Marc,

You wrote: "First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...


My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have you
ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude? Come
on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty calibration
chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
And what about cameras - don't even go there.

So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go out
and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is really
looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
stubborn bureaucracy). If I were to a person prone to conspiracy theory,
I'd want to take a close, hard look at what relationship these "technicians"
have to the companies that manufacture the supposedly secure recorders.
But, I'm not that sort of person, and it would be inappropriate for me to
even insinuate the same.






"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
Papa3 wrote:
I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this
"debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the
level
of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer.
Without
going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no
less
secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). Since the
COTS units are becoming widely available and reliable, what possible
reason
can there be to prohibit their use? I can certainly understand a higher
level of security for national or world records where there might be
some
slim chance that these results could drive monetary gain (ie. the
incentive
to cheat might be higher), but for a Silver Badge ... get real!

The rules for US State and National records are set by the SSA (the
National Aeronautic Association may have some say over US National
records). So, there is no point to discussing those issues with the IGC.

As for badges, there are two primary objections. First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...

Marc