Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

[Sean Fidler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR4aBVyVW0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please endure the music and watch this video, paying particular attention to 2:00 to 2:25 into the short video.

As was often argued with other PNA bases systems recently...why would these well known soaring manufactures offer instruments which allow precise flight without reference to the ground? Please comment.

Have these companies been approached by the USRC in the same manner as Butterfly Nav, LK8000 and XC Soar in terms of providing versions of there software that is assured of not being usable in contests?

Perry is a few short weeks away and alot of folks may have LXNAV systems in there cockpits. Certainly a few do. The World Championships will undoubtedly by full of them.

What is the status of LXNAV 8000, 8080 & 9000 Flight computers in US contests? Clearly they possess the capability of providing AH functionality to their pilots, easily.

Sean
F2

[skysc...@gmail.com]

I didn't see any VFR into IMC flight :) The RC needs to lighten up IMO.

[GM]

>>>> Please endure the music and watch this video... <<<<
What's wrong with the music?

[Sean Fidler]

I, personally, like AC/DC ina nostalgic way. I imagine the rules committee being more into classical. Perhaps the occasional jazz flute...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c_ufaxeSTs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Dave]

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:07:36 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:

Whats your point?

There is a $1700 AHRS module (physical external box) that can be plugged into some pretty expensive glide computers to allow cloud flying.

Its not allowed in SSA sanctioned contests this year. Or in IGC sanctioned contests (like the WGC in Uvalde). LX8000, no problem. LX AHRS box, big problem.

Asking the organizers if they will check for it? Maybe. You can take your chances and plead ignorance if caught. Don't expect much sympathy.

Why would they build it? To sell a few, maybe. Gotta have some feature to differentiate your product from the rest.

Why did they not integrate it into the main glide computer? It only adds 30% to the price and makes the package much cleaner. And everyone wants it anyway, right?

-Dave

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks Dave.

The points are intentionally subtle.

To put it into a less subtle form:

...It seems that many or perhaps MOST glide computer & instrument manufacturers (Butterfly, LX NAV, XC SOAR, LK 8000, etc) are indeed building AH capability into their products. Several notables on RAS recently went nuts stating "how dare instrument manufactures include this technology in their wares...etc" Several "organizations" were recently shaken down with ultimatums from the USRC to ensure new software versions are GUARANTEED to NOT have the capability to utilize AH functionality in ANY WAY etc (or they would be put on a black list and deemed illegal for US contests). This requires special software versions be developed by these "offending" organizations which absolutely GUARANTEES are incapable of utilizing AH functions (BOX OR NO BOX!).

LXNAV seems absolutely untouched in this area even though their new line of products offers highly capably "pro grade" AH functionality complete with a hard mounted fixed gyros, etc. I love the term, "Trust but verify." Here is why...nobody is going to check thru the glider and ID the existence of the box at a regional. This is a cold hard fact. So why not the same standard that has been set just weeks ago for all the rest?

I will ask the rules committee VERY DIRECTLY so there is no confusion.

Is LXNAV going to be required to develop a special US Contest Firmware version (time locked or permanent) which CANNOT utilize the AH box? Thus ENSURING that the AH functionality is unusable on the instrument? Just as ButterflyNAV and XC Soar (and LK 8000) have been forced to do in order to be allowed in US Contests in 2012 (just weeks ago)? Are the LXNAV product owners going to be forced to install these new firmware versions which ensure the functionality is locked out during the entire contest in the same way ButterflyNAV has been asked to do? And in the same way XC Soar is being forced to do for literally no useful reason (its AH functionality is utterly useless).

If not...WHY NOT? I find this all very peculiar and must say it borders on hypocrisy. Especially when the capability and potential of the new LX NAV AH is considered. This "offensive" :-) contest capability must be absolutely ensured INOPERATIVE during contests. These are not my words...but the standard that has been set for us all (pilots and equipment manufactures (and dealers)).

That is my point I guess. I would like to see consistency and all pilots and manufactures (and dealers) inconvenienced equally. ;-)

Sean
F2

[Sean Fidler]

So a completely docile and different approach for a LXNAV, a far more "dangerous" system in terms of AH cheating risk in US Contests. Makes perfect sense really...

On Sunday, April 1, 2012 10:07:36 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:

[John Cochrane]

> Just because IFR may not be permitted in your country, does not mean it
> is not permitted elsewhere.
>
> However, there are moves afoot to facilitate the recording the AH or T&S
> state in the .igc file. So that should keep everyone happy ;=>
>
> Tim Newport-Peace                       t...@spsys.demon.co.uk
>
> "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."


Just for clarity, the approach of carrying an artificial horizon
enabled instrument, but relying on igc file verification to see it is
turned off, will not work in US contests. US rules say you can't have
the AH in the glider and functional, period.

Why? Pilots carry multiple recorders. So now you have to check all the
files every day, and the scorer needs to know how many you have. Any
broken log now must mean the presumption the AH was on, so zero points
for the day, despite backup logs, and many unhappy pilots. Scorers,
CDs, and our patient software writer Guy Byars have enough to do to
run contests well and monitor basic file security without this extra
step. This isn't the worlds, this is a 20 glider regional with a
volunteer CD and scorer. We have enough, and entirely valid,
complaints about complexity of rules and procedures. We're barely
getting file security checks to work in the field. This would be a
very complex system in practice, with lots of bugs and little
payoff.

If you have an LX, leave the AH module at home for US contests.

John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

Dear USRC,

Should you not IMMEDIATELY require a special US version of the LXNAV firmware for LXNAV 8000, 8080 and 9000 Flight Computers (as IS now required for pilots using the butterfly vario, LK8000 and XCsoar)?

The rules commitee has CLEARLY established precedent for the other "offending" systems of far less capability. As such only a special US rules firmware can eliminate the risk of cheating.

The LXNAV Artificial Horizon product is a highly capable system which is easily accessible to the contest pilot. As shown off in the video advertisement (see first post in thread) the LXNAV AH funtionality is the "real deal" complete with a fixed installation module, calibrated real spinning gyros, etc. It will be highly accurate and capable of accurate cloud flying.

Astonishingly the USRC has not required the manufacturer of this specific system, LXNAV, to provide its US contest pilot customers with a US rules compliant firmware version which ensures the functiinality is impossible to use? Butterfly was required (asked) to provide this kind of US rules "compliant" firmware very early on and Butterfly has the exactly same level of AH technology.

Even LK8000 and XCsoar have been "required" (forced) to build US rules compliant software versions just weeks ago dispite the fact that accurate IMC flight (let alone safe) is literally IMPOSSIBLE with their unfixed, uncalibrated, highly unreliable mobile based electronic gyro's which are designed for "1g" gaming and not contest level flight as Butterfly and LXNAVs systems are specifically designed for.

Sincerely,

Sean
F2

[Paul Remde]

Hi Sean and everyone,

Interestingly, LXNAV has just announced new firmware version 2.8 for the
LX8000, LX8080 and LX9000. I don't think the details are on their web site
yet. In addition to many cool new features, they announced a new
"Competition Mode" for customers using an AHRS. It makes it possible to
switch off the AHRS for the entire contest period. The screen capture in
the PDF file shows a dialog box appearing on the screen showing "AHRS will
be switched OFF for 14 days! Do you really wish to do that?". This implies
that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be re-enabled for the 14
days.

I imagine that the U.S. Rules Committee will need to approve the new
feature. I don't know whether or not LXNAV has approached the U.S. Rules
Committee in regard to this new feature yet.

It is very easy to remove the AHRS for the entire contest period anyway, but
this new feature would make it so that a pilot couldn't sneak the AHRS back
into the glider during the contest.

I have just installed an LX9000 and AHRS in our DG-1000S. I plan to fly in
a U.S. contest in 2013. If necessary I plan to completely remove the AHRS
from the glider for the duration of the contest. But, I must admit, it
really makes me very, very unhappy/angry that I must remove the AHRS from
the glider, or disable it, or both. I would never use it to cheat. I will
already be agreeing to fly by the rules. It just bugs me that I must
disable this cool and fun high-tech feature because the rules committee
(which I highly respect and appreciate) is worried that pilots would use an
AHRS-like feature to fly up into clouds (which would be unsafe and
cheating).

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"Sean Fidler" <smfi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11592598.2199.1333289256635.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo2...

[Max Kellermann]

Paul Remde <pa...@remde.us> wrote:
> This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
> re-enabled for the 14 days.

What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?

I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
without the new AHRS hardware.

(Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)

If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
;-)

I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
"LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:

http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/max/lk8000.git/commit/?id=67c52a848e6b0ab675a3c0cf615859495c5818d2

Given the existence of this patch, contest organizers cannot be sure
whether a pilot's PNA runs an approved LK8000 version or a fake
full-featured version with my patch.

I'm not trying to support cheaters, I just want to make clear that
banning new technology is not a useful measure to prevent cheating.

Max

[PCool]

This statement that you have written a "patch" disabling LK8000 competition
mode is quite untrue.
You are only enabling back the TRI.
On our website we clearly state:

THE ONLY APPROVED AND GRANTED TO BE COMPLIANT VERSIONS FOR COMPETITIONS ARE
DOWNLOADABLE FROM THE OFFICIAL RELEASE AUTHORITY OF THIS SOFTWARE, WHICH IS
lk8000.it .

DOWNLOADING THE SOFTWARE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE DOES NOT - DOES NOT - GRANT
ANY KIND OF COMPLIANCY.

THE CRC/MD5 CHECKSUM FOR THE EXECUTABLES MUST MATCH THOSE OF THE EXECUTABLES
RELEASED BY THE SOFTWARE AUTHORITY.

This is also required by the US RC, and I believe it is a good approach.
In fact, your faked version will not pass the CRC MD5 check, and the user
will be banned as a cheater for the rest of his life.

So your statement

>Given the existence of this patch, contest organizers cannot be sure
>whether a pilot's PNA runs an approved LK8000 version or a fake
>full-featured version with my patch.

is not true. You must do something more than that: fake the CRC MD5
checksum, and make the TRI it fit inside the same number of bytes of the
code.
And by the way, the compiler generating the code for LK8000 has been
recompiled for the purpose, so I doubt you can regenerate the same code.

Too optimistic, I guess.
paolo



"Max Kellermann" <m...@duempel.org> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jlf1a7$lr2$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de...

Paul Remde <pa...@remde.us> wrote:
> This implies that the AHRS is completely disabled and can't be
> re-enabled for the 14 days.

What if I publish a proof-of-concept patch that adds a horizon to
LX8000 and others, circumventing this switch?

I think I can assemble one for LX8000/9000 (from LXNav) and the
upcoming LX Zeus (from LX Navigation) in a matter of a few days. It
will not be detectable without special equipment. And it will work
without the new AHRS hardware.

(Pilots interested in such an exploit may send me a private message)

If mainline XCSoar gets banned, I will demonstrate that most other
products must be banned, too. Better keep an old first-generation
electronic vario at hand when you attend a contest, to avoid surprises
;-)

I have already written a patch for LK8000 that pretends to be
"LKCOMPETITION" but doesn't actually disable the horizon:

..

[Max Kellermann]

PCool <coolwin...@nospam.email.it> wrote:
> is not true. You must do something more than that: fake the CRC MD5
> checksum

It seems you do not understand the nature of CRC. "Faking" a CRC is
trivial, and is the most basic property of CRC. Better remove the
mention of CRC from your web site, it's embarassing!

Faking a MD5 checksum is not impossible nowadays, but still harder
than winning a contest. And not required at all for "cheating".

Now you tell me how the contest will verify the MD5 checksum
(practical example, not some theoretical contest organized by some
uber-geek), and I tell you how to get around it easily.

(There are enough catch-all cheats that not even the aforementioned
uber-geek will notice, but I'm curious how you imagine the
verification procedure will work in practice)

> and make the TRI it fit inside the same number of bytes of the
> code.

Don't be silly. That one is just as trivial as "faking" a CRC.

Max

[PCool]

By the way,
http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/src/Renderer/HorizonRenderer.cpp?id=v6.2.6c
inside xcsoar 6.2 there is really a Horizon, and US RC require you to remove
that code even if unused, like we did.
Even if unused, the Horizon code is included by the Makefile
http://git.xcsoar.org/cgit/master/xcsoar.git/tree/Makefile?id=v6.2.6c

So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
competition version of xcsoar too.

regards

paolo




"Max Kellermann" <m...@duempel.org> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jlf1a7$lr2$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de...

[PCool]

Thanks, Professor.

"Max Kellermann" <m...@duempel.org> ha scritto nel messaggio

news:jlf3ei$nac$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de...

[Max Kellermann]

PCool <coolwin...@nospam.email.it> wrote:
> So the 6.2 version is not compliant to US RC rules.
> Instead of trying to help people cheating, I suggest you release a
> competition version of xcsoar too.

Thanks for the nice suggestion, but I suggest you actually read and
understand the code before drawing (the wrong) conclusions.

Max

[PCool]

I did.
I could read:
This feature of having a backup artificial horizon based on inferred
orientation from GPS and vario data is useful, and reasonably well
tested, but has the issue of potentially invalidating use of XCSoar in
FAI contests due to rule ref Annex A to Section 3 (2010 Edition) 4.1.2
"No instruments permitting pilots to fly without visual reference to
the ground may be carried on board, even if made unserviceable." The
quality of XCSoar's pseudo-AH is arguably good enough that this
violates the rule. We need to seek clarification as to whether this
is the case or not.

And this feature is included in the 6.2, it does not matter if disabled or
enabled.
The US RC is requesting that such code is not inside the executable.

"Max Kellermann" <m...@duempel.org> ha scritto nel messaggio

news:jlf40i$o89$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de...

[Sean Fidler]

+1 Max. Its a bit like the first attempt at communication with the alien mother ship of Close Encounters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUcOaGawIW0

Its going to take some time to understand eachother!

Paul, I truly appreciate your post on the firmware version and your efforts to smooth the sands. The timing is (shockingly) perfect for LXNAV to release this news. I'll be happy when the USRC makes a specific statement about the requirement for special firmware to ensure that LXNAV's modern instruments AH capability is absolutely inaccessible, just as is required for the others. Firmware and app versions is a fairly weak method of enforcement, FWIW. That said, my posts are intended to engage a broader argument. I hope its starting to sink in a little. Its a pain in the ass for everyone! Fairness and consistency comes into play...

The inconvenience these AH ban rules are increasingly producing (for all of us...dealers, software and hardware manufactures, RC, contest staff and especially pilots who heaven forbid have bought updated systems) greatly outweigh the competition or safety value of banning the flood of AH type functionality in modern (racing level) soaring instruments. I assume the vast majority of US pilots do not cheat by cloud flying. Even with the existing rules...the intelligent cheater is going to EASILY be capable cheat no matter what is written. This is the fact that it most troubling.

It is definitely not enough, in my opinion, for LXNAV customers to "say" that they don't have the AH box installed. Its capability is FAR MORE THREATENING than, for example, mobile phone based systems. The rest of us (Butterfly, LK8000 and XCSoar) are required by USRC to build/install special versions of firmware and software for our products. If Paul's post is correct, add LXNAV to that list assuming the USRC requires it and enforces it. Great. But what does all this effort really gain us?

At a basic level, who is going to enforce the firmware and app versions and confirm them? This is more difficult than it sounds. I could easily switch my SD card on my phone for example with XCSoar. So could a young child. To be effective in any meaningful way these inspections need to be on a daily basis as firmware can be changed in 5 minutes and SD cards can be swapped out in seconds. Etc. The cheating pilot is far more creative than this ban and even strong enforcement levels can detect... The ban does literally nothing to prevent actual illegal cloud flying. It is a very minimal deterrent in general given the level of tools available.

So what is it going to be in regards to LXNAV? USRC required contest firmware version or daily box checks inside the panel? We cant have it both ways, can we? Who will enforce this at contests and to what level & frequency (daily I hope with random spot checks). Can competing pilots request to check other pilots gliders at contests if they suspect cheating?

I suggest that it should NOT be an honor system with LXNAV's $1700 AH system. The LXNAV system is an extremely capable product and should require a much higher standard than useless mobile systems which HAVE ALREADY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED by you to produce US Contest legal versions of their firmware and software.

Sean
F2

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 10:26:15 AM UTC-4, Max Kellermann wrote:
> Paul Remde

[Tobias Bieniek]

That is obviously wrong. The AH in 6.2 is bugged and will never be drawn even if the code exists to draw it... How can you prove that such code isn't included in WinPilot, SeeYou, Strepla, etc.?!

[PCool]

So you are confirming that the Horizon code is in the 6.2 version.
You say it is bugged, but the code says the contrary:

Quoted from xcsoar code:

This feature of having a backup artificial horizon based on inferred
orientation from GPS and vario data is useful, and reasonably well
tested, but has the issue of potentially invalidating use of XCSoar in
FAI contests due to rule ref Annex A to Section 3 (2010 Edition) 4.1.2

And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.

Let me add that it was not smart nor clever to come here declaring that it
is easy to cheat by adulterating other's software.
The only software proven to be invalid right now is xcsoar in fact, and
there is no need to adulterate it, because it comes out naturally invalid.

Winpilot, SeeYou, Stretpla, LK, LX8000... why are xcsoar developers
concerned only about what others are doing?
You cannot prove that these software have illegal code inside, but now
everyone know by xcsoar's own admission that Xcsoar has it.
Nice move.

paolo





"Tobias Bieniek" <tobias....@googlemail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20728050.2799.1333488993408.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbex14...

[Evan Ludeman]

https://play.google.com/store/search?q=XCSoar+No+Horizon&c=apps

Works for me.

T8

[Blue Whale]

To Sean's point, will there be x-ray machines and random strip searches on the grid before each day's launch to ensure no one has a PNA hidden in their jockey shorts?

[Max Kellermann]

PCool <coolwin...@nospam.email.it> wrote:
> And xcsoar already knew it was forbidden to use it.
> US RC are asking you to remove that piece of code.
> The 6.2 version is not US RC compliant, all of a sudden.

According to your "logic", a photo of a horizon would be a violation
of the FAI Sporting Code, because ... it renders a horizon!


I know you're the guy who likes trolling around spreading FUD and
never answers objective questions when one starts the futile attempt
to question your FUD, but let me give you yet another chance to make a
fool of yourself:

Please explain how XCSoar 6.2 violates the FAI Sporting Code.

I mean, really explain. Not just the usual screaming out loud "but
there's a horizon renderer, don't you see!!!!!!11", really explain how
the code for rendering a horizon (without code that calculates the
horizon) depicts an instrument that allows the pilot to fly without
visual reference to the ground.

Max

[Peter Scholz]

Max & Paolo,

I would like to ask you kindly, could you please move your personal
discussion off to a more private terrain. I guess you know how to reach
each other via E-Mail, there is no need to bother the whole r.a.s.
community with this rather special dialog.

I don't want a flame war like we had a couple of years ago.

Thank you for your cooperation.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

[Evan Ludeman]

On Apr 4, 3:27 am, Max Kellermann <m...@duempel.org> wrote:

It doesn't, of course. FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
it's still broken, doesn't display at all.

XCS developers, please just take this annoying, troublesome, untested,
non-working TOY out of your otherwise excellent code and just leave it
out. It serves no useful purpose.

There are plenty of other android horizon type applications out there
that people can amuse themselves with should they choose to do so.

T8

[Sean Fidler]

Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

[Sean Fidler]

What is the definition of AH toy? AH's that have a chance that they may actually allow cloud flying and AH's that have no chance?

The "toy" is not the problem. The problem (as this thread intends to point out) is the useless, outdated, nonenforceable, unenforced and unnecessary rule and all the hassle it is causing everyone (example: you trying to communicate with the rules committee on how ineffective XC soars AH is). The rule has no fundamental or measurable benefit other than making the traditional guard happy (who really do not understand the capability of the technology in my opinion) and irritating alot of people all over the world.

The rule should be for fixed gyro's only (systems which might actually work)...not cell phones with unfixed, un-calibrated solid state gyro's designed for rudimentary 1g gaming. The rule should be strictly, actively enforced or removed entirely.

Back to topic. LX NAV's system is clearly usable for cloud flying? Were is my statement on USRC policy outlawing its presence at contests? Hello RC...I know your'e reading this... We are waiting..............

Sean
F2

[kirk.stant]

Sean, why are you the only person out there making a huge mountain out of this molehill?

The rule is simple - don't show up with a gyro AH or T&B (or the ability to display USEFUL attitude data) if you want to race. Yes that means no LX with AHRS. You also can't show up with 18M wings at a 15M race - its the RULE!

All your whining about smart phones and PDAs is exactly that - whining. Without gyros, none of them display USEFUL attitude data. That includes the latest smartphones. Just because it has a pretty "HUD" app doesn't mean you can use it to cloud fly! And no reasonable CD is going to waste the time worrying about iPhone apps or what version of XCLKSoar8000 you are using!

If you cloud fly and get caught you will get booted, regardless of what you have in your cockpit - so stay out of the clouds!

If you feel so stongly about changing the rule to allow gyros in the cockpit during a race, try building support from the racing community then approaching the RC with a reasoned argument and proposed solution.

And to be honest, I wouldn't mind having a backup AH in my cockpit - but it's just not a big deal for me.

But your approach of throwing a temper tantrum on RAS is REALLY counterproductive, IMO! - well, except for starting the hissy fit between Max and Paolo - as a SeeYouMobile user that was entertaining!

OK, I'll shut up now. Good luck with your contest at Ionia - I really enjoyed the times I raced there - great location and great people.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Sean Fidler]

Kurt, So unsurprisingly you want me to go away. Got it. But not going to happen. Do you have a LX product? Sorry it is nothing personal...

I want to see everyone's feet held to the same fire. The standard has been set clearly by USRC. If other software/hardware possesses AH capability (of any level of usefulness) the they must be forced to build a special version of firmware or software. LXNAV (and any other "offenders") should be "required" to provide its customers a special version as the others have been forced to do. Reason: nobody is going to check under the panel and the technology is very capable. Double standards are afoot. We have a big double standard in the case of LXNAV vs. Butterfly, XCSoar or LK8000.

The USRC has opened this can of worms. But they are only forcing a couple parties to eat them. We all must eat the same worms. Now lets dig in! Ummmmm!

Sean
F2

[Dave]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:50:21 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> What is the definition of AH toy? AH's that have a chance that they may actually allow cloud flying and AH's that have no chance?
>
> The "toy" is not the problem. The problem (as this thread intends to point out) is the useless, outdated, nonenforceable, unenforced and unnecessary rule and all the hassle it is causing everyone (example: you trying to communicate with the rules committee on how ineffective XC soars AH is). The rule has no fundamental or measurable benefit other than making the traditional guard happy (who really do not understand the capability of the technology in my opinion) and irritating alot of people all over the world.
>
> The rule should be for fixed gyro's only (systems which might actually work)...not cell phones with unfixed, un-calibrated solid state gyro's designed for rudimentary 1g gaming. The rule should be strictly, actively enforced or removed entirely.
>
> Back to topic. LX NAV's system is clearly usable for cloud flying? Were is my statement on USRC policy outlawing its presence at contests? Hello RC...I know your'e reading this... We are waiting..............
>
> Sean
> F2
>

What are you waiting for? The policy published in Feb fits this perfectly.

Don't bring an LX with the external AHRS plugged into it. If you must, disable it and get a waiver. Its up to the individual competitor to get the waiver. Its not initiated by the RC.

-Dave

[Max Kellermann]

Sean Fidler <smfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Max! Why did you not use the special US rules icon! Please consider updating! Its priceless!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

You mean the one with the ostrich? ;-)

Anyway, this is not an official build, it was not published by the
XCSoar project. It's open source, anybody can modify XCSoar and
publish modified versions.

Max

[Sean Fidler]

Nice try Dave but no cigar.

A special firmware must guarantee that LXNAV's AH system cannot be switched back on in the night, just as Buttefly has been forced to do with their Vario...

Cant have double standards here...no no!

The special firmware should be timestamped and easily identifiable for the CD or other pilots wishing to ensure cloud flying cannot occur without great personal risks!

You know its not personal in any way...:-)

[Sean Fidler]

Can you send me the file in as much resolution as possible? I would like to make T-Shirts for contests this year!

smfidlerATgmail.com

Long live the resistance!

[Max Kellermann]

Evan Ludeman <tango...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't, of course. FWIW I loaded 6.3 onto a Samsung Galaxy Player
> last night (w SS gyros & accelerometers) so I could show the RC the
> silly little toylike display that is causing so much brouhaha... and
> it's still broken, doesn't display at all.

I never claimed that XCSoar's horizon in any version actually works or
is useful, did I?

The people who suggest that XCSoar will be banned should first do
their homework check if any version of XCSoar really violates the FAI
Sporting Code. It's not a good idea to do this whole discussion based
on rumors. That just produces large amounts of hot air. On the other
hand, entities producing hot air can be very useful for our sport ;-)

Max

[Max Kellermann]

Sean Fidler <smfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you send me the file in as much resolution as possible? I would like to make T-Shirts for contests this year!

Unfortunately, the ostrich was copied from a copyrighted image which
we are not allowed to redistribute, and nobody took the time to
find/create a free image. Volunteers welcome.

Max

[Evan Ludeman]

On Apr 4, 3:06 pm, Max Kellermann <m...@duempel.org> wrote:

I have not yet seen a version of XCSoar that I would trust to fly
"without reference to ground", even in an emergency. In fact, I have
not yet seen a version of XCS that displays anything more than a
static picture of an AH display, and most of them don't even do that.
So again, I see no point to having this bit of code in there and
arousing suspicion. It's completely pointless.

FWIW, I'm flying XCS in competition, very shortly, at R5N. I don't
expect to have an argument about that. I'll use the "No Horizon"
version, though as I've said, it doesn't appear to make any functional
difference. If the CD or RC or any other contest personnel have
questions or concerns about XCS, I'll do my best to answer them
completely and honestly. (and it would be great to get that taken
care of ahead of time)

T8

[toad]

If you want a backup, try this. I bet it would even get past the
strip search.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/beliteturn003.php

Todd

[Evan Ludeman]

lol. that might even be crappier than some of the phone apps I've
seen.

T8

[Sean Fidler]

Only $139! Sweet!

[Sean Fidler]

How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.

https://plus.google.com/photos/107761712519280835678/albums/5727652900309699361

[toad]

>
> lol.  that might even be crappier than some of the phone apps I've
> seen.
>
> T8

Nah, I expect it actually could be pretty decent. Remember, all that
it needs is 1 solid state rate gyro and circuity to light up the led
indicators.

I had asked one of the flight control engineers how much a decent gyro
would cost, about $100 was his answer. So I think with bulk purchase
this think mighty actually be made with decent components.

I only need it for letting down through that cloud when the wave whole
disappears or the lennie moves forward unexpectedly :-)

Todd

[Max Kellermann]

Sean Fidler <smfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How is this for a logo for "not XC Soar" without the totally unusable 1 cm^2 "AH" box.
>
> https://plus.google.com/photos/107761712519280835678/albums/5727652900309699361

LOL, I would "+1" this if I had an account :-)

[Dave]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 12:58:48 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Nice try Dave but no cigar.
>
> A special firmware must guarantee that LXNAV's AH system cannot be switched back on in the night, just as Buttefly has been forced to do with their Vario...
>
> Cant have double standards here...no no!
>
> The special firmware should be timestamped and easily identifiable for the CD or other pilots wishing to ensure cloud flying cannot occur without great personal risks!
>
> You know its not personal in any way...:-)
>

It can't be switched on in the night if its not there. This capability only comes with an external gyro package. Even I could tell if its there or not with a quick visual inspection.

If the gyro package is installed, it must be disabled and the same waiver requirements apply to LX as any other instrument. Check the policy again. Sounds like LX read the policy and made changes to support a waiver without your help.

So what response are you waiting for from the RC? Did you ask for a waiver?

-Dave

[kirk.stant]

Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away, I want you to GROW UP!

You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you repeat the same bullshit over and over about how the RC is preventing the march of progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your glider.

Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your rants.

Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in your glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout, and have fun.

Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would have been in "FU!"

Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it is, you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC, or had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they are to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.

Cheers.

Kirk
66

[Don Johnstone]

At 00:33 05 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
>Sean, did you actually read what I posted? I don't want you to go away,
I

>=

>want you to GROW UP!
>
>You talk big about wanting to attract more people to racing, yet you

>repeat=

> the same bullshit over and over about how the RC is preventing the march

>o=

>f progress by not allowing your (apparently) favorite toy - an AH in your

>g=

>lider.
>
>Instead, I can see potential racing pilots being scared away by your
rants.
>
>Man, get over it. Just show up at your race, don't have any gyro's in

>your=

> glider, turn off your smartphone to save the battery for your landout,

>and=
> have fun. =20

>
>Oh, and it's Kirk - without the U. If I had wanted to use a U, It would

>ha=

>ve been in "FU!"
>
>Seriously, this would be a fun (and loud!) bar conversation. But as it

>is,=

> you are not helping your cause on RAS. If you knew the guys on the RC,

>or=

> had flown with and against them, you would realize how dedicated they
are

>=

>to our wonderful sport. And they are cool dudes, too.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Kirk
>66

If all else fails you can still shoot them with your Sig Sauer, which you
are allowed to carry with you in the cockpit. :-)

[Sean F2]

Kirk,

You make many assumptions about what you think I want. Most are wrong. Really wrong. Nothing personal but piss off.

I have no interest in an AH in my glider. Rules are rules but the rulemaker has to defend them occasionally. That goes with the territory. I wish to see all pilots and manufacturers inconvienenced equally by the USRC rules. Right now that is not EVEN CLOSE to happening. There is a distinct double standard. It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink...;-)

Get over it. I have no personal issue with the people of the RC. I have a really big issue with the manner they have handled this rule policy. It needs to be tightened up and enforcement needs to be far better defined.

Any logical person can see the massive steaming pile of double standard here. I need it bagged up...not left on the sidewalk for people to step in this summer.

[David Reitter]

On Thursday, April 5, 2012 8:58:00 AM UTC-4, Sean F2 wrote:

> It is unethical for the USRC to make bold public requirements for some and not for the
> manufacturer who has the most lethal "in terms of cloud flying" capability. We need to see
> a ruling on the requirement of firmware for LXNAV vs the LXNAV dealers and customers
> saying "its ok...wink...ill just...wink...remove the box." Wink wink...;-)

I think there's a misunderstanding.

A competition-ready version of XCSoar can ascertain a lack of cloud-flying instruments to extent that a lack of the AHRS box can. You can circumvent the XCSoar/Comp restriction by installing another XCSoar version in a hidden place, by taking a second PDA, by installing it via a data-link and removing it, and so on. Similarly, you can hide your sensor box somewhere. Either variant of cheating is relatively easy to accomplish.

Such rules make it (a little) harder to cheat, but not impossible. The may or may not be in the interest of safety, and they are certainly silly in the light of the dysfunctional XCSoar horizon, but it seems that they apply to everybody and all devices. No AHRS box -> no IMC instrument. No XCSoar with "horizon" -> no instrument. Butterfly horizon disabled for 14 days -> no instrument. And so on. Simple as that.

[Wayne Paul]

Anyone remember "Lennie the Lurker?" This thread is starting to look like
he has been reincarnated.


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:12283817.128.1333546526179.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc18...