Approval document issued for IGC Position Recorder

On Feb 17, 12:26*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:02*am, soarpilot wrote:





On Feb 16, 4:53*am, Ian Strachan wrote:

Dear Friends,

I am pleased to announce that a new approval document for an IGC
Position Recorder has been issued by the Gliding Federation of
Australia for flights under its jurisdiction, after discussion with
the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC). *The IGC
Position Recorder is a new category of recording device, introduced on
1 October 2009 with the latest update to the Sporting Code for
gliding.

The Australian Approval is dated 15 February 2010 and is for the
flyWithCE Recorder, manufactured by Uro Podlogar s.p., Ulica Lojzeta
Hrovata 9, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia (www.flyWithCE.com).

The Approval Document issued by the Gliding Federation of Australia
can be viewed at:

www.fai.org/gliding/position_recorders

under "The Gliding Federation of Australia"
and "Approval Document: flyWithCE".

------------------

Other National Gliding Authorities might look at the Position Recorder
approval documents that are available on the gliding/
position_recorders web site, and consider whether they wish to issue
their own versions.

The two existing approval documents for IGC Position Recorders a

1. *Fédération Française de Vol à Voile approval document (in French
and English) for Flarm-
equipped devices that have outputs in the IGC file format. *These
include:

* * *Ediatec ECW100,
* * *LXN Red Box Flarm and Mini Box Flarm,
* * *Swift Avionics MiniOz and OzFlarm,
* * *Swiss Flarm after 1 January 2005,
* * *Triadis Floice.

2. *Gliding Federation of Australia approval document for:
* * *miniOZ
* * *OzFlarm

------------------

These National Approval Documents were drawn up together with the IGC
GFA Committee, in accordance with Sporting Code rules that ask for
draft documents to be sent to GFAC so that approval documents can
follow a common format wherever possible (examples are on the gliding/
position_recorders web page), and also so that compliance with the
Sporting Code rules for IGC Position Recorders can be ensured. The
Sporting Code rules for IGC Position Recorders can be viewed
at:www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/SC3_refs_PR.pdf

Finally, as is stated on web pagewww.fai.org/gliding/GNSS, an IGC
Position Recorder is a stand-alone GPS unit (different from an IGC-
approved flight recorder) which may be used for position (Lat/Long)
evidence for silver and gold flights only, under special rules given
in the Appendix to Chapter 4 of Section 3 of the FAI Sporting Code.

Regards to all and good soaring in 2010,

----

Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee


One can only hope that these recorders come to somewhat of a realistic
price. *The retail of these units we must use is a rediculous sum to
pay for a piece of equipment so basic. *I can only hope some
electronics entrepeneur with the assets comes up with a piece of gear
that will undersale the fat cats, but who am I kidding? *Politics will
squash such a rebel.

Say what? This is a ~$120 or so device (assuming the W&W introductory
price). The IGC position recorder effort is an attempt to lower the
costs you are complaining about. Pilots always have the possibility of
putting together a PDA or PNA based system, including using free
software to act as flight recorders for OLC (but not badges/records).
Prices for those start ~$100 or so.

But given some of the limitations for badges and records, I suspect a
better answer for many clubs would be to share a full portable IGC
recorder for those attempts. And anybody who thinks they can design
and manufacture specialized devices for a small worldwide market, put
it though IGC certification, and do so more competitively than the
number of IGC flight recorder manufacturers out there - then do it!
You know, all that free market type stuff...

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Darryl,

I am applauding the cost of this device, not distressed by it. The
higher costs of other systems is my concern. Free market indeed ...

I currently use XC Soar, an Ipaq 3900x and Blue Tooth GPS, so yes that
is a great venue and works very well. I also use an old EW B logger.
I only wish to see the free market come up with a less expensive
venue .. we all can hope and not necessarily have to engineer and
market what it is we hope for ...

On Feb 17, 8:37*pm, cfinn wrote:

One thing that hsn't really been mentioned is the requirement that you
also have a barograph on board for badges and records if you use a
position recorder instead of a flight recorder.

That is only so if the Position Recorder does not have its own
pressure altitude sensor.

However, there is also a range of recorders (below the level of IGC-
approved Flight Recorders), that DO have a pressure altitude sensor
that can be calibrated to the ICAO ISA, and where altitude to the ICAO
ISA appears in the IGC file that is downloaded.

For instance, the French Position Recorder approval document lists
seven such devices, see:

http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/fi...appr_Flarm.pdf (French version
first, then English)

and the Australian document for OzFlarm lists two:
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/fi...larm_minOz.pdf

There is also an Australian document on pressure altitude calibrations
of pre-IGC-approved Flarm devices, using a method that was discovered
by GFAC and does not require an update to these pre-IGC-approved Flarm
devices:
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/fi...guidelines.pdf

Other National Gliding Authorities can look at the above documents and
decide whether they wish to produce their own versions for flights
under their jurisdiction.

Hope this clarification helps, although all the rules and procedures
for IGC Position Recorders are at: www.fai.org/gliding/position_recorders

Ian Strachan

Hi,

I am very much in favor of the idea to make it possible to use lower cost
units.

However, I fear that passing the responsibility for approving units down to
each country is making this all very complicated - which is unfortunate.

Paul Remde

"Ian Strachan" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 8:37 pm, cfinn wrote:

One thing that hsn't really been mentioned is the requirement that you
also have a barograph on board for badges and records if you use a
position recorder instead of a flight recorder.

That is only so if the Position Recorder does not have its own
pressure altitude sensor.

However, there is also a range of recorders (below the level of IGC-
approved Flight Recorders), that DO have a pressure altitude sensor
that can be calibrated to the ICAO ISA, and where altitude to the ICAO
ISA appears in the IGC file that is downloaded.

For instance, the French Position Recorder approval document lists
seven such devices, see:

http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/fi...appr_Flarm.pdf (French version
first, then English)

and the Australian document for OzFlarm lists two:
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/fi...larm_minOz.pdf

There is also an Australian document on pressure altitude calibrations
of pre-IGC-approved Flarm devices, using a method that was discovered
by GFAC and does not require an update to these pre-IGC-approved Flarm
devices:
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/fi...guidelines.pdf

Other National Gliding Authorities can look at the above documents and
decide whether they wish to produce their own versions for flights
under their jurisdiction.

Hope this clarification helps, although all the rules and procedures
for IGC Position Recorders are at: www.fai.org/gliding/position_recorders

Ian Strachan

Just a quick opinion (i.e. I'm dodging doing real work):

While I agree with some folks that this isn't a revolution on its own,
I view it as a good "first step" towards using pure-GPS units for
badges and competitions. There are articles out there already that
explain (better than I can) how GPS-derived altitude isn't really
"worse" than using a pressure-based altitude-sensor. Given the
affordability and reliability of modern GPS units (as well as the lack
of a pressure system to calibrate), I think its a good system/standard
to move toward. If folks want an altitude sensor for major records, I
can concede that. But for simple badges and competitions I don't see
the need.

--Noel

Hi Noel,

Agreed!

Paul Remde

"noel.wade" wrote in message
...
Just a quick opinion (i.e. I'm dodging doing real work):

While I agree with some folks that this isn't a revolution on its own,
I view it as a good "first step" towards using pure-GPS units for
badges and competitions. There are articles out there already that
explain (better than I can) how GPS-derived altitude isn't really
"worse" than using a pressure-based altitude-sensor. Given the
affordability and reliability of modern GPS units (as well as the lack
of a pressure system to calibrate), I think its a good system/standard
to move toward. If folks want an altitude sensor for major records, I
can concede that. But for simple badges and competitions I don't see
the need.

--Noel

On Feb 18, 9:03*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:

I am very much in favor of the idea to make it possible to use lower cost
units. However, I fear that passing the responsibility for approving units down to
each country is making this all very complicated - which is unfortunate.

However, in accordance with current Sporting Code procedures, the IGC
GFA Committee is "in the loop" as a collecting point for Position
Recorder information, for checking that the Sporting Code rules for
the devices proposed are indeed followed, for recommending standard
Approval Document formats (as on the IGC Position Recorder web page)
and finally, to put the agreed Approval Documents on the IGC PR Web
page.

That is what happens at the moment, but the annual IGC Plenary meeting
is from 5-6 March and the PR situation will be discussed. Maybe some
changes will be made.

For instance, the situation could be simplified. Particular IGC
Position Recorder Approval documents could be turned into universal
Approvals without the need for many national bodies to copy the same
document. These could be published by GFAC in the same way as the
higher-level IGC-approval documents for secure flight recorders. Such
documents should conform to the format on the IGC PR web page, and it
should also be clear how the equipment concerned complies with the
provisions of the Sporting Code for PRs.

In the other direction, there is also a resolution on the IGC agenda
from a National Body to the effect that GFAC should be taken out of
the loop, and that National bodies should have complete freedom to
issue Position Recorder approvals without any co-ordination by an IGC
body. Or interference, if you take that view!

What do people think of these points, or any other aspect of the new
IGC Position Recorder procedures? They have only been in since 1
October 2009, so we are all learning!

BTW, the IGC Plenary agenda is available at: http://www.fai.org/gliding/igc_plenary10

Ian Strachan

On Feb 18, 6:59*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Just a quick opinion (i.e. I'm dodging doing real work):

While I agree with some folks that this isn't a revolution on its own,
I view it as a good "first step" towards using pure-GPS units for
badges and competitions. *There are articles out there already that
explain (better than I can) how GPS-derived altitude isn't really
"worse" than using a pressure-based altitude-sensor. *Given the
affordability and reliability of modern GPS units (as well as the lack
of a pressure system to calibrate), I think its a good system/standard
to move toward. *If folks want an altitude sensor for major records, I
can concede that. *But for simple badges and competitions I don't see
the need.

--Noel

Thank you Noel for putting this into a frame of logic and
practicality.