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
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight.
What would the point be? Badge flights are about personal accomplishment. If there is an individual in this sport so sad as to cheat on a badge flight, let him/her. Record flights deserve the higher level of scrutiny because we are comparing performances between individuals. Brent "Marc Ramsey" wrote in message . com... Papa3 wrote: I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this "debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the level of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer. Without going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no less secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). Since the COTS units are becoming widely available and reliable, what possible reason can there be to prohibit their use? I can certainly understand a higher level of security for national or world records where there might be some slim chance that these results could drive monetary gain (ie. the incentive to cheat might be higher), but for a Silver Badge ... get real! The rules for US State and National records are set by the SSA (the National Aeronautic Association may have some say over US National records). So, there is no point to discussing those issues with the IGC. As for badges, there are two primary objections. First, how do you prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second, given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates to the IGC, the rules won't be changed... Marc |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
303pilot wrote:
I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight. What would the point be? Badge flights are about personal accomplishment. If there is an individual in this sport so sad as to cheat on a badge flight, let him/her. Record flights deserve the higher level of scrutiny because we are comparing performances between individuals. So, you are an advocate of the "honor system". Nothing wrong with that, but that is not the current intent of the FAI/IGC or its delegates... Marc |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
om... 303pilot wrote: I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight. What would the point be? Badge flights are about personal accomplishment. If there is an individual in this sport so sad as to cheat on a badge flight, let him/her. Record flights deserve the higher level of scrutiny because we are comparing performances between individuals. So, you are an advocate of the "honor system". Nothing wrong with that, but that is not the current intent of the FAI/IGC or its delegates... Marc No, I'm not in favor of the "honor system". I am in favor of pairing cheap GPS's with declarations and OO's for badge flights. What exactly is the "current intent of the FAI/IGC"? What is the benefit to the sport of increasing the cost and complexity of flight documentation for the purpose of reducing a problem (cheating) that, so far as I'm aware, does not exist at any meaningful level? Does the FAI/ICG believe that absent expensive secure loggers all/most/some/10% of pilots would cheat? What is the problem that is being solved by the use of these devices rather than simpler, cheaper devices? Disclaimer - I own a secure flight recorder. My only interest is doing what is most likely to enhance the sport through greater participation in XC flight. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dnia 5/25/04 4:48 PM, Użytkownik 303pilot napisał:
Disclaimer - I own a secure flight recorder. My only interest is doing what is most likely to enhance the sport through greater participation in XC flight. In my opinion, you really don't need FAI to popularise XC flights. Every glider pilot needs 8 successful flights to reach 3 diamonds - and that's all most pilots need certified logger for. You really don't have to own one by yourself, few loggers bought by a club is enough for all it's members. Methods of flight recording in all competitions below continental level are up to organisers. These are the people who should be convinced to "COTS" solutions. Forget lobbing IGC, you don't need their help. Case: Since this year in Poland you can use almost any "GNNS flight evidence device" in all competitions except Nationals. This also includes on-line contests (here some limitations has been made to ensure basics of security). All these new regulations were made on level of the national Gliding Commision, without any consulations with IGC. -- Wojtus'.net __|__ FidoNet: 2:484/47 `--------o--------' |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I wish to set the record straight of where we are with respect to COTS
1) Height recordings....WAAS corrects barometric and satellite readings with an accuracy not found in barographs. I tested the position changes and recorded an hour with a stationary Garmin Etrex Vista (latest software versi version) Is 9 square meters accurate enough? I compared the altitudes recorded with the maximum altitude altimeter readings and, again, spot on! Don't forget that we know of at least one diamond climb approval on the basis of a photograph of the (certified)altimeter in the pilot's cockpit. 2) Garmin has been in touch with me ever since the IGC threw out the Canadian request for approval of certain COTS units. This company is ready to send any number of units for testing purposes by IGC subcommittee. There appears to be an inordinate time taken by IGC/GFAC reps to reply to Garmin. Garmin has been extraordinarily gracefull to me going over all the obstacles thrown at them by the IGC rep. even to the tune of going over the same ground over and over again. Don't forget; the IGC wrote the rules, including that only manufacturers can apply for approval of a unit. 3) There was mentioned "a reduced standard of security for FAI badge applications" but Garmin is required to meet the existing stringent standards. 4) Official Observers are being left out of the security process to the degree that they may as well not be there. For example; how many OO's understand the Sporting Code rules concerning the use of IGC approved FDR's?? 5) I am very disappointed in those among us who think that we are surrounded by cheats and that we must AT ALL COSTS (C$1300 IGC FDR v.s C$450 COTS) prevent these villains to get theirs!! I heard of two or three cases, so what!!!!! 6) I come from an airforce background where it is important to be safe (aircraft maintenance)but I also have received training to be flexible enough not to unneccessarily ground an aircraft when it can accomplish its mission. Are we not too presumptious as to be holier than thou and that the IGC gospel is the only true one? Come on guys, IT IS A SPORT and that is the short of it. 7) I receive the impression that at least one member of the gFAC committee is not being kept abreast of the Garmin correspondence with the chairman GFAC. If any of you wish to be kept informed of what Garmin is doing, I will be happy to copy you in. I am very disappointed in the complex mountain built by IGC just to curb a few bad eggs. In sports it does not matter, since there are very few and it is no skin off my back. I will not loose my joy in having accomplished a 450 k flight with my "illegal" Garmin Etrex Vista recorder. I know I have done the flight and bugger the gospel thumpers. John Bisscheroux |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The IGC/FAI are dragging their feet needlessly on COTS
approval. There is no reason that the process of documenting basic badge flights (through Gold) flight should be as difficult or expensive as it currently is. (This proposal would not apply to national or world records where we would certainly want to comply with the more rigorous standards.) Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily a record of personal achievement, very little more. No one cares who has Silver badge # 5526 (me) or when I got it (years ago), except me. When someone goes to great lengths to cheat by faking a flight record, I view it as the cheater's personal problem, not mine, and not the sports. It certainly does not devalue my first 50k, the memories of which I still warmly cherish. I don't see the need to make the process of Silver and Gold badge documentation as difficult as the flight itself. The soaring community is faced with declining membership and diminishing interest in cross country flight and this is an unnecessary obstacle. I also think that there is great additional value in capturing more flight records for analysis. Having just reviewed a flight record of a relatively new pilot, I was able to discern where the pilot got a little too close to the edge of the safety margin. Going over the flight with the pilot was an eye-opener for him and he learned something from the instant replay that he missed while he was in the air. It was a good lesson, a lesson that would have been just as valuable with a COTS unit as with an IGC approved unit Any device other than a COTS recorder will never bring the price down sufficiently to make these readily affordable for most pilots because the size of the glider pilot market is just too small to achieve the economies of scale for a purpose built device, IGC approved device. More pilots will more readily use cheaper units and I think that is beneficial. To the extent that others agree, we all need to put pressure on our respective national organizations to get the FAI/IGC to respond. Pete Brown -- Peter D. Brown http://home.gci.net/~pdb/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight.
What would the point be? I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge for duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA Instructor who awarded the badge said it was "close enough". Jim Vincent CFIG N483SZ illspam |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
He knows, you know and the SSA instructor knows.
What value does the pilot get from that C badge? "Jim Vincent" wrote in message ... I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight. What would the point be? I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge for duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA Instructor who awarded the badge said it was "close enough". Jim Vincent CFIG N483SZ illspam |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This is true, but anyone who sees the student wearing the badge would rightly
assume that the student actually earned it. Had I been that student, I would have declined the badge until I rightfully earned it. Instructors like this diminish the credibility of the SSA badge program. But this is just one data point of many lies from that instructor. He knows, you know and the SSA instructor knows. What value does the pilot get from that C badge? I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight. What would the point be? I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge for duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA Instructor who awarded the badge said it was "close enough". Jim Vincent CFIG N483SZ illspam |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Papa3 wrote:
I notice from the brief minutes of the FAI meeting in Lausanne that a proposal to use Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) flight recorders was not accepted. In other words, the widely available, cheap units are again rejected in favor of expensive, proprietary units. I'd like to know the following: 1. Specifically, what were the voting results on this? Exactly who (names and countries please) voted for and against the proposal? 2. On what grounds was the proposal rejected? 3. What are the chances of this proposal being made acceptable? I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this "debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the level of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer. Just in case you aren't aware of this, the requirements for national and lower records are set by the country itself, not the IGC, which sets the requirements for badges and world records. It just confuses the issues to mix badges and country records together. Without going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no less secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). WHile I like the idea of making badge documentation easier and cheaper because it would encourage more attempts, I don't believe this is true. I haven't tried it, but I think I could cheat much more easily with COTS units than a camera and barograph, based on my experience with cameras/barographs, approved recorders, handheld GPS units, both as a pilot and official observer. It would depend very much on the details of the selected units and the procedures, and knowledge and care of the OO. A great advantage of the approved units is it makes the OO's job easier than before, rather than more complicated. Also, camera and barograph operation is more "visible" to an OO than software and file systems, which is why I think it would be easier for an OO to ensure their proper use than with a COTS gps unit. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |