It still amazes me how many pilots still try to learn how their flight
computer works in the air, particaly those using some sort of PDA. I
know how my oudie works very well only due to the fact I fly with it
most weeks at home on my PC when flying a condor task.
As for turn point names starting with numbers, this works really well
when you are in a area where the names don't mean much to you anyway.
For tasking it would be nice if the task sheet did have the real would
names along side of the coded ones then at least you could show a local
to see it what you have programmed in looks right.
Better go and set tonight condor task
Arie
Aussie task.
On 9/01/2014 5:42 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote:
At 08:39 AM 9/01/2014, you wrote:
My understanding was that the official turn point list was now the
file supplied by the organisers anyway. This is usually a small
subset of the local database without points close together.
Correct. I'm having difficulty understanding why numbers are
preferable to alphabetical names unless you don't know the alphabet.
Even with a lack of multiple points in the same location, there is
scope for confusion. I am aware of someone entering COONAMBLE into a
task instead of COONABARABRAN as the device only showed the first 6
characters ! And then they flew the wrong task.
Obviously this person had a complete lack of situational awareness.
Deserves everything he or she got. Might be an idea to roughly draw on
a real paper map and see if it matches the shape on the contest
officials' board. You really need a sanity check on what a computer
tells you. In any case if your particular device is limited to the
number of characters it can display you can edit the database and
remove any name ambiguity. CNABAR ought to do it in the above case.
Anyway as Ron pointed out you are wrong anyway as 6 letters removes
the ambiguity. Legally you probably should be carrying a paper map and
ERC Low unless you are running OZ Runways on an iPad.
From experience, entering a task using the numbers is far quicker and
far less error prone, particularly if having to do it in the air
(after my oudie crashed and lost the task), which means less time
with head in the cockpit !
In the B600/B800 the task can be entered at briefing on the SD card.
It doesn't go away if the power gets interrupted and systems that
don't run on top of a version of Windows/Android/Apple OS are much
less likely to crash. Having visited Waikerie last weekend and talking
to pilots the AAT does result in lots of pilot workload and
interaction with the moving map computer and lots of head in cockpit
time particularly when also trying to find out what pilots around you
are doing by looking at their Flarms. Let alone trying to optimise the
last turn while trying to outguess an algorithm whose logic you don't
know.
As far as getting an idea of what the task is, that is available from
the task sheet and by drawing it on a map.
Remember, the task is for the benefit of the competitors. The fact
that any of us looking from home, work, etc can see what they are
doing is a bonus. We should NEVER look to define tasks for the
benefit of "spectators" ahead of the competitors.
Surely easy enough to define in terms of the encrypted contest name
plus plain language. Then everyone is happy.
I agree about the task being for the competitors. Make it too arcane
for outsiders though and you eventually run out of competitors.
Likewise the rules should not encourage taking less than the safest
option. One GP I saw had a penalty for NOT landing straight ahead. I
saw two potential spin ins to the tie down area. Plain dumb and the
organisers should have known better. It was to create a spectacle for
the spectators. Sure could have been.
The 3rd day at Waikerie had the front go through as the pack were
finishing into a very strong and gusty headwind. Some really marginal
flops over the fence. A 3km finish circle with no minimum altitude
doesn't help as your best score is by using your safety margin to
arrive there ar high speed and low altitude. Works fine with a
tailwind or no wind.
One pilot I talked to the next day suggested finishing at 1500 feet
over the middle of the airfield. This conforms with the "book" arrival
for powered aircraft and gives plenty of time and energy to sort out
the landings. The spectators can actually see the finishes too.
Mike
*Borgelt Instruments***- /design & manufacture of quality soaring
instrumentation since 1978
/www.borgeltinstruments.com
<http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>tel: 07 4635 5784overseas:
int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
