Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

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