Marc Ramsey wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

I've heard no reason whatsoever why a GPS in a lunchbox is any
different from a sealed barograph. Of course it would be possible.
So I'm puzzled why it doesn't happen. My guess is it's as much to do
with WHO's telling me it can't be done as it is to WHY.

You are focused on imagined draconian security requirements (which are
actually rather minimal for badge-only flight recorders), and glossing
over the major objection.

It only takes a few small requirements to make an OTS recorder unusable
for soaring. I see the aim as being to be able to use OTS equipment
straight out of the box. Some years ago in Oz, protectionist car
"safety" requirements for IIRC only tail lights and wipers made the
importation of most European cars almost impossible. It doesn't take
much to stymie things.

...snip...
My opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.

Yes, Marc, I picked up your opinion earlier - and its loneliness! So,
next question, WHY don't the majority accept the change? Wide use of
OTS recorders would be enormously useful to gliding. I can't see any
technical objection to a parallel altitude standard being available for
badges and comps. I can see there may be a comparability problem for
records but that could be worked on after a geometric standard was
established and in use.

That's why I'm getting curious about the politics of these
organisations. As Sherlock Holmes said - when all other explanations
are eliminated, what remains is the truth. There has to be a political
problem because the technical ones commonly turn out to be actually
willpower.

Graeme.