Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
system, fine.

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?

I also said that the GFAC/IGC seems to be actively antagonistic to
procedural solutions. That wasn't just a wild guess. I based this
assertion on four years (to my knowledge) of Ian Strachan's, Tim's,
yours and several other's posts. I can quote if you like. I can also
quote Robert Danewid who has direct, personal experience of the IGC's
institutional resistance to different ideas. I would call it evidence -
it's not intended as personal attack. I'm sorry you see it as that. I
understand why it's a problem because it is, after all, the voting
behaviour of GFAC and IGC members that we're discussing.

But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Well, Marc, mine are nearly 40 now but I always found it very useful to
listen to what 6 year olds were really trying to tell me. I said you
don't seem to hear the irritation from many members of the gliding
fraternity at the heavy-handed - "we can't trust any of you" - attitude
of the GFAC. If you hear that message, you need to show it. I've
seldom seen a group in a public service role so sensitive to criticism
as the GFAC cabal.

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.

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

Best wishes,
Graeme Cant

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

Marc,

I have no beef with you so I don't intend to answer all your points. I
did research Google a while ago when my curiosity was piqued by the way
this topic keeps coming up. It's a question that should also cause you
to do some wondering.

One thing that interested me was that a search on a couple of names (not
yours) produced very similar results to a search on loggers/GPS. I
think that some people may have been in this area for too long and it's
time for some new blood and new thinking.

Marc Ramsey wrote:

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.

Only too willing, Marc. Change the Sporting Code. It's done regularly
for some triviality or other. How about it allows the use of GPS
altitude? How about the GFAC throw their weight behind such a change?
How about the appointees to the GFAC vote to _strongly recommend_ such a
change to the IGC? And then lobby for it.

A number of others have made the GPS altitude suggestion in the last
fortnight. Nobody gave us a reason why the Sporting Code _shouldn't_
change on this. Is there one?

Also, requiring that OOs meet "graded standards", may work
in certain high density gliding realms, but is essentially unworkable in
most of the world.

I think that's wrong, Marc and I don't believe your opinion is research
based. It would obviously depend on the standards set and at what
level. It seems a lot easier for "most of the world" to find willing,
club level OOs than to afford expensive loggers. But here's the real
problem - I don't detect any enthusiasm for a new system in your tone.

....snip, snip...

The IGC voted down a COTS GPS proposal at the last plenary session.
Obviously, they had concerns that were not addressed by that proposal.

That's a very disingenuous view of how the politics of international
organisations work and I'm sure you know it. If the GFAC threw STRONG
support behind researching such a proposal and lobbied hard for it, the
plenary would think very differently.

As you say, this discussion comes up again and again. I'd like to come
at it from a different angle which you might not have covered here
before. Tell us how the GFAC and the IGC works. Who runs the show?
Who are the dominant figures? Who's been there the longest? How long?
Does everybody get heard? Are there solid factions who always back
each other? Are you ever surprised when you read the final
recommendations? Is there a continuing staff member? Who writes the
minutes? Who wrote the original specs? I know all this stuff is
tedious but I'm certain it moves the IGC and its commissions just like
it moves your Congress.

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.

Best wishes,
Graeme

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.

A sealed barograph records pressure altitude that can be corrected
according to a calibration chart. This is the standard by which glider
altitude performances have been measured from nearly the beginning. A
COTS in or out of a sealed lunchbox either measures GPS-derived
geometric altitude, or if it has a pressure sensor, a mode-dependent
form of altitude which can not be corrected to pressure altitude using
standard calibration techniques.

My is 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.

Marc

Marc or others,

As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is
there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the "members
of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic research
(along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became pretty
obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage.

Regards,

Erik Mann


"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...

My is 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.

Marc

Papa3 wrote:
Marc or others,

As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is
there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the "members
of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic research
(along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became pretty
obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage.

Regards,

Erik Mann


"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...

My is 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.

Marc


Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people
who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have
barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is
nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS.




--

Michel TALON

Michael,

Good point. I'll add it to the list of "issues to be resolved". My gut is
that for Silver/Gold badge flights a barogram could be an acceptable means
of altitude verification in combination with camera (if distance is
involved), as long as that method of validation continues to be supported by
the IGC.

In terms of the cost being "nil", at some point the barograph has to be sent
to an approved facility for recalibration, no? Around here, that sets us
back around $40. So, there is a recurring cost, whereas the GPS cost is a
one-time event.

P3

"Michel Talon" wrote in message
...
Papa3 wrote:
Marc or others,

As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units.
Is
there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the
"members
of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic
research
(along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became
pretty
obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage.

Regards,

Erik Mann


"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...

My is 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.

Marc


Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people
who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have
barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is
nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS.




--

Michel TALON

Michel Talon wrote:

Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people
who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have
barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is
nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS.

Have a parallel standard. Use whichever you want. You just have to use
the same one throughout the flight (to state the obvious, I guess).

I see no problem with badge flights since they're not compared to other
flights which might use the other standard.

Graeme.

Hahaha... boy this is silly. The current system allows
the use of a baro with a certain amount of error. How
about allowing geometric altitude to be used "within an error
range of 100 feet, or 1000 feet, or whatever?"
Beyond this, why not let the
GPS geometric altitude be used to verify "continuity of flight?"

Sure I can understand why pressure altitude need be accurate for
someone trying to set an altitude record, but for continuity
of flight or altitude gain, pressure altitude was historically
used not because it was "best", but simply because it was
the best thing easily available.

Relief from the silly pressure altitude requirement
greatly reduces the calibration and expense for loggers.
This change is inevitable. When the various committees
eventually decide to abandon steam engines and the
use of the fine but outdated abacus, I'm sure there
will be much rejoicing...

Pure silliness...

As far as COTS GPS goes, not all GPS's are suited to
soaring flights. I'd guess if enough soaring pilots approached
GARMIN and asked for a fully plastic encased GPS
that couldn't upload anything but would download
..igc secure files, they'd doctor up one of their
El Cheapo devices and sell it to ya.

I doubt this will happen soon, however, since most of you
gadget hounds out there would never agree to a dumb, cheap logger.
Hell, most of you have watches that calculate cosines, right?
I use mine to tell the time... ;PPPPPP

So in the meantime, I'll continue to take my dumb, cheap
Volklogger and stick it in the back of the
glider in a box, quietly recording away, while I use
my COTS pilot III for navigation...

By the way, my VL is for sale, since I've done all the
flight recording I need

Michel Talon wrote:
Papa3 wrote:
Marc or others,

As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is

--

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

So far you seemed to be the most competent in the GFAC team, who else
think different than you and what are the reasons behind such an
opinion? Can we involve him/her in this open discussion?
Maybe that member should visit an average club and see how these
barographs and barograms are treated...

/Janos

Marc Ramsey wrote

My is 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.