![]() |
| 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 |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chip Bearden wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:53 pm, "PCool" wrote: Everyone agree on the fact that the GPS Altitude is not accurate. Actually, what I took away from this discussion is that the GPS altitude is MORE accurate with regard to actual height above the ground but not necessarily equal to pressure altitude in the real world. So what I hear now is the Certified Flight Recorder crowd saying we shouldn't use GPS altitude even if it's more accurate, for the reason that it's not comparable with the way we've always evaluated badge and record claims in the past. This seems precisely the opposite argument used to justify GPS flight recorders in the first place: i.e., that their 2D positional accuracy was better so we simply *must* use it. ![]() There are certainly some in this Certified Flight Recorder Crowd (like myself, I guess) who think that GPS altitude, properly recorded and evaluated, should be quite adequate for demonstrating that one has met the requirements for at least a Gold badge. I agree airspace incursions are a different issue. But in the old days, we could only measure incursions on the Y axis (i.e. altitude) anyway. Would it be so bad if now we could only measure them on the X and Z axes (i.e., lat/long)? At most contests where I've flown recently, including US Nationals, that's been the case: i.e., we're not allowed to fly over or under most airspace that is restricted to gliders. Worst case, users of COTS receivers might have to self impose that condition or leave, say, a 1,000 ft. buffer You're looking at this from a US perspective, in Europe there are lots of places where if you don't fly under or over proscribed airspace, you won't be going very far. Plus, I believe the floor of Class A is somewhat lower over there. I'm not trying to make trouble but I'm genuinely baffled as to what is the problem. If GPS altitude is more accurate and COTS receivers are no more vulnerable to a determined hacker than, say, my Cambridge Model 20 (which I've had open several times), then why not allow them? Saying that the casual pilot can easily borrow an expensive Certified Flight Recorder from a more serious, more affluent club member on occasion is sort of like prohibiting the sale of affordable cars to the average citizen on the rationale that he/she can borrow an Audi or Lexus or Mercedes from a generous neighbor anytime they need to drive somewhere. That is why it is so necessary to work with the IGC delegates. They are the only ones who can change the rules... Marc |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Standalone Flight Recorders for Club Use | ContestID67 | Soaring | 8 | April 24th 07 02:27 AM |
| Amendment 9 to the Technical Specification for IGC Flight Recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 0 | July 1st 06 07:50 PM |
| IGC-approval levels for some types of Flight Recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 42 | March 19th 05 06:42 PM |
| Commercial - Mounts for GPS Flight Recorders | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | March 13th 04 03:03 PM |
| Approved IGC Flight recorders | mat Redsell | Soaring | 2 | March 5th 04 04:35 PM |