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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Papa3 wrote: Am I the only one who sees a certain irony in this???? No, you are not! Robert |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |