Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

Paul Repacholi wrote:
...
But you don't have to fake the file, just fake the signals into the
FAI logger and use a pressure chamber.

Some one should submit a `suitable' claim file, flown at 100K' with
all the security intact.

Logging raw satelite data and carrier phase would be a bit more
secure, it could be post proscessed when the prescision ephemeris data
is available a few days later. It would be REALLY hard to predict that!
...


Todd Pattist wrote:
...
He doesn't have to fake it. When you buy an approved FR, it
comes with software and hardware right inside the FR that
will create the digital signature he needs. All the fancy
cryptography we use is based on keeping the secret key a
secret, but the way we use it, we have to put the secret key
and the software and hardware that use that key to create
the digital signature inside the box the pilot owns. The
security boils down to a switch inside a box closed with
some screws.
...

But in these both cases we are no more at the level of what
a 12 years old boy can do with his home computer.

Have I got this right? We use barometric pressure to
measure altitude, difference in height, whatever. It
actually measures pressure which has to be converted
to height. We know that this 'measurement' will be
inaccurate dependent on temperature and the pressure
situation at the location, the amount of the accuracy
is completely unknown. Two height diamonds gained on
the same day at different locations will have to 'gain'
different amounts of height.
GPS measures the height above a known datum, with error
correction the height readouts are the same everywhere,
GPS measures the altitude in the units we use (Metres
or feet), there is no conversion required.
The question I am asking is why are we clinging on
to and outdated and inaccurate system when a much more
accurate system is available. We measure distance over
the globe in feet or metres and happily use GPS for
that, why do we not use it to measure the vertical
directly distance as well?

Perhaps we should revert to measuring in cubits

At 09:54 04 June 2004, Paul Bart wrote:

'Andy Durbin' wrote in message
. com...
'Paul Bart' wrote in message news:
however given that GPS
can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000
ft it should be
seriously
considered. I wonder if the resistance to change
is mainly due to the
high
average age of the gliding fraternity?

Paul


You seem to have missed the frequently stated point
that the
difference is not an error. An error free measurement
of pressure
altitude will not be equal to an error free gps (geometric)
altitude
except under rare conditions.

No I did not. You are correct, I have incorrectly
used the word error if
one considers it's meaning in a relation to the output
of the measuring
device, however that was not my intention.


Recognition of this fact may have something to do
with age, but the
real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,



Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand
the preceding
discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because
there were no other
viable options, not because it was a good measure of
height above ground.



why it is being measured,



To either establish benchmark, or to fulfill some requirements.
For each of
these I would rather know the actual distance above
ground, not a measure
that depends on prevailing meteorological conditions.
Unless, of course,
you consider Martin's observation, that the effort
to climb to a particular
pressure altitude takes about the same effort regardless
of the geometric
altitude and also assuming that it is the effort that
is important, rather
then the actual height above ground.



and then determining whether it is reasonable to change
to
measuring something else.





Thank you for your observation.



Paul

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 -

How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another
way of documenting
it...

Your silver, as it stands at the moment, says to an
insurance company that, with an amount of certainty,
that you have a certain level of competence neccesary
for the silver badge, introducing COTS loggers for
the silvers cannot help but reduce that level of certainty,
as cannot be avoided that it is easier to hack these
devices (due to there being easier ways to manipulate
files these devices, I'm not saying current loggers
are immune to hacking, but COTS systems certainly lower
the bar).

Hypothetically, taken to it's extreme, if silver paperwork
became a self declaration job, involving you to simply
self declare you completed the task, with no OO or
logger evidence, we would not expect an insurance company
to take it seriously as a measure of competance, as
there is no worthwhile evidence.

If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...

I'd be careful before lowering the bar... few people
may cheat, but insurance companies don't always act
rationally....

J

Jamie,

Prove your statement? Assume, for a moment, that a document exists which
gives specific (simple) pre/post flight requirements to the OO for dealing
with a couple of approved COTS units (same as we have today for photographic
and barogroph validation). For instance:

1. Validate that track logs are cleared prior to flight. This is done
by... Or, identify existing track logs prior to flight. This is done
by...

2. Observe dowload of track log post flight. This is done by...

I have it on pretty good authority from folks that have actually spent a lot
of time working with COTS units that this perceived decrease in security is
a complete, total farce. Since I'm in the US, I'll use the standard of
innocent until proven guilty - in other words, COTS is no less secure if OO
procedures are followed.

I think this idea that we're going from some iron-clad proof of validity to
basically self-certifying is a joke. How did your insurance companies know
that the OO was not in complicity with a pilot when, for example, certifying
that the barograph was sealed or a fresh roll of film was inserted under
his/her observation. Etc.




"Jamie Denton" wrote in
message ...


If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...

Jamie Denton wrote:
Your silver, as it stands at the moment, says to an
insurance company that, with an amount of certainty,
that you have a certain level of competence neccesary
for the silver badge, introducing COTS loggers for
the silvers cannot help but reduce that level of certainty,
as cannot be avoided that it is easier to hack these
devices (due to there being easier ways to manipulate
files these devices, I'm not saying current loggers
are immune to hacking, but COTS systems certainly lower
the bar).

The security system surrounding badges isn't only the log file but the
entire set of circumstances surrounding the flight. That's why the OO
is still an integral part of the system despite all the IGC's efforts to
dehumanise it. It's unrealistic to try to build a system based solely
on "impregnable" technology as the IGC seems to have set out to do.

Here's how silly it is. The level of security around the logbooks and
licence required to get a pilot's job at an airline is orders of
magnitude less than for the documentation required to claim a Silver
Badge! The basis for the logbook and licence security (and it's not
perfect, it's adequate) is the web of checkable human contacts defined
in those documents. No sealed loggers are involved.

The OO is the link with a similar human web for the badge system and,
used properly, would provide adequate surety that the flight is genuine
while allowing significantly less secure - and much cheaper - technology
to be used.

Perfection in human affairs is unattainable. Adequate security is all
you can usefully aim for. Excessive security is very wasteful and
expensive as the soaring community now knows. Reducing excessive to
adequate would be a win for the entire gliding community.

Hypothetically, taken to it's extreme, if silver paperwork
became a self declaration job, involving you to simply
self declare you completed the task, with no OO or
logger evidence, we would not expect an insurance company
to take it seriously as a measure of competance, as
there is no worthwhile evidence.

Nobody suggested that. Adequate security doesn't mean no security.

If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...

I'd be careful before lowering the bar... few people
may cheat, but insurance companies don't always act
rationally....

Yes they do. They're going to set their premiums where they can make a
profit based on claims experience. Just like they do now.

Graeme Cant

Never has so much been written by so many about so little.

Allan


"Graeme Cant" wrote in message
...
Jamie Denton wrote:
Your silver, as it stands at the moment, says to an
insurance company that, with an amount of certainty,
that you have a certain level of competence neccesary
for the silver badge, introducing COTS loggers for
the silvers cannot help but reduce that level of certainty,
as cannot be avoided that it is easier to hack these
devices (due to there being easier ways to manipulate
files these devices, I'm not saying current loggers
are immune to hacking, but COTS systems certainly lower
Snip

I'm not saying that COTS equates to self certifying,
I was trying (badly) to make the point that you have
more reason to believe something when a higher standard
of proof is required. And that anything where there
could be a perception of lowering the bar for cheaters
should be approached with extreme care....

If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
unit. As for procedures, the potential problem is
that, with a COTS logger (say for example an iPaq with
winpilot or some other hypothetical approved software),
who is to say the person flying hasn't downloaded to
their iPaq a little utility (no doubt disguised as
a calculator ;-) ) to emulate the serial port and
feed in a rubbish NMEA feed? The OO would need to have
seen the iPaq being hard resest and all new software
installed to be able to guarentee no additional software
is installed... Not an easy task.

These are things it's far harder to do with volkslogger
and other specially designed loggers because they were
not designed to allow easy access (although I realise
an EW takes an NMEA feed, but even there, pressure
altitude is hard to fake, without a pressure chamber).


This is not a case of 'innocent until proven guilty',
it's about requiring a standard of proof high enough
to keep insurance types satisfied and not lowering
any bars. Fail to keep them happy with your qualifications,
your premiums go up... not good.

And as for OO's being complicit with a cheater, that
could happen anyway, whether or not we have COTS units,
who's to say your driving examiner wasn't bribed? Insurance
companies have to accept a small potential rate of
false declarations by people, otherwise they would
never manage to insure anyone (no insurance = no money
for them), all their risks are factored into the premiums.
There will always be some degree of cheating, that's
just human nature, all we can do is throw as many roadblocks
at them as we can.

Anything we can do to make soaring cheaper is good,
but if we are not careful we just drive up costs in
other areas....


J

At 13:48 09 June 2004, Papa3 wrote:
Jamie,

Prove your statement? Assume, for a moment, that a
document exists which
gives specific (simple) pre/post flight requirements
to the OO for dealing
with a couple of approved COTS units (same as we have
today for photographic
and barogroph validation). For instance:

1. Validate that track logs are cleared prior to flight.
This is done
by... Or, identify existing track logs prior to
flight. This is done
by...

2. Observe dowload of track log post flight. This
is done by...






I have it on pretty good authority from folks that
have actually spent a lot
of time working with COTS units that this perceived
decrease in security is
a complete, total farce. Since I'm in the US, I'll
use the standard of
innocent until proven guilty - in other words, COTS
is no less secure if OO
procedures are followed.

I think this idea that we're going from some iron-clad
proof of validity to
basically self-certifying is a joke.
How did your insurance companies know
that the OO was not in complicity with a pilot when,
for example, certifying
that the barograph was sealed or a fresh roll of film
was inserted under
his/her observation. Etc.




'Jamie Denton' wrote in
message ...


If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge
etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...