Graeme Cant wrote:
I do, Marc. So let's hear your response to my original post. To my
mind it contained no insult or disparagement. I said that "technical
people" (if you take "geek" amiss, I don't, I'm one myself) tend to
think of technical solutions, not procedural. I advocated procedural
solutions as possibly being cost-effective and no less secure where it
mattered, gave some useful examples and made some tentative suggestions.
How about joining a discussion?

Both Tim and I had been discussing "procedural solutions" in this thread
for about a week before you piped up. We have also discussed them many
times over the years. Google is a very valuable resource for researching
topics like this, if you missed it.

When neither you nor Tim even mentioned my roughly outlined proposal
it's hard to say I'm upset because you won't accept it and its
"righteous glory" (good phrase, Marc!). I have no idea what you think
about it. It would be nice to know that you even heard it.

Frankly, I pretty much decided not to engage in discussion with you
after the first paragraph. The lunchbox idea has come up numerous times
over the years, but so far has gotten bogged down once the practical
issues are examined. If you can explain how you can meet the Sporting
Code requirements for use of calibrated pressure altitude for measuring
altitude performances (including loss of height for distance flights),
please do. Also, requiring that OOs meet "graded standards", may work
in certain high density gliding realms, but is essentially unworkable in
most of the world.

Does the IGC have a panel similar to the GFAC whose role is to develop
cheap, secure PROCEDURAL solutions to any security problems in assessing
badge flights and scoring comps with non-approved FRs?

Not that I know of. The rules for scoring of non-world level contests
are handled by the appropriate national organization. Most countries
permit use of non-approved flight recorders (including COTS GPS), as
there is a greater level of supervision than there is for the typical
badge or record flight.

Why does the technical group - the GFAC - chosen only for their
technical expertise - see it as their role to comment on possible
procedural alternatives?

For the same reason you see it as your role to comment on them. Comments
made here by GFAC members are simply comments, just like yours.

Would it be a good idea if they sent a message to the IGC that the
existing approved FR system is both overly expensive and restrictive on
the expansion of the sport and that the IGC should also investigate
procedures to allow the use of cheaper, non-approved FRs?

The IGC voted down a COTS GPS proposal at the last plenary session.
Obviously, they had concerns that were not addressed by that proposal.
If you think you can come up with a better proposal, submit it to the IGC.

Or that their discussions would be much more fruitful if some human
factors people were appointed to the GFAC in lieu of some of the
electronic experts. Positive support from the GFAC would be very
helpful.

The IGC appoints GFAC members for 3 year terms. If you want to propose
alternatives to the existing members (including yourself), your IGC
delegate is the person to talk to.

Marc