Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

I'm new on this forum, and this thread has captured my attention because
the theme is really popular in the gliding world. So I'll try to give
my opinion on a number of posts I read.

It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

And indeed, finding an OO is still often the hardest part of the
administrative burden. Luckily it's only necessary for badge flights,
if you are using an approved FR.

I don't now if you have decentralized contests in Oz, like the OLC in
Europe. For this kind of flights, who are certainly as interesting as
badge flights, the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
the badge system itself.

In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

In France, you can use some non-approved loggers in their NetCoupe, but
because of that, the system is much less automatic, and for
non-approved loggers you need indeed paperwork and an OO. I much prefer
the Flemish system, even if I was obliged to get an approved FR. All
clubs here have one or two FR's for rent to their members, some have
one per club glider.

I've read somewhere in this thread that because of different club
systems between Europe and Oz / USA, it would be impractical to have
the clubs buying FR's and renting them to their members. This seems
rubbish to me: if a club can buy and rent something as expensive as a
glider with radio, parachute, trailer etc., surely a FR can't make much
difference. And I suppose it has always been done with barographs, just
like here. Or does everybody have to buy his own to fly for badges?

I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it. Geeks they may be, I don't know them personally, but as so
often in gliding, they probably are the people who volunteered to do
the job. Having been rather active as volunteer for lots of little and
bigger jobs on club, regional and national level, it strikes me that
there are very few people who agree to spend much time in doing things
like studying lots of documents, participating in conferences,
workshops, meetings... instead of flying. But when decisions are made
by these few (always the same, hence the accusation of "oligarchy",
"self-appointed", etc.), lots of people start to question them. I don't
think that's fair.

I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

X-no-archive: yes
In article , stephanevdv
writes

I'm new on this forum, and this thread has captured my attention because
the theme is really popular in the gliding world. So I'll try to give
my opinion on a number of posts I read.

Welcome to the wonderful world of RAS!

It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

And indeed, finding an OO is still often the hardest part of the
administrative burden. Luckily it's only necessary for badge flights,
if you are using an approved FR.

I don't now if you have decentralized contests in Oz, like the OLC in
Europe. For this kind of flights, who are certainly as interesting as
badge flights, the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
the badge system itself.

In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

An interesting point. While there has been considerable discussion about
the use of Pressure Altitude Vs GPS Altitude, the vertical limits of
Airspace are expressed in terms of Pressure Altitude, which is unlikely
to change any time soon.

---snip--------------
I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
It may seem that way, but one objective is to avoid having the revise
the level on an annual basis, which could imply annual updates to
recorders at the owners expense. Better to set it higher and wait for
technology to catch up.

but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it. Geeks they may be, I don't know them personally, but as so
often in gliding, they probably are the people who volunteered to do
the job. Having been rather active as volunteer for lots of little and
bigger jobs on club, regional and national level, it strikes me that
there are very few people who agree to spend much time in doing things
like studying lots of documents, participating in conferences,
workshops, meetings... instead of flying. But when decisions are made
by these few (always the same, hence the accusation of "oligarchy",
"self-appointed", etc.), lots of people start to question them. I don't
think that's fair.

There is much truth on what you say.

I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

Considering the issue of COTS units, almost all of the invective has
been directed against the Flight Recorder Specification which currently
prohibits them.

However, I am of the opinion that changing the Specification is not the
correct route to take. The specification should remain 'as is' for
approved units above whatever level is deemed the appropriate ceiling
for COTS.

To change the specification to allow COTS also implies that each
Make/model has to be submitted for approval, which would be an
impossible task.

What needs to be changed is the wording in the Sporting Code to allow
COTS to be use up to a specific level (e.g. Gold C) and an approved
Flight Recorder thereafter.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!


Join the club!

Best regards,

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

A couple of thoughts:

"stephanevdv" wrote in
message ...


It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

On the other hand, we now have the chance to use truly cheap units that cost
less than a quarter of your Volkslogger and which can be viewed, tried out,
etc. at your local camping supply store. I think that's what the real hue
and cry is about. Not only that, you can then take that same COTS unit and
use it to navigate to aunt Susie's house in your car or to go out and locate
your favorite fishing hole in your boat. Try that with your smoked foil
barograph.


In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

In New Jersey (USA) where I live, I can come home and dowload my GPS76 trace
and upload it to the Governor's Cup website. I don't need to validate
anything, because we use an honor system for the flight since there's really
not a whole lot at stake . . .


I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it.

That's the risk we all face in taking on a job like the GFAC. I'm pretty
sure that Ian, Tim, and the rest don't lose tons of sleep over this forum. I
know I don't when folks object to things I do in the Governor's Cup or when
I was president of a local Soaring Club. On the other hand, I sure hope
that they, and the other IGC folks who lurk in the shadows can sense the
fact that this is a very hot topic. One positive thing that has happened
in this thread is that a number of issues have crystallized and been open to
view to the entire world. My biggest complaint with the GFAC (which I have
conveyed directly, privately to the GFAC members with whom I have
corresponded) is that there is no visibility to exactly HOW the committee
works and what the driving objectives are. The main answer I've received
to date is that the GFAC exists to serve the standards as currently written
( I don't mean it to sound sarcastic - it's not intended that way) E.G.
"Why do we have to use Pressure Altitude - because the standard says so? "
I think the GFAC and IGC would do themselves a great service if there were
minutes or at least position papers that explained the rationale BEHIND
various decisions. I for one intend to publish a position paper that
radically challenges the fundamental assumptions behind the current
standards and will request that the IGC and GFAC come back with a formal
response..


I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

Bingo. I realilzed that about 2 weeks ago, and that's definitely where I'm
going. So far, I've lined up objective data by polling a large club
organization to find out exactly what GPS equipment already exists in the
hands of pilots (60% in this club actually own a COTS logger, somewhat
surprisingly), am in the process of polling the US State Governors and
Record Keepers to get inputs on direction (so far about 75% in favor of
actively pushing COTS for badges), and am putting together a formal position
paper (no not a proposal) which will state that we should aggressively
pursue unmodified COTS (thus adhering to the spirit of "OTS"). I would
love to enlist others in the US to sign up for pro-COTS organization to
work with all of the SSA directors to convince them to push our IGC
representative in that direction. I would love to see the same happen in
other countries. But yes, the only way to make things change is to work up
the chain of command. That is both a price and a protection of these types
of organizations, which I think is one of the biggest takeaways from this
whole thread.

I also would recommend that people who feel strongly enough about this make
it an issue for their local soaring organization representatives. I think
for example, if the folks in Sweden, Australia, and Poland (to pick three
places where I know that there are active COTS movements) made this the
primary issue for their directors and met with their IGC reps, I think
things would start to move much more rapidly.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!

Welcome to the club :-))

--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
fly -