Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

Tony Burton wrote:
The drafters of the Canadian COTS proposal to the last IGC meeting and the
Canadian IGC delgate have been in constant contact recently with Garmin
and the IGC GFAC committee to resolve technical/rules mismatches. It
appears that these are being sorted out for a popular Garmin unit now that
the engineers and the GFAC committee learned to speak each other's
language. :-)

This is news to me, which should be a little bit surprising, given that
I am one of the members of GFAC. I know of the Canadian COTS proposal,
but have heard nothing about it since it was rejected by the IGC.

There is reason to be optomistic that a COTS GPS unit will be approved
within a bureaucratically short period of time.

If by "bureaucratically short period of time" you mean October 2006,
then indeed, there is some finite probability that something could
happen then. IGC rule-making procedures make it impossible for it to
happen any sooner.

Marc

Papa3 wrote:
Am I the only one who sees a
certain irony in this????


No, you are not!

Robert

In article , Marc Ramsey
wrote:

Tony Burton wrote:
... This is news to me, which should be a little bit surprising, given that
I am one of the members of GFAC. I know of the Canadian COTS proposal,
but have heard nothing about it since it was rejected by the IGC.

I've been cc'ed in the long e-mail chain between the Canadian delegate,
COTS drafter, Garmin, and Ian on your committee after the IGC annual
meeting. Things are chugging along apace.

There is reason to be optomistic that a COTS GPS unit will be approved
within a bureaucratically short period of time.

If by "bureaucratically short period of time" you mean October 2006,
then indeed, there is some finite probability that something could
happen then. IGC rule-making procedures make it impossible for it to
happen any sooner.

That's what I mean - I'm familiar with the IGC approval process - "short"=
as fast as the bureaucratic system allows (I hope).

Cheers

--
Tony Burton

In article , Marc Ramsey
wrote:

If by "bureaucratically short period of time" you mean October 2006,
then indeed, there is some finite probability that something could
happen then. IGC rule-making procedures make it impossible for it to
happen any sooner.

Marc, it occurs to me that this may not necessarily be so as long as the
IGC rules for FRs don't have to change in order to introduce a specific
COTS GPS. For example, each FR approved by the the GFAC comes with an
"approval document" which delineates how that FR must be used, OO actions,
etc.

So, say that some Garmin GPS is ICG-compliant except for the barograph
function. Could not such an FR be approved by the IGC GFAC committee with
the restriction in its approval document that it could not be used for
height evidence?

--
Tony Burton

Tony Burton wrote:
Marc, it occurs to me that this may not necessarily be so as long as the
IGC rules for FRs don't have to change in order to introduce a specific
COTS GPS. For example, each FR approved by the the GFAC comes with an
"approval document" which delineates how that FR must be used, OO actions,
etc.

So, say that some Garmin GPS is ICG-compliant except for the barograph
function. Could not such an FR be approved by the IGC GFAC committee with
the restriction in its approval document that it could not be used for
height evidence?

No, since pressure altitude recording capability is a non-optional
requirement of the Technical Specification (see sections 2.4 and 2.6.5).
In any case, I believe all FAI badge-related flight performances
require altitude evidence, with the sole exception of the 5 hour
Silver/Gold duration.

Marc

Please excuse my ignorance but from what you have said
about the inaccuracy of pressure altitude recorders
is GPS altitude more accurate than pressure altitude.
On the traces that I have from my logger the two traces,
pressure and GPS are fairly consistent in their difference
at lower levels. GPS trace is QNH, baro is QFE. Is
the divergence with height a function of the inaccurate
pressure trace with an accurate GPS trace or are both
subject to inaccuracies for different reasons?


At 18:30 24 May 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Tony Burton wrote:
Marc, it occurs to me that this may not necessarily
be so as long as the
IGC rules for FRs don't have to change in order to
introduce a specific
COTS GPS. For example, each FR approved by the the
GFAC comes with an
'approval document' which delineates how that FR must
be used, OO actions,
etc.

So, say that some Garmin GPS is ICG-compliant except
for the barograph
function. Could not such an FR be approved by the
IGC GFAC committee with
the restriction in its approval document that it could
not be used for
height evidence?

No, since pressure altitude recording capability is
a non-optional
requirement of the Technical Specification (see sections
2.4 and 2.6.5).
In any case, I believe all FAI badge-related flight
performances
require altitude evidence, with the sole exception
of the 5 hour
Silver/Gold duration.

Marc

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

"Papa3" wrote in message
link.net...
At the end of the day, what we've done is exactly the mistake I pointed
out
in the beginning. We've allowed paranoia over a few folks who may want to
fudge their gold distance flight or silver climb lead to a situation that
literally requires people to stick with 1940's technology or fork over an
extra $500 for an "approved" logger. For this cost we get what exactly?
The satisfaction in knowing that, if a guy wants to fly his Silver
Distance
in a Nimbus IV, at least he didn't cheat? Am I the only one who sees a
certain irony in this????

LOL!!!!
You must have missed the WCG/IGC announcement that henceforth, all Silver
Distance flights are to be done in PW5s.

(running, ducking & grinning)

Brent

So, say that some Garmin GPS is ICG-compliant except for the barograph
function. Could not such an FR be approved by the IGC GFAC committee with
the restriction in its approval document that it could not be used for
height evidence?

No, since pressure altitude recording capability is a non-optional
requirement of the Technical Specification (see sections 2.4 and 2.6.5).
In any case, I believe all FAI badge-related flight performances
require altitude evidence, with the sole exception of the 5 hour
Silver/Gold duration.

Marc

Okay, then the solution to the regulatory barrier seems to be to broaden
the Tech Spec for COTS GPS units by enlarging the list of functions which
are optional. If COTS are deemed to be"a good thing" for the vastly larger
population of badge pilots vs record-seeking pilots, then the IGC/GFAC
committee ought to be finding the means to add a few "almost-compliant"
FRs to the approved list (how it can be done vs why it can't).

Of course, there's nothing in the Sporting Code that requires flight
evidence to come from one piece of equipment, otherwise we wouldn't have
cameras/baros.

Regards

--
Tony Burton

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