![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Janos Bauer wrote:
Marc Ramsey wrote: It has nothing to do with competence. I agree with some of your opinions, others do not. I mean, you usually aware of the technical background (security, GPS issues, etc-etc). On the other hand you often refuse certain suggestions referring to existing rules and not to technical problems. So, I must not be truly competent 8^) Tradition is a big factor. The perceived (but not adequately studied, in my opinion) inaccuracy of GPS altitude is another. I also haven't really studied it but last Sunday it was the second time when I had to fly xc without variometer and I was happy with the simple GPS (no WAAS etc.) based palm&soaringpilot combo. I think it would be impossible if there was really huge error (bigger than on those 20 year old barographs). You are comparing apples to oranges. GPS measures geometric altitude with a typical error of, say, +/- 50 feet. Barographs measure calibrated pressure altitude with a typical error of, say, +/- 50 feet. GPS altitude can not be corrected to pressure altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight. Pressure altitude can not be corrected to geometric altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight. Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a Diamond altitude gain. It doesn't matter how they are treated, as long as they can be successfully calibrated within the set interval. The corrected pressure altitudes taken from a barogram may be off by a hundred feet or so, but they still provide a more accurate measurement of the precise form of altitude required by the current IGC rules, than any COTS GPS. I don't think they are calibrated for all the temperatures. There is no requirement that barographs be corrected for temperature. I don't think all the mechanical impacts can be handled by calibration (I myself (saw others do it few times) locked out the needle of one old smoky barograph and we had to bent it back to working position, how do you handle such an "impact"?) That barograph should have been marked as potentially faulty. An OO, if aware of this, should refuse to certify a flight using it until it is repaired and recalibrated. And the most important issue, what I stated befo neither barographs nor cameras are sealed by OO on most of the places I visited... The Sporting Code requires sealing the barograph, but not necessarily the cameras (SC3 4.6.3, 4.7.2). If an OO is unable to follow these simple rules, how likely is it that he/she will follow the more technically complex procedures that might be required for a COTS GPS? No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on some (maybe most) places. I've seen similar things. Given this, the obvious solution would be to award badges using the honor system. If this is not acceptable, then some level of procedural and/or technical security measures must be in the rules (even if some do not follow them). How much security is enough? Marc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |