![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
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 |