IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

Stefan wrote:
Graeme Cant schrieb:

Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
incursion either way you look at it.

No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device.

Yes, it is. If your devices are inaccurate, then it's your
responsibility to add some extra safety margin. Simple as that.

Stefan

Rubbish. When it comes to altitude for ATC purposes - and that's what
the 18k limit is for - the reading on your altimeter is what counts.
Provided it's a legal instrument maintained properly, you fly to the
indications of your altimeter. Asking whether this is "accurate" is
irrelevant and meaningless. If you're told to maintain 18k in a powered
aircraft, what "safety margin" should you allow? Fly at 17750? Fly at
18400? Nonsense!

The OLC's problems arise because the legal device Ramy HAS to use when
he might bust a rule is the altimeter, not the logger. But when he
lands only the LOGGER figure is still there. Ramy was only illegal
though, if he flew over 18k on his ALTIMETER.

The madness of all of this is that the accuracy that Al seems to expect
is not expected by any of the authorities whose rules he claims were
broken. He thinks the whole thing is way more accurate than it is and
way more accurate than any of the real airspace users need it to be.

ATC define en route airways on a radar screen where the defining line is
400 yards wide - with fuzzy edges - and a target takes three sweeps to
cross it!! Al's concept that an airspace boundary is a precision line
in space accurately marked like the painted centreline on a road is
laughable.

So is the idea that a glider's position is measured to an inch by a $200
GPS receiver. Ramy may be 400yards outside a boundary on ATC's scope
but his GPS logger may show him as inside the rhumb line between the
coordinates defining the boundary. Or maybe inside the rhumb line but
outside the Great Circle. Was he wrong or right? If the coordinates
are 100 miles apart, the difference between rhumb line and Great Circle
could be a mile or more and what ATC's scope lines show is probably
neither. He's expected to measure his position by - at best - VOR
radial and DME, not GPS, so there's probably an uncertainty circle about
2 miles in diameter!

What Al wants to do with logger barometric readings and GPS positions is
needed by no other airspace users and the system doesn't work to that
level of accuracy.

GC

I think you owe him an apology. Using SeeYou and setting QNH (5888ft)
at the start, gives a max altitude of 18,261 MSL. But this gives a
final altitude of 4819 MSL at an airport elevation of 4697'. This means
the altimeter setting changed during the flight, and the change made
the altitude appear to be high by more than 100' at the end. So this is
a mitigating facor.

Even neglecting this, an 18,261' altitude from this logger is within a
reasonable error budget.

First we have to allow that the pilot is not using the logger as his
primary flight reference altimeter. The altimeter is subject to certain
errors, and the errors increase with altitude. Adding these errors
could explain most, if not all of the 261' deviation in the worst case,
even if the altimeter was calibrated for IFR flight.

Ramy reports that the logger has a calibration error of +169 feet at
18000 feet. We would also need to know the error at around 5000 feet to
account for using field elevation for the initial setting. But unless
the error at 5000' was more than +169 feet (which is unlikely), this
would further mitigate the discrepancy.

The other thing that adds to the error is that the Volkslogger is using
cockpit static venting. This will cause a variable error depending on
canopy sealing, vent position, etc. Also the logger is calibrated at
room temperature, and it was probably quite a bit colder at 18,000'.

The bottom line of this is that we can't say that he did not go above
18,000', but we can't say that he did either. We could reduce the
uncertainty somewhat if we had an ATC altimeter setting, but it's not
likely to change the analysys much. So in this case, we have to take
the pilot at his word when he says he did not bust Class-A. We really
should not get into this kind of hair splitting anyway, because it is
not productive.

This also shows why these kind of disputes are better handled in
private, as I have been repeatedly requesting here. Please contact the
pilot if you can and politely point out your concern. If you do not get
a satisfactory explanation, do not start a confrontation. Contact the
SSA-OLC Committee by email at olcatssadotorg (use the symbols to
get a valid address). We will handle the issue confidentially to
protect all parties from embarrassment. If we find that the flight log
shows a problem, we will ask the pilot to remove the flight claim. If
not, we will put a note on the claim to explain the discrepancy.

Now let me add one note of caution. You will need to allow a safe
margin below 18,000' MSL when flying to account for altimeter (and
pilot) error. A 500' buffer would be prudent, unless you kept your
altimeter calibrated for IFR flight (or had a calibrated transponder
encoder with readout corrected for altimeter setting).

Either this pilot was using a buffer with an altimeter that read low,
or he was not using a buffer with an altimeter that did not read low.
We don't know for sure. But if your altimeter reads low, or the
altimeter setting changes and you don't reset it often, you could have
a bust that cannot be explained away. In this case, all the factors
fell in the pilot's favor, but you may not be so lucky.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

Looking at the barograph on the OLC it does not go above 6000 meters 3 times
6000 is 18000ft

Was it flown off a certified tested altimeter as lag and error in the
altimeter or pressure transducer would account for error as well as pressure
changes during the day !

~ wrote:
Looking at the barograph on the OLC it does not go above 6000 meters 3 times
6000 is 18000ft

Was it flown off a certified tested altimeter as lag and error in the
altimeter or pressure transducer would account for error as well as pressure
changes during the day !

however 3.28ft/m*6000m=19680ft

Why the emphasis on keeping everything private all of the time? That just
makes people think that things are being covered up. If there are issues,
there's no reason for them not be discussed civilly in public. That way
everything is on the up and up, and everyone else can learn something in the
process.

Mike Schumann

"Doug Haluza" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think you owe him an apology. Using SeeYou and setting QNH (5888ft)
at the start, gives a max altitude of 18,261 MSL. But this gives a
final altitude of 4819 MSL at an airport elevation of 4697'. This means
the altimeter setting changed during the flight, and the change made
the altitude appear to be high by more than 100' at the end. So this is
a mitigating facor.

Even neglecting this, an 18,261' altitude from this logger is within a
reasonable error budget.

First we have to allow that the pilot is not using the logger as his
primary flight reference altimeter. The altimeter is subject to certain
errors, and the errors increase with altitude. Adding these errors
could explain most, if not all of the 261' deviation in the worst case,
even if the altimeter was calibrated for IFR flight.

Ramy reports that the logger has a calibration error of +169 feet at
18000 feet. We would also need to know the error at around 5000 feet to
account for using field elevation for the initial setting. But unless
the error at 5000' was more than +169 feet (which is unlikely), this
would further mitigate the discrepancy.

The other thing that adds to the error is that the Volkslogger is using
cockpit static venting. This will cause a variable error depending on
canopy sealing, vent position, etc. Also the logger is calibrated at
room temperature, and it was probably quite a bit colder at 18,000'.

The bottom line of this is that we can't say that he did not go above
18,000', but we can't say that he did either. We could reduce the
uncertainty somewhat if we had an ATC altimeter setting, but it's not
likely to change the analysys much. So in this case, we have to take
the pilot at his word when he says he did not bust Class-A. We really
should not get into this kind of hair splitting anyway, because it is
not productive.

This also shows why these kind of disputes are better handled in
private, as I have been repeatedly requesting here. Please contact the
pilot if you can and politely point out your concern. If you do not get
a satisfactory explanation, do not start a confrontation. Contact the
SSA-OLC Committee by email at olcatssadotorg (use the symbols to
get a valid address). We will handle the issue confidentially to
protect all parties from embarrassment. If we find that the flight log
shows a problem, we will ask the pilot to remove the flight claim. If
not, we will put a note on the claim to explain the discrepancy.

Now let me add one note of caution. You will need to allow a safe
margin below 18,000' MSL when flying to account for altimeter (and
pilot) error. A 500' buffer would be prudent, unless you kept your
altimeter calibrated for IFR flight (or had a calibrated transponder
encoder with readout corrected for altimeter setting).

Either this pilot was using a buffer with an altimeter that read low,
or he was not using a buffer with an altimeter that did not read low.
We don't know for sure. But if your altimeter reads low, or the
altimeter setting changes and you don't reset it often, you could have
a bust that cannot be explained away. In this case, all the factors
fell in the pilot's favor, but you may not be so lucky.

Doug Haluza
SSA-OLC Admin

wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

Mike Schumann wrote:
Why the emphasis on keeping everything private all of the time? That just
makes people think that things are being covered up.

What kind of things are you talking about? The OLC files are posted
publicly for your inspection, so you and everyone else can look for
these issues. If a pilot decides to withdraw a file from the contest,
does he have to give a reason? The files that remain in the contest are
still there for inspection.

If there are issues,

If the issues involve violations, or the appearance of violations, why
do we need to know about them? The flight is no longer in the contest.

there's no reason for them not be discussed civilly in public.

There are some reasons they won't be discussed civilly in public: some
people can't discuss things like this civilly. Take a look at the recent
threads on this subject.

That way
everything is on the up and up, and everyone else can learn something in the
process.

I think we can learn from a discussion, but it doesn't have to be about
identifiable incidents unless the pilot wishes to contribute his/her
experience. Doug (or other OLC person) could also describe the kinds of
problems they are seeing, discuss how they handle them, and suggest ways
to avoid them. All this can be done without "trying the case in the RAS
courtroom".

I think we will have a lot of pilots leaving the OLC if we try to
discuss every potential violation here.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight
and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

This boils down to software.

One shows violations the other doesn't.

You have Seeyou or Strepla?
If not don't comment!!


Mark Dickson wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight
and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

wrote:
This boils down to software.

One shows violations the other doesn't.

You have Seeyou or Strepla?
If not don't comment!!


Mark Dickson wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between
Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude
violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft
error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight
and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe
Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
"official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
or output...

Marc