Papa3 wrote:
OTOH, I have to at least suggest that the GFAC has tended (if
unintentionally) to represent the views of certain regions where the
conduct of gliding is highly organized and revolves around reasonably
well equipped clubs. The sense of frustration felt by the grass
roots in other locations seems irrational to them; a sort of
cognitive-dissonance if you will. Couple that with the fact that
communication has not always been especially open, consistent or
complete (in today's world we'd use the buzz-word "transparent") and
it's not hard to understand why there have been some harsh critics.

The "grass roots" view is certainly represented, I've never been a
member of a highly organized, well-equipped club.

I'm not sure how much more transparent GFAC can be, ask a question here,
or send a private email to one of the members, and you'll get an answer.
You may not like the answer, but that is a different issue.
Obviously, we deal with manufacturer proprietary information during the
approval process, and that can't be publicly discussed. But, everything
else is open, and always has been.

If you look at COTS, it would have been nice if the attitude going in
had been "how can we make this work" as opposed to "why won't this
work". Just that change in mindset would have quickly led to a
solution-driven approach which would have moved the entire effort
along much faster. Couple that with a more open/transparent
communication plan (think along the lines of an open-source movement
with issues being identified and then addressed by the community), and
I'm convinced we would already be using COTS equipment successfully
for badge flights. So, if anything, it may be that poor governance
has been the issue, and it's not too late to change that.

GFAC is a technical committee, not a policy or rules committee. There
are those of us (like myself) who believe allowing COTS GPS would be
good policy under the right circumstances, and those who don't. But,
from a technical standpoint, there are certain things we have to point
out, like the lack of pressure altitude recording capability, and the
significant differences in functionality, performance, and security
provided by units from various manufacturers.

The IGC (not GFAC) has always been the appropriate place to initiate
this proposal. The fact that the last proposal submitted to the IGC did
a rather poor job of addressing certain important technical and policy
issues is what slowed down the process.

At the next IGC Plenary Meeting (29 February through 1 March), there
will be a specific proposal from the IGC Sporting Code Committee to
change SC3 to allow use of COTS GPS in conjunction with barographs for
Silver and Gold badges. May I, once again, suggest that you contact
your IGC delegate to make your viewpoint known?

Marc