![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
|
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 |