IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

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

Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy

Marc Ramsey wrote:
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

Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

EXACTLY...

Hurrah Marc for posting some sense in here.


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

But let's not forget that Ramy's flight was really really good. 1000+
FAI w LS-4 is excellent. Well done Ramy!!!!!!

And by all means, I think every body in Minden area knows 17999 and has
been the quite often. Right Al??? ))))))))))

I have no comment about the software issue.






Ramy wrote:
Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy


Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy, I worked for many years implementing GIS and CAD applications.
One absolutely does not want to use scanned charts to define "official"
airspace boundaries. It is quite simply impossible to achieve accurate
registration across an entire chart. There are also no guarantees as to
the source and integrity of the data supplied with Strepla, SeeYou, or
any other program.

If the SSA will be checking airspace boundaries for OLC, badge, and/or
record flights, the only correct approach is for the SSA to publish an
official SUA data set which will be used for a specific period of time,
along with software that can be used to verify IGC files against that
data. Any other approach leaves room for precisely the kind of dispute
that is taking place here.

Marc

This thread is completely out of control, and I want to see this
nonsense stop. If someone has a legitamate issue, contact the SSA
committee by email at olcatssadotorg with the specifics, and we
will look into it. Throwing wild accusations around on a public forum
reflects badly on you and on the group. And I do not want to
participate in this circus.

Ramy wrote:
Doug, I would like to ask you to check my 6/24 flight and determine
officially if I violated any restricted airspace. Both according to the
winpilot airspace data I use during flight and according to SeeYou the
closest I got was 550m. My trace also clearly show my effort to go
around the restricted airspaces.Please post the results to RAS as soon
as possible as I want to put an end to this circus. If you determine
that I busted a restricted airspace you have my permission to remove
this flight completly. I will not contest it, and will simply draw my
own conclusion about the faith I have in the system.

Thanks,

Ramy

Hey its Ramy posting as himself again... with the same IP as
too funny.

Anyway issue here is the software has an bug we need to figure out if
its in Seeyou or Strepla.

The calibration of the electronic charts cannot be trusted as the error
in one package or the other would throw off the accuracy of the plot.
Then you get into calibration errors when projecting scanned paper maps
onto an electronic file.
Ever had a fax slip on you when sending? This is the same issue when
calibrating sectionals for programs. Lets not forget the airspace
files which are also suspect.

So Ramy your solution will not work.

The most basic method of checking would be to hand plot a flight on a
paper sectional but the tolerances we are now flying and trusting in
world wide turnpoint exchanges files are so close that a pen width of
ink would not show the true plot.

Al



Ramy wrote:
Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy

Marc Ramsey wrote:
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