article <qFCv5.5090$6i1.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
doug....@worldnet.att.net says...
> For example, at one time, pilotage navigation skills were one of the
> significant skills being evaluated in a contest. Likewise, the ability to
> take turnpoint photos was an important skill. Since GPS navigation and
> electronic flight logs have made these skills obsolete, I have to assume
> that someone decided that those skills were not ones that should be measured
> during a contest.
>
First, I apologize for sniping at this since it is only partly related
to the subject, but it's a pet peeve.
No decided these skills were not the ones to be measured during a
contest, because they never were measured during a contest. At least,
not in the last 25 years I've been racing (pilotage might have been
important in the really old days, when free distance was the task).
Pilotage was never a significant skill in winning a contest. The
winners almost always KNEW the area from previous contests or arriving
early and flying it until they did know it. Time spent navigating was
tine spent not soaring, and the winners avoided it by becoming
familiar with the area.
Taking turnpoint photos was never an important skill. Everyone could
learn to do it almost perfectly with a little practice. I took perfect
photos every time, but my contest record shows it didn't matter much!
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
iserv
technology which increases the safety of our sport, whether it be in
improved glider construction, crash worthiness, hookup controls, navigation,
ability to complete a course and prevent landout are laudable measures of
progress...Now when I was a kid I used to have to walk to school in bare
feet 3 miles in the snow....
Michael wrote in message <5O5w5.6813$oc3.4...@news.flash.net>...
>Mark Navarre <glide...@aol.comUnSpam> wrote
>> First, a new question:
>> Where are the comments from the pilots who actually fly in
>> competition at the national level? The comments so far
>> are "bottom heavy" (no offense meant, I belong in that group, too).
>
>What comments COULD they make? Let's face it, the top
Michael
> Just my humble opinion...another measure of progress would be safety. Any
> technology which increases the safety of our sport, whether it be in
> improved glider construction, crash worthiness, hookup controls,
navigation,
> ability to complete a course and prevent landout are laudable measures of
> progress...
Ah, the holy grail of safety. We need no technology to increase
safety in our sport, because safety will not increase.
See, soaring can already be VERY safe. All we have to do is
fly aircraft too stable to spin, too slow and rugged to make
crashlanding fatal, and never get out of glide range of an
airport. In the training environment in the US, we fly 2-33's
in that way - and haven't had a fatality in one in years.
So the technology to be almost perfectly safe is not only
here now, it has been here for decades. And yet people
are dying. Why? Why don't we use it?
It's because without risk, there is no challenge. And so
technology does not actually reduce the risk. It merely
allows us to extend our own personal envelope, and keep
the risk the same.
It has been over a decade now since I fell in love with the
sky. I've skydived, flown power planes, briefly flirted with
hang gliders, trikes, motorgliders, I've soared - and I've
seen friends and acquaintances get hurt and die. And one
thing I've noticed - the fatality rate is always the same.
Oh, not in terms of hours or miles or some other irrelevant
measure, but in terms of participants.
If you look at any of these sports, the attrition rate is always
about 0.1% per year. That means that if you know about
250 people in your sport (and most do) then every 4 years
or so, somebody you know dies doing it. See, we all adjust
what we do to a perceived level of risk we are comfortable
with - and on average, I see about the same level of comfort
with risk in all these sports.
So in a word, no, I don't think technology that improves
safety is a measure of progress in soaring - because it will not
improve safety. It will just encourage people to fly farther,
faster, with fewer options. Speed and distance will increase;
safety will not.
Michael
Paul Remde
I'm going to have to disagree with the posting below. I strongly believe that technology can and will improve safety. I've made
previous posts in this thread in regard to future position reporting equipment in all airplanes and monitorable in my glider for <
$500 US. That is my prediction (and other's). And I feel it will dramatically improve safety. There have been a handful of times
(that I've seen) when a small commuter airliner has come zooming over our gliderport at less than 4000 feet. I've seen them from
closer than I'd like to admit to myself. I would like to have seen them on my moving map and known where to look for them. That
way I could avoid them, and/or they could avoid me. I'm envisioning a little airplane icon on my moving map. If I touch the
airplane on the screen I can view its altitude. That will make me feel much more informed about the traffic in the airspace I fly
in.
Yeah, I may fly with my head down from time to time, but in the long run every airplane will be reporting its position, so an
electronic "traffic" map will be a great safety helper.
Food for thought.
Paul Remde
"Michael" <cre...@flash.net> wrote in message news:kHMx5.1905$864....@news.flash.net...
> iserv <jjb...@iserv.net> wrote
> Ah, the holy grail of safety. We need no technology to increase
> safety in our sport, because safety will not increase.
> So in a word, no, I don't think technology that improves
Robert W. Cunningham
> Paul Remde (paul....@soarmn.com) wrote:
>
> : I'm going to have to disagree with the posting below. I strongly believe that technology can and will improve safety.
>
> Can? Yes. Will? It all depends on how you measure.
>
> You make good points about how something like ADS-B will make you feel
> safer. But I think you need to put them in the larger context of safety
> as Michael suggests. If you feel safer and are less often surprised by
> an airplane in front (or worse, behind) you, you are going to reduce
> your personal spacing minima. Or if you don't, pilots as an aggregate
> will. Safety may be improved in the margin, but more marginally
> improved on the whole.
The safety benefits of tracking capabilities are unarguable and two-fold:
1. In the preventive case, tracking allows the ground crew to help pilots stay within the proper airspace, and help avoid
airborne hazards.
2. In the case of emergencies and landing out, having a last known location will absolutely help retrieval and rescue
efforts.
That's no guarantee that the ground crew even exists, or WILL properly use the info, but it sure can't hurt!
And it has very little to do with in-cockpit displays of the same. Having a beacon is simply the first, best step.
-BobC
Eric Greenwell
In article <kHMx5.1905$864....@news.flash.net>, cre...@flash.net
says...
> So in a word, no, I don't think technology that improves
> safety is a measure of progress in soaring - because it will not
> improve safety. It will just encourage people to fly farther,
> faster, with fewer options. Speed and distance will increase;
> safety will not.
Some technology is unlikely to lead to these compensating behaviors.
For example, I doubt automatic control hookups encourage people to fly
farther or faster. Same for more crashworthy cockpits. Do people take
greater risks because the cockpit is stronger? By your logic, we
should be having the same fatality rate in 2-33s that we have in other
gliders, but you say we don't. Sounds like some technology CAN work.
Nonetheless, I agree with you that much of the potential for safety
improvement from technology can be used to other purposes, thus
reducing the safety benefit. To actually improve safety, technology
must not introduce new problems or persuade the pilot to accept new
risks.
Bill Daniels
but the sacred cow of safety can be used for or against anything.
Bill Daniels
"Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8qbh9q$5rus$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
Michael
> Some technology is unlikely to lead to these compensating behaviors.
> For example, I doubt automatic control hookups encourage people to fly
> farther or faster.
No, but they encourage people to skip positive control checks
in order to what, save a few minutes?
> Same for more crashworthy cockpits. Do people take
> greater risks because the cockpit is stronger?
What makes you think modern cockpits are more crashworthy?
The seating position actually makes spinal damage more likely,
in spite of all the improvements in materials. So why do all the
modern glass cockpits have that very low seating position? Why
for speed of course. Bottom line, better engineering materials
are being used to fly faster, not be safer in the event of a crash.
> By your logic, we
> should be having the same fatality rate in 2-33s that we have in other
> gliders, but you say we don't. Sounds like some technology CAN work.
No, by my logic we should be having the same ACCIDENT rate
in the 2-33 that we have in other gliders. And we do. The fatality
rate is nil because the low speed and steel tube construction,
which are both very low tech, protect the pilot. You have to try
to kill yourself in a 2-33.
> Nonetheless, I agree with you that much of the potential for safety
> improvement from technology can be used to other purposes, thus
> reducing the safety benefit.
Not can, will. Every time. Safety doesn't sell. Here's why.
Those already in the sport think it's safe enough, or they would
not be in it. They are very unlikely to spend significant amounts
of money to be safer doing what they are already doing. What
they are likely to spend money on is safety enhancements that
would allow them to do something they currently perceive as
too dangerous. There are a few exceptions to that rule, but not
usually enough to matter. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing.
The bad thing is this - the enhancements are promoted as
safety enhancements, and the perveived risk of the sport is
reduced. You then get people entering the sport who have
a lower risk tolerance - those who would not be in the sport
if it were not for the enhancements. These people secretly
(or not so secretly) consider those who were in the sport
before the 'safety' enhancements were available somewhat
crazy ("You learned in a single seater? You bungee launched?
You flew XC without GPS or TCAS or weathermap?") and will
consider the enhancements mandatory. Once they become
a majority in the sport, these things will actually become
mandatory. Now you get more rules and higher costs, all
in the name of safety. So you get some people driven out
of the sport, by more rules and higher costs.
I suppose in a way this enhances safety. You'll get more
risk-averse people into the sport, you'll drive some of the
mavericks out, so just by virtue of that the numbers will
look better. And hey, you will grow the sport.
I've seen it all happen before.
Michael
Eric Greenwell
In article <EMqy5.4376$864.2...@news.flash.net>, cre...@flash.net
says...
> Eric Greenwell <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote
> > Some technology is unlikely to lead to these compensating behaviors.
> > For example, I doubt automatic control hookups encourage people to fly
> > farther or faster.
>
> No, but they encourage people to skip positive control checks
> in order to what, save a few minutes?
Even though some people do skip the checks, the result is still fewer
take-offs with the controls disconnected. In this case, the
compensation isn't enough to eliminate the advantage of the automatic
connections.
> > Same for more crashworthy cockpits. Do people take
> > greater risks because the cockpit is stronger?
>
> What makes you think modern cockpits are more crashworthy?
> The seating position actually makes spinal damage more likely,
> in spite of all the improvements in materials. So why do all the
> modern glass cockpits have that very low seating position? Why
> for speed of course. Bottom line, better engineering materials
> are being used to fly faster, not be safer in the event of a crash.
I was comparing older high performance gliders to the new ones; for
example, the Std. Cirrus to the Discus 2, or the ASW 19 to the ASW 28.
There is a trend to use the materials enhance cockpit safety in
addition to speed. I suggest this began with the ASW 24.
snip
It sort of sounds like you agree with my assertion that technology can
be used to improve the safety (as measured by the accident rate, say)
of the sport. You suggest this will happen by attracting people who
are more risk-adverse (e.g., they will do the positive control check
even though they have automatic hookups), while I think some of it
will come from better equipment.
I also think safety (in the form of improved technology, or applying
currently available technology to safety related aspects, such as
using a disk brake in place of a drum brake) can sell. Not
immediately to everyone in the sport, but to increasing numbers as the
years go by. I have seen this trend over the last 20 years in
sailplanes, and it is especially evident in the automobile field.
Michael
> It sort of sounds like you agree with my assertion that technology can
> be used to improve the safety (as measured by the accident rate, say)
> of the sport. You suggest this will happen by attracting people who
> are more risk-adverse (e.g., they will do the positive control check
> even though they have automatic hookups), while I think some of it
> will come from better equipment.
My experience is that little of it comes from better equipment.
Most of it comes from a change in the participants.
But you see, I've been through this before. I used to be a
skydiver. I was pretty serious about it for a while. I made
650+ jumps, I instructed, I did some airshow performance jumps,
I was on a state record. But now I make half a dozen jumps a
year. You see, I was one of the people who was driven from
the sport.
> I also think safety (in the form of improved technology, or applying
> currently available technology to safety related aspects, such as
> using a disk brake in place of a drum brake) can sell. Not
> immediately to everyone in the sport, but to increasing numbers as the
> years go by.
Absolutely. Initially to a small handful in the sport, and then
later to all the risk-averse types who get into the sport.
> I have seen this trend over the last 20 years in
> sailplanes, and it is especially evident in the automobile field.
Automobiles are not sailplanes. One out of every 1000
sailplane pilots will die in any given year. It's the same for
skydivers, hang gliders, and pretty much any area of
sport aviation.
Driving is the most dangerous thing most people do. It is also, in
US society, unavoidable. One out of every 5000 drivers in the
US will die in an automobile in any given year, but those
numbers are NOT evenly distributed across the population.
The odds are drastically worse for 20 year old single men then
they are for 35 year old married women.
Automobiles are fertile ground for safety devices. There are
lots of drivers who realize it's dangerous, and would rather not
do it, but it's just too damn convenient.
Michael
Kirk Stant
>
> Automobiles are not sailplanes. One out of every 1000
> sailplane pilots will die in any given year. It's the same for
> skydivers, hang gliders, and pretty much any area of
> sport aviation.
>
> Driving is the most dangerous thing most people do. It is also, in
> US society, unavoidable. One out of every 5000 drivers in the
> US will die in an automobile in any given year, but those
> numbers are NOT evenly distributed across the population.
> The odds are drastically worse for 20 year old single men then
> they are for 35 year old married women.
>
> Automobiles are fertile ground for safety devices. There are
> lots of drivers who realize it's dangerous, and would rather not
> do it, but it's just too damn convenient.
>
> Michael
Michael, I believe you are mistaken about driving being the most dangerous
thing people do. In my experience (and supported by some past articles in
Soaring, etc) gliding is a lot more dangerous than driving, in terms of
poeple getting killed or seriously hurt per exposure time to the activity.
I personally don't know anybody who has died in a car accident, but I know
several pilots who have been killed in glider accidents. Yes, there are
lots of car accidents (because there are so many cars!), but most do not
cause injury (due to all the safety improvements). On the other hand, lots
of my friends are hurt playing sports!
However, soaring has one big advantage in my view: the level of risk is
almost entirely self-controlled. Very few glider accidents are caused by
outside events or mechanical failure; most are pilot error, pure and simple,
and I am willing to take that risk because I am comfortable with
"self-insuring" myself with my skill and experience.
I doubt that soaring will become attractive to the "risk-adverse" in the
near future; It simply involves too much time and commitment before reaching
the "enjoyment" level that "risk-adverse" types will never get there - for
them it's too boring(!). Thank god!
I'm not a skydiver (although I did go through Airborne training at Ft
Benning, and did a few freefall jumps in the Air Force) but have some
friends who are jumpers, and it looks to me that the sport became too "chic"
for itself. Kind of like Harley's. What's with all those doctors and
lawyers in biker leathers?
Off to the gliderport for a late season race.
Kirk Stant
LS6 "66"
Michael
> > Driving is the most dangerous thing most people do.
> Michael, I believe you are mistaken about driving being the most dangerous
> thing people do. In my experience (and supported by some past articles in
> Soaring, etc) gliding is a lot more dangerous than driving, in terms of
> poeple getting killed or seriously hurt per exposure time to the activity.
I said most. Most people don't glide. I agree with you, gliding is a
lot more dangerous than driving. I did point out that the fatality
rate for gliding is about 1 per 1000 participants per year, and it's
1 per 5000 participants per year for driving.
> However, soaring has one big advantage in my view: the level of risk is
> almost entirely self-controlled. Very few glider accidents are caused by
> outside events or mechanical failure; most are pilot error, pure and
simple,
> and I am willing to take that risk because I am comfortable with
> "self-insuring" myself with my skill and experience.
This is more true in driving. The statistics tell the tale - some
very easily definable demographic groups have MUCH lower than
average fatality rates in driving. The same is NOT true in soaring.
> I doubt that soaring will become attractive to the "risk-adverse" in the
> near future; It simply involves too much time and commitment before
reaching
> the "enjoyment" level that "risk-adverse" types will never get there - for
> them it's too boring(!). Thank god!
I used to think the same thing about skydiving. I was wrong.
> I'm not a skydiver (although I did go through Airborne training at Ft
> Benning, and did a few freefall jumps in the Air Force) but have some
> friends who are jumpers, and it looks to me that the sport became too
"chic"
> for itself. Kind of like Harley's. What's with all those doctors and
> lawyers in biker leathers?
Yeah, a lot of that happened.
Michael
Kirk Stant
> I used to think the same thing about skydiving. I was wrong.
I sure hope that it doesn't happen to soaring. And judging by the continued
acceptance of the 2-33 in US gliding culture, I don't think it's going to
happen soon, anyway! But I wonder if it isn't happening in Europe, where a
lot more soaring is done in glass? Maybe their club culture will prevent
it?
Car driving should be more dangerous; you are continually surrounded by
untrained drivers at close distances; why gliding has a worse safety record
is a bit of a mystery to me. Flying is really not that hard. Of course,
the penalty for gross baffoonery is usually much higher!
Kirk
Andreas Maurer
>I said most. Most people don't glide. I agree with you, gliding is a
>lot more dangerous than driving. I did point out that the fatality
>rate for gliding is about 1 per 1000 participants per year, and it's
>1 per 5000 participants per year for driving.
Just for comparison: These are the corresponding numbers for Germany.
During the last ten years on an average 14 German glider pilots were
killed per annum, 22.5 were badly injured.
Source: http://www.bfu-web.de/fustat/1999/BFU99Segelflug.PDF)
In 1999 we had 6.400 certified gliders and 36.700 glider and
motorglider pilots.
I conclude that a rate of 1 out of 1000 is certainly untrue at least
for Germany.
BTW: Accidents of German pilots abroad (for example in the French
alps) are included here.
Bye
Andreas
Bill Daniels
embarrassment to me.
I once commented that safety discussions that I am familiar with seem to
concentrate on the least likely scenarios like double release failures and
ignore the common causes of accidents such as "gross buffoonery".
I figure the way to reducing the accident rate is to concentrate on the
"really stupid stuff" and the rest will take care of itself.
Bill Daniels
"Kirk Stant" <st...@primenet.com> wrote in message
Rickenbacker
<X4Kz5.7951$864.4...@news.flash.net>:
>I said most. Most people don't glide. I agree with you, gliding is a
>lot more dangerous than driving. I did point out that the fatality
>rate for gliding is about 1 per 1000 participants per year, and it's
>1 per 5000 participants per year for driving.
>
But considering how many people drive cars, wouldn't this still make it
more likely to die driving than flying?
--
Rickenbacker
Christopher Nicholas
cars, wouldn't this still make it more likely to die driving than flying? "
It depends on whether you pick a person at random from the whole population,
or whether you are talking about someone known to be a participant in
flying.
People who don't fly and do drive are more likely to die driving. There are
a lot of them (about 3000 a year in the UK, I believe), even though there
are a lower proportion of fatalities driving vs flying.
People who fly and drive are more likely to die flying. There are fewer of
them in total, but a higher proportion of flying participants. (About 15-20
a year in general aviation flying in the UK, I believe, including an
avareage of 3-4 glider pilots).
If there are any people who fly but don't drive (or act as passengers in
vehicles), they are more likely to die flying, but they are likely to be so
few as to not upset the statistics.
Chris N.