Unrelated to security, but still on the thread.

Has anybody bothered to read Annex B, the section on altitude measurement.
It's a hoot. It's not really rules so much as a combination white
paper/position paper. But I digress...

In the same section, we have a statement that one can use "Optical
Measurement from the Ground" (ie. the good old fashioned start gate) and
Radar Ranging (!) if "accurate enough for the purpose" (with the word
"accurate" not defined) to validate start height followed by a section with
a long discourse on how GPS Altitude isn't suitably accurate for
measurement.

If that doesn't give everyone some indication of what a strange mix the IGC
has created in terms of standards and accuracy acceptability, I don't know
what does.

Erik Mann


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:40cd4e88$1@darkstar...
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer

How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another way of documenting
it...

Sure, if there's a proper paper trail - by that I mean with some sort
of approved FR and the paper work inspected, checked and signed off by
an OO then no problem. COTS is OK if they get type approval and/or the
IGC publish an FR requirements spec and mandate that the pilot must
demonstrate that his FR can match or exceed that spec.

I think a lot of us think that the O/O looking at the trace immediately
after the flight is really the key. It's hard to
fake a trace with the takeoff and release happening at
exactly the time and place the towpilot observed, and
then modifying it in flight. A good O/O should be
able to notice such discrepencies...

Just my opinion, but I think the O/O is the real key, not the
logger security...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA