Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

[Papa3]

I notice from the brief minutes of the FAI meeting in Lausanne that a
proposal to use Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) flight recorders was not
accepted. In other words, the widely available, cheap units are again
rejected in favor of expensive, proprietary units. I'd like to know the
following:

1. Specifically, what were the voting results on this? Exactly who (names
and countries please) voted for and against the proposal?

2. On what grounds was the proposal rejected?

3. What are the chances of this proposal being made acceptable?

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!

In the business world, we're (sometimes) smart enough to run cost/benefit
analyses on these sorts of things. This situation strikes me as very
similar to a consulting engagement we did with a very large insurance
company. The old guard insisted on a process of denying all claims in a
certain category due to a preconceived notion that it would prevent fraud
and abuse. Upon review, it was discovered that the cost of manually
reviewing and responding to the tens of thousands of complaints from policy
holders cost several hundred times the amount (in the order of tens of
millions of $$) above and beyond the few documented abuses. It still took a
lot of convincing and a couple of firings to get the policy changed.

Speaking of firing, I would recommend that others who feel this is
ridiculous bombard your national FAI representative with calls for change.
Specifically, I would suggest we try to recall those individuals (or at
least not renew their terms) who have been so obstinate in this regard.

Power to the people!



..

[Marc Ramsey]

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Papa3 wrote:
> I notice from the brief minutes of the FAI meeting in Lausanne that a
> proposal to use Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) flight recorders was not
> accepted. In other words, the widely available, cheap units are again
> rejected in favor of expensive, proprietary units. I'd like to know the
> following:
>
> 1. Specifically, what were the voting results on this? Exactly who (names
> and countries please) voted for and against the proposal?
>
> 2. On what grounds was the proposal rejected?
>
> 3. What are the chances of this proposal being made acceptable?
>
> 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.

Just in case you aren't aware of this, the requirements for national and
lower records are set by the country itself, not the IGC, which sets the
requirements for badges and world records. It just confuses the issues
to mix badges and country records together.

> Without
> going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no less
> secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph).

WHile I like the idea of making badge documentation easier and cheaper
because it would encourage more attempts, I don't believe this is true.
I haven't tried it, but I think I could cheat much more easily with
COTS units than a camera and barograph, based on my experience with
cameras/barographs, approved recorders, handheld GPS units, both as a
pilot and official observer.

It would depend very much on the details of the selected units and the
procedures, and knowledge and care of the OO. A great advantage of the
approved units is it makes the OO's job easier than before, rather than
more complicated. Also, camera and barograph operation is more "visible"
to an OO than software and file systems, which is why I think it would
be easier for an OO to ensure their proper use than with a COTS gps unit.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Papa3]

Marc,

You wrote: "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...


My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have you
ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude? Come
on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty calibration
chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
And what about cameras - don't even go there.

So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go out
and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is really
looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
stubborn bureaucracy). If I were to a person prone to conspiracy theory,
I'd want to take a close, hard look at what relationship these "technicians"
have to the companies that manufacture the supposedly secure recorders.
But, I'm not that sort of person, and it would be inappropriate for me to
even insinuate the same.






"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]

In retrospect, I ought not to have written the last two sentences below -
I'm sure the folks working on this issue are hard working and well meaning.
But I've watched so many issues in the last 15 years get caught up in the
technical discussions while folks completely forget the "business" aspect.
The business of soaring badges is basically meaningless fun, and it
deserves security and bureaucracy commensurate with that. Big time records
may be a different story, but not silver and gold distance/climbs.

P3


"Papa3" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Marc,
>
> You wrote: "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...
>
>
> My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
> technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have
you
> ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
> me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude?
Come
> on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
> able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty
calibration
> chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
> that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
> absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
> And what about cameras - don't even go there.
>
> So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
> COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
> paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go
out
> and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is
really
> looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
> Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
> stubborn bureaucracy). If I were to a person prone to conspiracy theory,
> I'd want to take a close, hard look at what relationship these
"technicians"
> have to the companies that manufacture the supposedly secure recorders.
> But, I'm not that sort of person, and it would be inappropriate for me to
> even insinuate the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "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
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Papa3 wrote:
> My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
> technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have you
> ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
> me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude? Come
> on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
> able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty calibration
> chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
> that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
> absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
> And what about cameras - don't even go there.

The difference between true geometric and calibrated pressure altitude,
for something like a Diamond altitude gain, can be well over 1000 feet.
Geometric and pressure altitude measure two different things. The
first thing that would have to happen is that the IGC would have to
decide to switch to using geometric altitude measurements, which they
have not done as of this moment.

> So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
> COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
> paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go out
> and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is really
> looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
> Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
> stubborn bureaucracy).

A fair number of people are concerned that using a COTS handheld GPS
unit for badge documentation its tantamount to awarding badges on the
"honor system". What it comes down to is someone is either going to
have to come up with a proposal which will address these concerns, or
convince everyone that the "honor system" is, in fact, adequate...

Marc

[Papa3]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
>
> The difference between true geometric and calibrated pressure altitude,
> for something like a Diamond altitude gain, can be well over 1000 feet.
> Geometric and pressure altitude measure two different things. The
> first thing that would have to happen is that the IGC would have to
> decide to switch to using geometric altitude measurements, which they
> have not done as of this moment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but regardless of whether pressure altitude and
Geometric (ie. GPS) altitude differ during a flight, if you use a constant
reference (ie. always use GPS), then the consistency is similar, at least
over the altitudes we typically use. I checked literally dozens of my logs
over the last two years, and although there is a difference of perhaps
100-200 feet between altitude measured by pressure and altitude measured by
GPS, the difference is consistent within that range throughout the flight.
So, I'm not sure why it would be such a quantum leap to make this decision
for badges, especially things like Silver or Gold. If there is a
mathematical reason why the degree of variation increases for say diamond
climbs, then they could be excluded.

>
> A fair number of people are concerned that using a COTS handheld GPS
> unit for badge documentation its tantamount to awarding badges on the
> "honor system". What it comes down to is someone is either going to
> have to come up with a proposal which will address these concerns, or
> convince everyone that the "honor system" is, in fact, adequate...

Well, I think this is exactly the point. The OO system has ALWAYS been an
honor system. There are dozens of very significant records out there where
wives/husbands/best friends have handled this critical function. If that's
not truly an "honor system", I don't know what is. Unless the FAI is
willing to mandate that OO's be impartial third parties who are subject to
random lie detector tests (with violations punishible by having to sit in on
committee meetings to discuss COTS proposals), then I come back to my
primary point. There is effectively NO DIFFERENCE in the degree of
security between the two methods. There are differences in the type of
technical prowess required to defeat the system, but level of security is
effectively the same.

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????


> Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Papa3 wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but regardless of whether pressure altitude and
> Geometric (ie. GPS) altitude differ during a flight, if you use a constant
> reference (ie. always use GPS), then the consistency is similar, at least
> over the altitudes we typically use.

Yes, you are wrong. If you look at the equations for converting
pressure to altitude, you'll note that one factor is the average
temperature of the column of air between the reference altitude and the
altitude at which the pressure is being measured. Altimeters,
barographs, and flight recorders are calibrated to a specific sea level
temperature (15C) and a specific temperature lapse rate (0.002C/ft), as
determined by the International Standard Atmosphere. These conditions
almost never apply to real world soaring flights, as we generally fly on
warmer days with higher lapse rates. At 10000 feet above my home field
during the summer, my properly set altimeter typically reads 500 or 600
lower than my true altitude, which can easily be verified when flying
near peaks with known elevation. This can also be verified by looking
at IGC files from an approved flight recorder, the divergence between
GPS and pressure altitude (adjusted for the different baselines)
generally increases with altitude, and the amount of divergence will
vary on a day to day basis.

> Well, I think this is exactly the point. The OO system has ALWAYS been an
> honor system. There are dozens of very significant records out there where
> wives/husbands/best friends have handled this critical function. If that's
> not truly an "honor system", I don't know what is. Unless the FAI is
> willing to mandate that OO's be impartial third parties who are subject to
> random lie detector tests (with violations punishible by having to sit in on
> committee meetings to discuss COTS proposals), then I come back to my
> primary point. There is effectively NO DIFFERENCE in the degree of
> security between the two methods. There are differences in the type of
> technical prowess required to defeat the system, but level of security is
> effectively the same.

Actually, the OO system was much stricter in the past than it is now.
It has relaxed over time due to changes in the nature of the sport, and
the circumstances under which we fly. One of the reasons for requiring
increased security for flight recorders (and the requirement that they
be used for world and national records), was to compensate for the fact
that it was no longer possible to demand or expect completely impartial
observers.

> 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????

It has been pretty well established that a greater percentage of active
pilots own flight recorders now than owned barographs in the past. I
have loaned out personally owned flight recorders, and I know several
others who have also done so. Just about every club that I know if in
my area has flight recorders available to their members. Quite a few
commercial glider operation rent them for a small fee. And, of course,
one can still use a camera and barograph. I have a barograph in my
closet I haven't been able give away to anyone in the area.

But, you know what? I think the IGC *should* allow use COTS GPS units
for badges with some restrictions. The problem that you (and others who
have proposed this) are up against is that it will take a good deal of
work to convince those who really matter. Frankly, the proposals I've
seen so far have been rather poorly argued and incomplete. I don't
think anyone has yet bothered to do the homework necessary to come up
with a proposal that might be taken seriously.

Marc

[John H. Campbell]

> on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
> able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty
calibration
> chart on a zeroxed sheet.

Heh, heh. I think I was when I did Papa3's Silver claim in the 1980's. I
agree that OO's deserve a bit more more credit as stewards. ---JHC

[Tony Burton]

In article >, Marc Ramsey
> wrote:

....
But, you know what? I think the IGC *should* allow use COTS GPS units
for badges with some restrictions. The problem that you (and others who
have proposed this) are up against is that it will take a good deal of
work to convince those who really matter. Frankly, the proposals I've
seen so far have been rather poorly argued and incomplete. I don't
think anyone has yet bothered to do the homework necessary to come up
with a proposal that might be taken seriously.

Oh yes, there is a GREAT deal of homework being done!

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. :-)

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

--
Tony Burton

[Marc Ramsey]

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

[Robert Danewid]

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


No, you are not!

Robert

[Tony Burton]

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

[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

[Marc Ramsey]

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

[Don Johnstone]

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
>

[303pilot]

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

[303pilot]

"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

[Tony Burton]

> > 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

[Marc Ramsey]

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

[Bill Daniels]

"Tony Burton" > wrote in message
...
> > > 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

All right, how about this?

Since the barometric altitude section of approved loggers seems to be the
part that makes them so expensive, allow GPS altitude instead. Since in the
view of some the GPS altitude data is "inaccurate" then require those badge
applicants using a GPS altitude to exceed the badge altitude leg by an
amount equal to the maximum possible GPS altitude error - say 50 meters.

Bill Daniels

[Jim Vincent]

>I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight.
>What would the point be?

I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge for
duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA Instructor
who awarded the badge said it was "close enough".

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Mike Borgelt]

On 24 May 2004 19:55:48 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

>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?


See one of the earlier posts on this thread.

Presure altitude is the difference between two pressure levels.
On a warmer than standard day the air between these levels expands so
the geometric difference is greater.

As Marc Ramsey points out the pressure altitude is lower than
geometric altitude on most soaring days.

The result is that by using pressure altitude many people who missed
out on a gold or diamond altitude gain by a small amount actually did
gain the geometric altitude.

Interestingly the hot air balloon people convert all altitude claims
to geometric altitude for record purposes.

I wonder if the FAI knows that the IGC doesn't do this?

Mike Borgelt

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Borgelt wrote:

> The result is that by using pressure altitude many people who missed
> out on a gold or diamond altitude gain by a small amount actually did
> gain the geometric altitude.
>
> Interestingly the hot air balloon people convert all altitude claims
> to geometric altitude for record purposes.


How do they do this? Do they also record temperature along with pressure
altitude?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kirk Stant]

Don Johnstone > wrote in message >...
> 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?
>

Don,

Oh boy, bringing in QNH and QFE is bound to muddy the waters! Let's
get those out of the way: GFE is the LOCAL altimeter setting that
results in a zero altimeter setting on the runway, regardless of the
actual runway elevation. QNH is the LOCAL altimeter setting that
gives an altimeter setting on the runway that is close to the actual
runway elevation. It allows the altimeter to be used as a reference
device for altitude deconfliction, instrument approaches, etc. It
approximates MSL on the altimeter, but at higher altitudes (and
temperatures) can be off by a significant amount (which is not a
factor for ATC and mutual deconfliction issues).

GPS, on the other hand, gives an elevation above the reference sea
level. Has nothing to do with QFE or GNH. It is (on the average)a
LOT more accurate than any aircraft altimeter, if what you care about
is how high you are above MSL. Only a good radar altimeter (or laser
rangefinder) is better.

So if we were serious about altitude claims, we would require a GPS
trace, with the required altitude exceeded by a nominal amount equal
to the expected GPS error.

Which is why GPS is better for final glides, BTW.

But since everybody has an altimeter, and it doesn't need power, don't
expect it to change soon!

Kirk

[Marc Ramsey]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> How do they do this? Do they also record temperature along with pressure
> altitude?

====
Sporting Code Section 1 - Aerostats
Annex 2 - Calculation of Geometric Altitude from Barometric Altitude:

3. Meteorological information must be obtained for a position and
time as close as possible to that of the flight. The surface
pressure should be obtained together with temperature and
(optionally) humidity for a range of heights up to the height
being measured. If the meteorological information is not
available the air must be assumed dry, the temperature the
coldest possible for that location and season, and the surface
pressure the lowest that could have been possible.

4. The claimed altitude must be adjusted for the effect of the
atmospheric data by a met hod which can be shown to be correct.
Calculations have been accepted using the following methods:

1) CALCULATION OF CORRECTED ABSOLUTE ALTITUDE by Hans Akerstedt
(Version 2/95 June 1995 effective date) - a method of manual
calculation.
2) CAMERON BALLOONS PROGRAM FOR FAI RECORDS (CBFAI version 97.3
and later). This is a program which gives a result which is
as precise as the data used, calculating the atmosphere layer
by layer.
3) Direct interpolation is possible using certain types of
meteorological data. The result must usually be converted
from geopotential to geometric metres.

Altitude calculations are very complex and procedures can differ
for different types of instrument and available meteorological
data. It is recommended that specialist help be obtained.
====

I believe they still primarily use barographs (an IGC-approved flight
recorder is acceptable as a barograph). I don't think they've
transitioned over to use of GPS derived geometric altitude as of this
moment.

Marc

[Papa3]

You laugh. In our club, all Silver distance flight must be done in a 1-26.
Seriously.

P3


"303pilot" <brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> "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
>
>

[Papa3]

Right on Todd. What rarely hits the papers is that the vast majority of
major security breaches in corporate environments come not from external
hackers but from disgruntled or malicious employees. One DBA with root
access can bring on a world of hurt. Seems like we're facing a similar
situation here...


"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "303pilot" <brentUNDERSCOREsullivanATbmcDOTcom> 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.
>
> I'm in favor of allowing COTS recorders in a box for
> everything. They are at least as secure as the baro and
> camera, and IMHO, probably as secure or more so than the IGC
> approved FR. I know everyone loves the FR security, but
> there are several known ways to cheat with the FR. The
> entire security revolves around a secret number stored in
> the box the potential cheater owns and controls, and which
> is known to numerous individuals authorized by various
> manufacturers. If I was going to cheat for a record, I'd
> use an FR.
>
> Regardless, if it would move the COTS proposal along by
> limiting it to badge flights only, I'd support that.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Eric Greenwell]

Kirk Stant wrote:
> Oh boy, bringing in QNH and QFE is bound to muddy the waters! Let's
> get those out of the way: GFE is the LOCAL altimeter setting that
> results in a zero altimeter setting on the runway, regardless of the
> actual runway elevation. QNH is the LOCAL altimeter setting that
> gives an altimeter setting on the runway that is close to the actual
> runway elevation. It allows the altimeter to be used as a reference
> device for altitude deconfliction, instrument approaches, etc. It
> approximates MSL on the altimeter, but at higher altitudes (and
> temperatures) can be off by a significant amount (which is not a
> factor for ATC and mutual deconfliction issues).
>
> GPS, on the other hand, gives an elevation above the reference sea
> level. Has nothing to do with QFE or GNH. It is (on the average)a
> LOT more accurate than any aircraft altimeter, if what you care about
> is how high you are above MSL. Only a good radar altimeter (or laser
> rangefinder) is better.

You probably didn't mean that, since these are AGL measurements, not MSL.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Borgelt]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:20:28 GMT, Marc Ramsey >
wrote:

>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> How do they do this? Do they also record temperature along with pressure
>> altitude?
>
>====
>Sporting Code Section 1 - Aerostats
>Annex 2 - Calculation of Geometric Altitude from Barometric Altitude:
>
>3. Meteorological information must be obtained for a position and
> time as close as possible to that of the flight. The surface
> pressure should be obtained together with temperature and
> (optionally) humidity for a range of heights up to the height
> being measured. If the meteorological information is not
> available the air must be assumed dry, the temperature the
> coldest possible for that location and season, and the surface
> pressure the lowest that could have been possible.
>
>4. The claimed altitude must be adjusted for the effect of the
> atmospheric data by a met hod which can be shown to be correct.
> Calculations have been accepted using the following methods:
>
> 1) CALCULATION OF CORRECTED ABSOLUTE ALTITUDE by Hans Akerstedt
> (Version 2/95 June 1995 effective date) - a method of manual
> calculation.
> 2) CAMERON BALLOONS PROGRAM FOR FAI RECORDS (CBFAI version 97.3
> and later). This is a program which gives a result which is
> as precise as the data used, calculating the atmosphere layer
> by layer.
> 3) Direct interpolation is possible using certain types of
> meteorological data. The result must usually be converted
> from geopotential to geometric metres.
>
> Altitude calculations are very complex and procedures can differ
> for different types of instrument and available meteorological
> data. It is recommended that specialist help be obtained.
>====
>
>I believe they still primarily use barographs (an IGC-approved flight
>recorder is acceptable as a barograph). I don't think they've
>transitioned over to use of GPS derived geometric altitude as of this
>moment.
>
>Marc


That's how it is done. I verified an Australian balloon altitude
record about 8 or 9 years ago. This was done according to the world
rules and they provided a nice worksheet to make it easy.

It has only been 4 years since SA was turned off but the point is that
they do reduce the data to geometric altitude. As GPS measures this
directly it would seem to be reasonable to allow GPS with suitable
allowance for GPS errors. These are far better known than the pressure
errors. Just choose the level of confidence you want.
From memory the error bands in the pressure calculation (altitude was
in excess of 30,000 feet)were quite large probably around the 99 +%
GPS error band.
Don't forget the recorder pressure calibration is done at room
temperature. There is no guarantee it is the same at -20 deg C(again
from memory, the FR low temperature limit) or even colder and in fact
outside the FR spec.

On reflection this is all too silly for words for what is really just
trivia.

Mike Borgelt

[Don Johnstone]

I do not know that it is silly. On the one hand we
have a barograph which by admission is in-accurate
and requires complicated and, it has to be said, approximate
corrections and on the other hand we have GPS which
is more accurate and the corrections for which are
straightforward. My FR is also a barograph, it records
pressure altitude and the GPS altitude. Why, instead
of making a calculation to correct the pressure altitude
to geometric altitude, cannot the geometric altitude
recorded be used directly. IF not is there a cogent
argument against?

Sorry for using QFE and QNH, not the best way to describe
AMSL and AGL - I stand dejected.

At 11:24 25 May 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:20:28 GMT, Marc Ramsey
>wrote:
>
>>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> How do they do this? Do they also record temperature
>>>along with pressure
>>> altitude?
>>
>>====
>>Sporting Code Section 1 - Aerostats
>>Annex 2 - Calculation of Geometric Altitude from Barometric
>>Altitude:
>>
>>3. Meteorological information must be obtained for
>>a position and
>> time as close as possible to that of the flight.
>> The surface
>> pressure should be obtained together with temperature
>>and
>> (optionally) humidity for a range of heights up
>>to the height
>> being measured. If the meteorological information
>>is not
>> available the air must be assumed dry, the temperature
>>the
>> coldest possible for that location and season,
>>and the surface
>> pressure the lowest that could have been possible.
>>
>>4. The claimed altitude must be adjusted for the effect
>>of the
>> atmospheric data by a met hod which can be shown
>>to be correct.
>> Calculations have been accepted using the following
>>methods:
>>
>> 1) CALCULATION OF CORRECTED ABSOLUTE ALTITUDE by
>>Hans Akerstedt
>> (Version 2/95 June 1995 effective date) - a
>>method of manual
>> calculation.
>> 2) CAMERON BALLOONS PROGRAM FOR FAI RECORDS (CBFAI
>>version 97.3
>> and later). This is a program which gives a
>>result which is
>> as precise as the data used, calculating the
>>atmosphere layer
>> by layer.
>> 3) Direct interpolation is possible using certain
>>types of
>> meteorological data. The result must usually
>>be converted
>> from geopotential to geometric metres.
>>
>> Altitude calculations are very complex and procedures
>>can differ
>> for different types of instrument and available
>>meteorological
>> data. It is recommended that specialist help be
>>obtained.
>>====
>>
>>I believe they still primarily use barographs (an IGC-approved
>>flight
>>recorder is acceptable as a barograph). I don't think
>>they've
>>transitioned over to use of GPS derived geometric altitude
>>as of this
>>moment.
>>
>>Marc
>
>
>That's how it is done. I verified an Australian balloon
>altitude
>record about 8 or 9 years ago. This was done according
>to the world
>rules and they provided a nice worksheet to make it
>easy.
>
>It has only been 4 years since SA was turned off but
>the point is that
>they do reduce the data to geometric altitude. As GPS
>measures this
>directly it would seem to be reasonable to allow GPS
>with suitable
>allowance for GPS errors. These are far better known
>than the pressure
>errors. Just choose the level of confidence you want.
>From memory the error bands in the pressure calculation
>(altitude was
>in excess of 30,000 feet)were quite large probably
>around the 99 +%
>GPS error band.
>Don't forget the recorder pressure calibration is done
>at room
>temperature. There is no guarantee it is the same at
>-20 deg C(again
>from memory, the FR low temperature limit) or even
>colder and in fact
>outside the FR spec.
>
>On reflection this is all too silly for words for what
>is really just
>trivia.
>
>Mike Borgelt
>
>
>

[Janos Bauer]

Thanks Todd, it's a good summary about the situation.

Todd Pattist wrote:

> I don't really think that the internal security breach is
> the major security problem for FR's, but it is a concern. My
> problem is with the general belief that an approved FR is
> better than the older camera/baro/OO system.
>
> 1) The FR stores its secret number inside. It's hard to get
> it out, but not impossible.
>
> 2) The FR typically uses an off-the-shelf GPS engine inside
> the box. The only security between that engine and the
> encryption is an aluminum case and a switch that's supposed
> to go off if you open it up. You merely defeat the switch,
> open the case and feed simulated digital GPS data into the
> encryption system to produce a valid record.

Good point, there are several non-destructive ways to detect the place
of this switch/switches and avoid it during hacking. Inside the FR I
suspect the same serial communication between the logging part and the
pure GPS part as it's on all GPS systems (NMEA-183). Here you can inject
your fake position data with the existing sims. Some pressure hack also
needed.
Hopefully noone spends his/her freetime on it....

> 3) The digital record is extremely "clean" as compared to
> the analog systems of old, and evidence of cheating is much
> harder to detect if the encryption is valid.
>
> 4) GPS simulators are available and have already been used
> to produce "valid" flight data in a secure FR for
> nonexistent flights.

What do you mean with this sentence? Do you know about any case where
valid IGC file was created hacking the FR?

> I'm not attacking the FR, I think it's a great system that
> makes things easier for pilot and OO ... at a price ... but
> that price is too high for the bottom end of the sport
> where we all started and the future of the sport lies. It's
> wrong to think of FR's as buying security. It's not good
> enough alone for records and it's overkill for badges.
>
> The OO has a much more important role than is recognized in
> maintaining security for important flights (records) and the
> existing tried and true OO system is more than sufficient
> for badge flight security with a COTS recorder.

It's also true. I haven't seen any OO who checked flight declaration
before flight. For example in certain cases it's beneficial to replace
the nimbus4 with a ka8 in the declaration. Only the OO ensure that a
certain pilot did a FAI badge requirement and not only the FR traveled
in someone else's luggage compartment...

/Janos

[Eric Greenwell]

Janos Bauer wrote:

>>
>> The OO has a much more important role than is recognized in
>> maintaining security for important flights (records) and the
>> existing tried and true OO system is more than sufficient
>> for badge flight security with a COTS recorder.
>
>
> It's also true. I haven't seen any OO who checked flight declaration
> before flight. For example in certain cases it's beneficial to replace
> the nimbus4 with a ka8 in the declaration. Only the OO ensure that a
> certain pilot did a FAI badge requirement and not only the FR traveled
> in someone else's luggage compartment...

I'm puzzled: why does the OO need to check the flight declaration before
the flight on an approved recorder? I routinely make flights where the
OO doesn't check the flight declaration before the flight, which is
allowed by the approval document for my recorder. I can change the
declaration at any time I wish. Of course, if I change it after the
takeoff, it is invalid, and this can be determined from the flight file.

He is required to ensure the flight recorder from which the flight file
is taken is the same one that was in the glider when it took off (in
other words, "maintain control" of the flight recorder through
observation or sealing to the glider).

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kirk Stant]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...

Only a good radar altimeter (or laser
> > rangefinder) is better.
>
> You probably didn't mean that, since these are AGL measurements, not MSL.

You are right, poor/garbled syntax on my part: What I was getting at
is that lacking a GPS, the only theoretical way to get good actual
elevation would be with a Radar Altimeter or Laser over a known
elevation. Not practical in real life.

We could get into the practical differences between QFE and radar
altitude, but that's a bit of a stretch on a gliding forum! Although
with GPS and the new PDA moving map software, AGL altitude is now
becoming easy to get in a glider - amazing technology.


Kirk

[303pilot]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
om...
> 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

No, I'm not in favor of the "honor system". I am in favor of pairing cheap
GPS's with declarations and OO's for badge flights.

What exactly is the "current intent of the FAI/IGC"?

What is the benefit to the sport of increasing the cost and complexity of
flight documentation for the purpose of reducing a problem (cheating) that,
so far as I'm aware, does not exist at any meaningful level? Does the
FAI/ICG believe that absent expensive secure loggers all/most/some/10% of
pilots would cheat? What is the problem that is being solved by the use of
these devices rather than simpler, cheaper devices?

Disclaimer - I own a secure flight recorder. My only interest is doing what
is most likely to enhance the sport through greater participation in XC
flight.

[303pilot]

He knows, you know and the SSA instructor knows.
What value does the pilot get from that C badge?

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> >I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge
flight.
> >What would the point be?
>
> I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge
for
> duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA
Instructor
> who awarded the badge said it was "close enough".
>
> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

[Marc Ramsey]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote...
> The report is that a GPS simulator was used to create a
> valid secure approved FR position record without opening the
> case by producing simulated GPS signals that the FR antenna
> picks up and records as real. I believe the .igc trace was
> intentionally made "unbelievable" and IIRC, did not include
> a simulated pressure altitude. GPS simulators are
> commercially available and cost a lot less than what many
> record hunters spend to fly in the best conditions found on
> this planet.

This particular story comes up sooner or later when we get one of these
threads going, but no one has ever made the .igc files available, identified
the equipment used, or named the people who accomplished it. As far as I
can figure out, generating a convincing flight log would require an 8 to 12
channel programmable simulator, a fast programmable pressure device, and a
bunch of software development. This does not strike me as something cheap
and easy to do. If it is easy, then some verifiable information, along with
suggestions as to how we can improve the system, would benefit everyone.
Otherwise, this is just so much blowing of smoke...

Marc

[Jim Vincent]

This is true, but anyone who sees the student wearing the badge would rightly
assume that the student actually earned it. Had I been that student, I would
have declined the badge until I rightfully earned it. Instructors like this
diminish the credibility of the SSA badge program. But this is just one data
point of many lies from that instructor.


>He knows, you know and the SSA instructor knows.
>What value does the pilot get from that C badge?
>
>> >I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge
>flight.
>> >What would the point be?
>>
>> I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge
>for
>> duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA
>Instructor
>> who awarded the badge said it was "close enough".



Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Wojciech Scigala]

Dnia 5/25/04 4:48 PM, U¿ytkownik 303pilot napisa³:

> Disclaimer - I own a secure flight recorder. My only interest is doing what
> is most likely to enhance the sport through greater participation in XC
> flight.
In my opinion, you really don't need FAI to popularise XC flights. Every
glider pilot needs 8 successful flights to reach 3 diamonds - and that's
all most pilots need certified logger for. You really don't have to own
one by yourself, few loggers bought by a club is enough for all it's
members.

Methods of flight recording in all competitions below continental level
are up to organisers. These are the people who should be convinced to
"COTS" solutions. Forget lobbing IGC, you don't need their help.

Case:
Since this year in Poland you can use almost any "GNNS flight evidence
device" in all competitions except Nationals. This also includes on-line
contests (here some limitations has been made to ensure basics of
security). All these new regulations were made on level of the national
Gliding Commision, without any consulations with IGC.


--
Wojtus'.net __|__
FidoNet: 2:484/47 `--------o--------'

[Marc Ramsey]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote...
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote:
> > As far as I
> >can figure out, generating a convincing flight log would require an 8 to
12
> >channel programmable simulator, a fast programmable pressure device, and
a
> >bunch of software development.
>
> Why 8-12 channels? Spirent sells a 6-channel GPS simulator
> with programmable capability.

There is the required satellite constellation (F) record. It would be
pretty easy to figure out something was wrong if no more than 6 satellites
were ever visible at a time.

> You seem to think my comments are aimed at denigrating
> security of FR's. They aren't. I think FR's are secure
> enough. The last thing I want is even more expense in the
> name of security.

No, my point was simply that it is easy to claim that someone once used a
GPS simulator to create an IGC file, but no one has ever thought it worth
their while to provide specific details to the IGC, GFAC, or anyone else.
Flight recorder security isn't there just to annoy people, it is there
because at least some portion of the community think it desireable to make
it difficult to forge flight evidence. Those who wish to bring about change
need should be willing to provide some evidence to back up their arguments.

> My comments are simply intended to paint the security we
> have in a realistic light and to emphasize that we still
> rely on the OO for world record security where the
> motivation to cheat is greatest. I think we should also be
> able to rely on OO security for badges using a COTS GPS
> where the stakes are far lower if someone should actually
> cheat.

Agreed.

Marc

[Wojciech Scigala]

Dnia 5/25/04 8:56 PM, U¿ytkownik Todd Pattist napisa³:

>>Every
>>glider pilot needs 8 successful flights to reach 3 diamonds - and that's
>>all most pilots need certified logger for.
> And those 8 flights may need 80 attempts, and all on the
> same day as the owner of the certified FR wants to use it.
You're right, just exaggerating :)
In our club (over 50 active members, about 20 "active" gliders) we have
4 loggers (1 owned by the club, rest by members who are willing to lend
it to others). I don't remember any day when we "run out" of loggers
(but see note about Silvers below).

>>Methods of flight recording in all competitions below continental level
>>are up to organisers. These are the people who should be convinced to
>>"COTS" solutions.
> Competitions are seen as a level beyond the 3 silver legs.
> If a pilot has reached the competition level, we don't
> really need to entice him to XC.
Many young pilots here reach competition level without enough funds to
buy own logger. They were using cameras and this had been giving huge
handicap to logger owners. That's main reason we introduced COTS in our
competitions.

> That's great, and I applaud the Polish effort, but the badge
> system is still closed without the approved $800 FR.
The main difference is, we still fly Silvers with cameras and
barographs. Nobody complains about that. In my opinion, using camera
during XC and preparing the baro are skills each pilot should have.
Maybe I'm a bit sentimental ;)
I am also aware barographs is extinct species in many places. That makes
problem really serious.

However things may change if IGC bans cameras some day. AFAIK it has
been already discussed and it's inevitable :(

--
Wojtus'.net __|__
FidoNet: 2:484/47 `--------o--------'

[Mike Borgelt]

On 25 May 2004 11:56:22 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

>I do not know that it is silly. On the one hand we
>have a barograph which by admission is in-accurate
>and requires complicated and, it has to be said, approximate
>corrections and on the other hand we have GPS which
>is more accurate and the corrections for which are
>straightforward. My FR is also a barograph, it records
>pressure altitude and the GPS altitude. Why, instead
>of making a calculation to correct the pressure altitude
>to geometric altitude, cannot the geometric altitude
>recorded be used directly. IF not is there a cogent
>argument against?

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. As we sometimes say in
Oz " blind Freddie can see that".


GPS altitude is now so obviously much better there should not even be
an argument.
All gliding badges, records etc are essentially trivial, of interest
mainly to the holder, with no implications for the wider world.
We have gone to ridiculous lengths to protect the integrity of
something that isn't that valuable in the first place and the security
of the approved IGC FR's is largely illusory for anyone that cares to
look carefully.

When GPS was allowed instead of turnpoint photography for records the
field wasn't level between old and new so I don't think changing to
GPS altitude for badges and records should be a philosophical or
fairness problem. The accuracy characteristics of the GPS signal are
so well known that it only remains to choose the level of confidence
you want and there is your error band.

In aviation, pressure altitude is mainly of use for air traffic
separation purposes

Mike Borgelt

[Mike Borgelt]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:28:40 +0200, Janos Bauer >
wrote:


> Good point, there are several non-destructive ways to detect the place
>of this switch/switches and avoid it during hacking. Inside the FR I
>suspect the same serial communication between the logging part and the
>pure GPS part as it's on all GPS systems (NMEA-183). Here you can inject
>your fake position data with the existing sims. Some pressure hack also
>needed.
> Hopefully noone spends his/her freetime on it....

Even easier is simply to open once, take photos, have it resealed and
then do it again. Plenty of approved FRs have lost their security for
unknown reasons. I've fixed a couple of Volksloggers where the welding
on the tags to the lithium security battery was faulty, causing
intermittent loss of security. I'm a VL distributor but I certainly
know how to defeat the VL security now . Anybody would figure it out
having opened one once. I imagine the same happens with other designs.
You are right about the GPS engines.
Mike Borgelt

[Papa3]

Let's see - so far I see the contingent from Oz and US weighing in. GFAC
members from those countries, are you listening :-))

In all seriousness, Mike has presented far more eloquently than I what I
believe to be a majority opinion (based on a highly unscientific poll of
undoubtedly intoxicated members of my local club on the deck after flying).
So, I would encourage those of you reading in anonymity to contact your
local reps if you believe the time has come to rapidly develop a plan to
allow COTS units for badges.

P3



"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 May 2004 11:56:22 GMT, Don Johnstone
> > wrote:
>
> GPS altitude is now so obviously much better there should not even be
> an argument.
> All gliding badges, records etc are essentially trivial, of interest
> mainly to the holder, with no implications for the wider world.
> We have gone to ridiculous lengths to protect the integrity of
> something that isn't that valuable in the first place and the security
> of the approved IGC FR's is largely illusory for anyone that cares to
> look carefully.
>
> When GPS was allowed instead of turnpoint photography for records the
> field wasn't level between old and new so I don't think changing to
> GPS altitude for badges and records should be a philosophical or
> fairness problem. The accuracy characteristics of the GPS signal are
> so well known that it only remains to choose the level of confidence
> you want and there is your error band.

> Mike Borgelt
>

[Janos Bauer]

Sorry Eric, you are right. I wanted to point out that most of the
cases there is no check on declaration by the OO. Of course it can be
done before or after the flight. I know about cases where a certain
logger is used by several persons in different sailplanes and it was
simply forgotten to reprogram the pilot name and glider type. You know
it's an everyday mistake. But only the OO can prevent to use this "fake"
log for a badge claim...
Other example: do I get more scores on OLC (or on any logfile based
contest) if I change a Nimbus4 to a Ka8 in the declaration? Can I
collect more scores if I keep my logger at the airport and ask others
just to carry it any time they fly xc? Who will know about it, it
happens at the other side of the world?

/Janos

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Janos Bauer wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The OO has a much more important role than is recognized in
>>> maintaining security for important flights (records) and the
>>> existing tried and true OO system is more than sufficient
>>> for badge flight security with a COTS recorder.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's also true. I haven't seen any OO who checked flight declaration
>> before flight. For example in certain cases it's beneficial to replace
>> the nimbus4 with a ka8 in the declaration. Only the OO ensure that a
>> certain pilot did a FAI badge requirement and not only the FR traveled
>> in someone else's luggage compartment...
>
>
> I'm puzzled: why does the OO need to check the flight declaration before
> the flight on an approved recorder? I routinely make flights where the
> OO doesn't check the flight declaration before the flight, which is
> allowed by the approval document for my recorder. I can change the
> declaration at any time I wish. Of course, if I change it after the
> takeoff, it is invalid, and this can be determined from the flight file.
>
> He is required to ensure the flight recorder from which the flight file
> is taken is the same one that was in the glider when it took off (in
> other words, "maintain control" of the flight recorder through
> observation or sealing to the glider).
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Janos Bauer wrote:
>
> Sorry Eric, you are right. I wanted to point out that most of the cases
> there is no check on declaration by the OO. Of course it can be done
> before or after the flight. I know about cases where a certain logger is
> used by several persons in different sailplanes and it was simply
> forgotten to reprogram the pilot name and glider type. You know it's an
> everyday mistake. But only the OO can prevent to use this "fake" log for
> a badge claim...

In the USA, this "fake" claim would be discovered by the person
appointed by our national soaring organization to review badge claims.
Many claims are not accepted after this review because of errors of
various types. I don't know how a mistake like this one would be
handled, but it would be found. Perhaps in a club situation, a paper
declaration would be a good way to avoid the problem. I've made the
mistake myself, with my own logger, when I forgot to change the
declaration for a new task.

> Other example: do I get more scores on OLC (or on any logfile based
> contest) if I change a Nimbus4 to a Ka8 in the declaration? Can I
> collect more scores if I keep my logger at the airport and ask others
> just to carry it any time they fly xc? Who will know about it, it
> happens at the other side of the world?

The OLC (and many club contests of this type) are run on the "honor
system". There is no formal protection against it. As long as the system
isn't abused, the participants will be happy and continue to enter it.
If groups of pilots around the world begin to submit flights they didn't
make, I think eventually it will be found out, and the contest rules
will change or pilots will simply not enter it anymore.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Iwo Mergler]

Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> Excellent. I suppose it would be nice to know if GPS
> simulators really work,

They do. Most simulators can read satellite ephemeris data
from a file. Web sites like

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/cors-data.html

have past satellite ephemeris for download. At the ouput
of any GPS baseband chip there is next to nothing to tell
the difference between a properly set up simulator and
the real thing.

The more expensive simulators can even program a "skyline"
to match the glider's canopy, pilot's head, etc.

On the other hand, I'm sure the effort of creating the
perfect fake is in the same order of magnitude as flying
the thing in the first place.

Regards,

Iwo

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 03:03:03 GMT, "Papa3" >
wrote:

>Right on Todd. What rarely hits the papers is that the vast majority of
>major security breaches in corporate environments come not from external
>hackers but from disgruntled or malicious employees. One DBA with root
>access can bring on a world of hurt. Seems like we're facing a similar
>situation here...
>
I'm not that bothered by security, but I do think that the majority of
COTS GPS systems are not technically adequate for the task in terms of
trackpoint storage and/or presence of a pressure sensor. See an
earlier post for details.

Even if Garmin do build a suitable COTS device, what makes you think
it will be appreciably cheaper than existing FRs or as cheap as
existing Garmin GPS units? Who else, apart from us, would buy it in
sufficient quantities to pull the price down to, say that of a GPSmap
296 let alone a GPS 76S ?

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Papa3]

Bingo - so why continue to require pressure altitude?

In terms of the other requirements, folks here are using Garmin and other
devices on a daily basis to successfully document claims. Why are they not
"technically adequate."?


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 03:03:03 GMT, "Papa3" >
> wrote:
>
>> >
> I'm not that bothered by security, but I do think that the majority of
> COTS GPS systems are not technically adequate for the task in terms of
> .... and/or presence of a pressure sensor. See an
> earlier post for details.
>>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
>

[Robert Danewid]

>
> The club system is far different in the U.S. Many can't or
> won't buy them.
>

> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C

Todd, that may be true, but I think this is an international news group
and cetainly the majority of glider pilots live and fly in Europe and
are a member of a club, so in that respect Wojciech is right.


Robert

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:41:57 GMT, "Papa3" >
wrote:

>Bingo - so why continue to require pressure altitude?
>
That's not the problem - there are pressure sensors in both eTrex and
Geko models for not much money, but would you want to use either model
for task navigation (buttons on the edge of the eTrex, tiny screen on
Geko)?

Or, are you talking about using a map and/or another GPS for
navigation while leaving the one used as a logger in the side pocket
or behind your head? In which case, ignore the last comment.

>In terms of the other requirements, folks here are using Garmin and other
>devices on a daily basis to successfully document claims. Why are they not
>"technically adequate."?
>
Mainly relatively small track-log space. If you want to record an
entire day at 4 secs/point you'll need 10,000 points to deal with 11
hours. Changing the sample rate, e.g. up for turn points and then down
again is pretty fiddly - I'd not want to do it while flying and
keeping a lookout, so you're stuck with the 4 sec rate for the whole
flight. Now what about something like a soaring camp over a long
weekend? It would not be sensible IMO to rely on having a download
computer along, but if you don't have one then the ability to record
24 hours or so of logger files would be a big help.

Last but not least, if you run out of track log space the Garmins I've
looked at manuals for will silently overwrite the oldest tracklogs
and, if there's only one big one in memory, the start of it gets
stomped on. Not good behaviour for a flight recorder!

>
>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 03:03:03 GMT, "Papa3" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>> I'm not that bothered by security, but I do think that the majority of
>> COTS GPS systems are not technically adequate for the task in terms of
>> .... and/or presence of a pressure sensor. See an
>> earlier post for details.
>>>
>> --
>> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie : Harlow, UK
>> demon :
>> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>> uk :
>>
>

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Papa3]

Martin,

All good points. However, I think (for example) the issue of the number of
data points is something for the market to decide. I'm sure there are
plenty of folks for whom an 11 hour trace is more than sufficient. At the
end of the day, once the standards are "reasonable" (let's not worry exactly
what that means for a moment) , market forces will dictate what is
available.

Here in the US, a lot of folks are using the Garmin 76 very successfully.

Erik


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:41:57 GMT, "Papa3" >
> wrote:
>
> >Bingo - so why continue to require pressure altitude?
> >
> That's not the problem - there are pressure sensors in both eTrex and
> Geko models for not much money, but would you want to use either model
> for task navigation (buttons on the edge of the eTrex, tiny screen on
> Geko)?
>
> Or, are you talking about using a map and/or another GPS for
> navigation while leaving the one used as a logger in the side pocket
> or behind your head? In which case, ignore the last comment.
>
> >In terms of the other requirements, folks here are using Garmin and other
> >devices on a daily basis to successfully document claims. Why are they
not
> >"technically adequate."?
> >
> Mainly relatively small track-log space. If you want to record an
> entire day at 4 secs/point you'll need 10,000 points to deal with 11
> hours. Changing the sample rate, e.g. up for turn points and then down
> again is pretty fiddly - I'd not want to do it while flying and
> keeping a lookout, so you're stuck with the 4 sec rate for the whole
> flight. Now what about something like a soaring camp over a long
> weekend? It would not be sensible IMO to rely on having a download
> computer along, but if you don't have one then the ability to record
> 24 hours or so of logger files would be a big help.
>
> Last but not least, if you run out of track log space the Garmins I've
> looked at manuals for will silently overwrite the oldest tracklogs
> and, if there's only one big one in memory, the start of it gets
> stomped on. Not good behaviour for a flight recorder!
>
> >
> >"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 25 May 2004 03:03:03 GMT, "Papa3" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >
> >> I'm not that bothered by security, but I do think that the majority of
> >> COTS GPS systems are not technically adequate for the task in terms of
> >> .... and/or presence of a pressure sensor. See an
> >> earlier post for details.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> >> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> >> demon :
> >> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> >> uk :
> >>
> >
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
>

[Jeff Dorwart]

I just completed a small sampling from a few national
(US an otherwise) contest IGC files. Of the 50 or
so I have looked at I have not found one to exceed
170kb. GPS units that are based on Pocket PC or Palm can record
to SD or CF cards which can be up to a gig. I have
an Ique with a 512M SD card (the one that is the size
of a postage stamp) running SoaringPilot. By my rough
calculation, and using a figure of 200kb, I figure
I can record roughly 2500 of these traces without running
out of space. Many of these flights exceed 6 hours.
I can only assume they are recording at 5 second intervals
or better as per the GNSS spec (2.4.4). Common sense
dictates we move inthat direction.I just spent the pasts couple of hours pouring over
the requirements for approval of a FR. I think The
security requirements exceed the level some nations
use for ensuring national security.;^0jeff

[Eric Greenwell]

Papa3 wrote:
> Martin,
>
> All good points. However, I think (for example) the issue of the number of
> data points is something for the market to decide. I'm sure there are
> plenty of folks for whom an 11 hour trace is more than sufficient. At the
> end of the day, once the standards are "reasonable" (let's not worry exactly
> what that means for a moment) , market forces will dictate what is
> available.

And we are talking about using it for badge claims, anyway. Presumably,
the OO would take possession of it after the flight until the trace had
been downloaded, so an 11 hour recording time should be plenty!


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Papa3]

Jeff,

Trust me - they do. I just completed a fairly extensive security audit for
our data center with a major, global financial company. I used the IGC
security specs as the benchmark.

Here's a novel idea (at least to me) regarding security as it relates to IGC
recorders. As I see it there are two approaches.

1. Prevent security breaches by building all sorts of sophisticated
encryption and physical security mechanisms to thwart would be hackers (ie.
the expensive method) required of financial services and other companies
which maintain critical data.

2. Identify potentially corrupted files retrospectively by applying a
"sniff test" after the fact. I would not advocate this for everyday files,
but, how hard would it be to define a few key algorithms that would at least
flag certain files for closer review? I'm thinking now in terms of
competitions, but for instance:

- Identify a few key attributes that would be useful in identifying
performance (e.g. average climb, achieved L/D, % time in cruise, etc.).
- Run a quick statistical analysis against all files from a competition
day, identifying gross deviations from the mean on these days.
- Utilize time/proximity based comparative analysis against a control group
for those logs where there are anomoalies (e.g. if one ship achieved an L/D
of 50 on a leg where the fleet achieved 30, it might be good to look more
closely)
- Other "signatures" that might indicate potential manipulation of data.
- etc.

Just knowing that you might be called in front of the stewards to explain
wildly inconsistent results might be enough to head off would-be cheaters.

I actually think I'm now heading down the path of creating additional
complexity, but I do think it is worth looking into alternatives to
encryption-based pre-emptive security.

P3


"Jeff Dorwart" > wrote in message
...
> I just completed a small sampling from a few national
> (US an otherwise) contest IGC files. Of the 50 or
> so I have looked at I have not found one to exceed
> 170kb. GPS units that are based on Pocket PC or Palm can record
> to SD or CF cards which can be up to a gig. I have
> an Ique with a 512M SD card (the one that is the size
> of a postage stamp) running SoaringPilot. By my rough
> calculation, and using a figure of 200kb, I figure
> I can record roughly 2500 of these traces without running
> out of space. Many of these flights exceed 6 hours.
> I can only assume they are recording at 5 second intervals
> or better as per the GNSS spec (2.4.4). Common sense
> dictates we move inthat direction.I just spent the pasts couple of hours
pouring over
> the requirements for approval of a FR. I think The
> security requirements exceed the level some nations
> use for ensuring national security.;^0jeff
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Papa3 wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Trust me - they do. I just completed a fairly extensive security audit for
> our data center with a major, global financial company. I used the IGC
> security specs as the benchmark.
>
> Here's a novel idea (at least to me) regarding security as it relates to IGC
> recorders. As I see it there are two approaches.
>
> 1. Prevent security breaches by building all sorts of sophisticated
> encryption and physical security mechanisms to thwart would be hackers (ie.
> the expensive method) required of financial services and other companies
> which maintain critical data.
>
> 2. Identify potentially corrupted files retrospectively by applying a
> "sniff test" after the fact. I would not advocate this for everyday files,
> but, how hard would it be to define a few key algorithms that would at least
> flag certain files for closer review? I'm thinking now in terms of
> competitions, but for instance:
>
> - Identify a few key attributes that would be useful in identifying
> performance (e.g. average climb, achieved L/D, % time in cruise, etc.).
> - Run a quick statistical analysis against all files from a competition
> day, identifying gross deviations from the mean on these days.
> - Utilize time/proximity based comparative analysis against a control group
> for those logs where there are anomoalies (e.g. if one ship achieved an L/D
> of 50 on a leg where the fleet achieved 30, it might be good to look more
> closely)
> - Other "signatures" that might indicate potential manipulation of data.
> - etc.
>
> Just knowing that you might be called in front of the stewards to explain
> wildly inconsistent results might be enough to head off would-be cheaters.
>
> I actually think I'm now heading down the path of creating additional
> complexity, but I do think it is worth looking into alternatives to
> encryption-based pre-emptive security.

The security at US contests is already more relaxed than this, except
for getting on the US team (I think that requires a secure logger). Are
you suggesting competition security should be increased?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Janos Bauer]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Janos Bauer wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry Eric, you are right. I wanted to point out that most of the
>> cases there is no check on declaration by the OO. Of course it can be
>> done before or after the flight. I know about cases where a certain
>> logger is used by several persons in different sailplanes and it was
>> simply forgotten to reprogram the pilot name and glider type. You know
>> it's an everyday mistake. But only the OO can prevent to use this
>> "fake" log for a badge claim...
>
>
> In the USA, this "fake" claim would be discovered by the person
> appointed by our national soaring organization to review badge claims.
> Many claims are not accepted after this review because of errors of
> various types. I don't know how a mistake like this one would be
> handled, but it would be found. Perhaps in a club situation, a paper
> declaration would be a good way to avoid the problem. I've made the
> mistake myself, with my own logger, when I forgot to change the
> declaration for a new task.

How? Does this guy check all club, plane, pilot logbook if there is
any mismatch?

>> Other example: do I get more scores on OLC (or on any logfile based
>> contest) if I change a Nimbus4 to a Ka8 in the declaration? Can I
>> collect more scores if I keep my logger at the airport and ask others
>> just to carry it any time they fly xc? Who will know about it, it
>> happens at the other side of the world?
>
>
> The OLC (and many club contests of this type) are run on the "honor
> system". There is no formal protection against it. As long as the system
> isn't abused, the participants will be happy and continue to enter it.
> If groups of pilots around the world begin to submit flights they didn't
> make, I think eventually it will be found out, and the contest rules
> will change or pilots will simply not enter it anymore.

Originally OLC was established to show the high level of sport
activity to convince governments. Now you are not allowed to load your
IGC file unless it comes from an IGC approved logger... It is true only
for gliding. Hanggliders and paragliders can load eg. soaringpilot
tracklog.
For me requiring a secure logger doesn't meet with the full "honor
system".
Regards,

/Janos

ps: I keep on uploading to OLC my soaringpilot generated IGC files:)

[Graeme Cant]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> This particular story comes up sooner or later when we get one of these
> threads going, but no one has ever made the .igc files available, identified
> the equipment used, or named the people who accomplished it. As far as I
> can figure out, generating a convincing flight log would require an 8 to 12
> channel programmable simulator, a fast programmable pressure device, and a
> bunch of software development. This does not strike me as something cheap
> and easy to do. If it is easy, then some verifiable information, along with
> suggestions as to how we can improve the system, would benefit everyone.
> Otherwise, this is just so much blowing of smoke...

No, Marc, you miss the point and so does the guy you're replying to.
It's not about geek's skills and technical crap. In fact, a good case
could be made that since the IGC believes nobody has been able to defeat
the system, It is probably excessively complex for the task required and
the level of security could be safely lowered.

THIS is the point. All security is only as good as the people involved.
A trusted person - the OO - is already a fundamental part of YOUR
system, what is YOUR objection to the COTS GPS in a lunchbox, placed,
sealed and retrieved by that same OO?

By the way, that "YOUR system" slipped out quite unconciously. I think
the vast majority of glider pilots see it that way though. The IGC and
its committees are unfriendly outsiders to most of us. Domination by
bureaucratically minded Europeans (including the UK reps I read here)
doesn't endear it.

Here's a suggestion for the next GFAC meeting: subvert the dominant
paradigm!

Graeme Cant

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Graeme Cant
> writes
>
>
>Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> This particular story comes up sooner or later when we get one of these
>> threads going, but no one has ever made the .igc files available, identified
>> the equipment used, or named the people who accomplished it. As far as I
>> can figure out, generating a convincing flight log would require an 8 to 12
>> channel programmable simulator, a fast programmable pressure device, and a
>> bunch of software development. This does not strike me as something cheap
>> and easy to do. If it is easy, then some verifiable information, along with
>> suggestions as to how we can improve the system, would benefit everyone.
>> Otherwise, this is just so much blowing of smoke...
>
>No, Marc, you miss the point and so does the guy you're replying to.
>It's not about geek's skills and technical crap. In fact, a good case
>could be made that since the IGC believes nobody has been able to defeat
>the system, It is probably excessively complex for the task required and
>the level of security could be safely lowered.

We don't actually KNOW that nobody has been able to defeat security. In
fact we do know that this has been done as an intellectual exercise.

Flight Recorders do not have the ultimate in security, the level of
security is set at what is considered to be a reasonable level, being no
higher than it needs to be.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Marc Ramsey]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> No, Marc, you miss the point and so does the guy you're replying to.
> It's not about geek's skills and technical crap. In fact, a good case
> could be made that since the IGC believes nobody has been able to defeat
> the system, It is probably excessively complex for the task required and
> the level of security could be safely lowered.

The "system" was demonstrated to have been defeated, at least once, and
the specifications were tightened in response. According to your
reasoning, we must now have the proper level of security.

Do understand, however, that the security requirements for approval of
badge-only flight recorders are pretty minimal. What makes these units
cost more than you or I might like are non-security related issues, such
as the pressure altitude recording requirement. None of the COTS GPS
units on the market record pressure altitude in a fashion that will
allow repeatable results. And, we can't eliminate pressure altitude
from the system, unless the IGC decides to accept geometric altitude.

> THIS is the point. All security is only as good as the people involved.
> A trusted person - the OO - is already a fundamental part of YOUR
> system, what is YOUR objection to the COTS GPS in a lunchbox, placed,
> sealed and retrieved by that same OO?

I have no objection. The IGC has objections. If you want to change
that, the person to browbeat is your IGC delegate.

> By the way, that "YOUR system" slipped out quite unconciously. I think
> the vast majority of glider pilots see it that way though. The IGC and
> its committees are unfriendly outsiders to most of us. Domination by
> bureaucratically minded Europeans (including the UK reps I read here)
> doesn't endear it.

No, I think the majority of pilots don't spend much time thinking about
the IGC, GFAC, nor are they bothered by bureaucratic nightmares. Most
either happily jump through the little hoops to get their badges, or
blissfully fly without them, secure in the knowledge of their own
accomplishments.

Marc

[Graeme Cant]

Papa3 wrote:

> ...snip snip
> I actually think I'm now heading down the path of creating additional
> complexity, but I do think it is worth looking into alternatives to
> encryption-based pre-emptive security.

Yes!!

The trouble is that the GFAC is a committee of geeks and they take a
geek approach to security. Their paradigm is a geek paradigm. They
understand machines so they try to build smarter machines to defeat
cheats. Most security breaches in any system though are related to
people problems. Incompetence, corruption and ill-will are the main
problems.

When my local under-8 soccer team play on Saturday morning, any
mother/father with an idea of the rules is co-opted to referee. When
the under-8s play their finals, someone who's refereeed before is
usually found.

When the National League plays its finals, the ref is someone who has
had a course of training, is from a neutral state/club, referees
regularly at that level and has done for some time and is paid for doing
the job.

So let us have a new paradigm based on the idea of a logger in a
lunchbox. For a C badge or silver, a club-based OO would be fine. For
a diamond, let's make sure they have done a national course and have
observed, say, 20 silver and Gold badge flights. And so on up to World
Championships and World records. Or any other set of appropriately
graded standards.

All along the way, the same $200 GPS in the same 50c lunch box with a
50c seal would be fine. The security level is being enhanced as
required in a non-technological way.

Subvert the dominant paradigm!

Graeme Cant

[Michael McNulty]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
om...
> Graeme Cant wrote:
<snip>
> Do understand, however, that the security requirements for approval of
> badge-only flight recorders are pretty minimal. What makes these units
> cost more than you or I might like are non-security related issues, such
> as the pressure altitude recording requirement. None of the COTS GPS
> units on the market record pressure altitude in a fashion that will
> allow repeatable results. And, we can't eliminate pressure altitude
> from the system, unless the IGC decides to accept geometric altitude.
>
> Marc

I can at least understand arguments for keeping pressure recording a
requirement for altitude badges and records, if only for consistency with
the past. But I see no good reason for requiring the use of pressure
altitude solely to show contituity of flight for distance and goal badge
claims, and distance and speed records.

Why not at least, promptly, drop the pressure recording requirement from ALL
non-altitude claims?

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Graeme Cant
> writes
>The trouble is that the GFAC is a committee of geeks and they take a
>geek approach to security. Their paradigm is a geek paradigm. They
>understand machines so they try to build smarter machines to defeat
>cheats. Most security breaches in any system though are related to
>people problems. Incompetence, corruption and ill-will are the main
>problems.
>
If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention
to your ranting.

GOODBYE!

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Eric Greenwell]

Graeme Cant wrote:

>
> So let us have a new paradigm based on the idea of a logger in a
> lunchbox. For a C badge or silver, a club-based OO would be fine. For
> a diamond, let's make sure they have done a national course and have
> observed, say, 20 silver and Gold badge flights. And so on up to World
> Championships and World records. Or any other set of appropriately
> graded standards.
>
> All along the way, the same $200 GPS in the same 50c lunch box with a
> 50c seal would be fine. The security level is being enhanced as
> required in a non-technological way.

I like the COTS idea, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I
suspect most pilots would find it easier to buy, borrow, or rent an
approved logger than to find an "approved OO"! So, be careful what you
wish for, in case you get it.

For pilots that don't operate out of large club, the approved logger is
a god send, because getting an experienced OO when you need one can be
impossible. The approved logger makes the OO's task much easier,
especially if it's used sealed to the glider.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[303pilot]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 03:03:03 GMT, "Papa3" >
> wrote:

> Even if Garmin do build a suitable COTS device, what makes you think
> it will be appreciably cheaper than existing FRs or as cheap as
> existing Garmin GPS units? Who else, apart from us, would buy it in
> sufficient quantities to pull the price down to, say that of a GPSmap
> 296 let alone a GPS 76S ?
>
I bought a Garmin 12XL 6 years ago for less than $100. Paired w/an OO and
declaration it would be sufficient for badges IMHO. Such a device is
accepted in Regional Competitions in the US.

[Marc Ramsey]

303pilot wrote:
> I bought a Garmin 12XL 6 years ago for less than $100. Paired w/an OO and
> declaration it would be sufficient for badges IMHO. Such a device is
> accepted in Regional Competitions in the US.

The Garmin 12XL does not record altitude. All badge claims (with the
exception of 5 hour duration) require altitude documentation. It can't
be used in regional or national contests which require altitude
recording capability, as do almost all sanctioned contests west of the
Mississippi...

Regards,
Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Janos Bauer wrote:

> How? Does this guy check all club, plane, pilot logbook if there is any
> mismatch?

Actually, for many years, it's been a "she" (was Arleen Coleson). She
examined the documents submitted (pictures, barograph trace, file, claim
forms, whatever was used) for completeness and errors. If Pilot A
submitted a flight file with Pilot B's name in it, she'd quickly
discover that. Other possibilities would be a declared task not matching
the badge claimed, a file with too large of a bad section in it, an OO
that doesn't meet the qualifications, height loss too great, and so on.


> Originally OLC was established to show the high level of sport activity
> to convince governments. Now you are not allowed to load your IGC file
> unless it comes from an IGC approved logger... It is true only for
> gliding. Hanggliders and paragliders can load eg. soaringpilot tracklog.
> For me requiring a secure logger doesn't meet with the full "honor
> system".

I agree. It's a good step up from someone simply submitting a claim with
no documentation, but still basically "unobserved".

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Papa3]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo
Emerson.

Michael, we're on the same side here, so take it in the spirit intended. But
exactly what "consistency with the past" are we truly talking about. In
years gone by, people flying K-6s had to identify easily photographed
landmarks with smoked foil barographs. Now, we can hop in our ASW-27, pick
a geographically conveniented point in space and hit "go" on our GPS. Had
we felt the need to maintain the sanctity of prior records or achievements,
we would have never allowed GPS or fiberglass gliders or beer cans with flip
tabs (the latter being potentially the most important safety enhancement to
glider pilots in the last half-century). Face it - how can we possibly
justify the fact that we were able to very rapidly make the decision to go
to GPS recording for World competitions but we can't then muster the
gumption to make a change from one arbitrary standard for measuring altitude
to another?

P3


"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
news:D5mtc.170$JB.160@fed1read03...
>
> I can at least understand arguments for keeping pressure recording a
> requirement for altitude badges and records, if only for consistency with
> the past. >
>

[Janos Bauer]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I like the COTS idea, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I
> suspect most pilots would find it easier to buy, borrow, or rent an
> approved logger than to find an "approved OO"! So, be careful what you
> wish for, in case you get it.
>
> For pilots that don't operate out of large club, the approved logger is
> a god send, because getting an experienced OO when you need one can be
> impossible. The approved logger makes the OO's task much easier,
> especially if it's used sealed to the glider.
>

The whole COTS is about those few thousands of "poor" club member
pilots. Who owns a glider, and operates it "alone" probably can afford a
FAI logger.
It's strange to read all these posts. There seems to be slight
objection against this idea (even Marc seems to agree with it) but still
we can't use a system like this...

/Janos

[Paul Repacholi]

Marc Ramsey > writes:

> 303pilot wrote:

>> I bought a Garmin 12XL 6 years ago for less than $100. Paired w/an
>> OO and declaration it would be sufficient for badges IMHO. Such a
>> device is accepted in Regional Competitions in the US.

> The Garmin 12XL does not record altitude. All badge claims (with
> the exception of 5 hour duration) require altitude documentation.
> It can't be used in regional or national contests which require
> altitude recording capability, as do almost all sanctioned contests
> west of the Mississippi...

For badge flights, the requirment for pressure logging could be
deathed with a spat over the amount, if any, to add to the
heights. GPS alt is good enough.

For altitude record flights, of gain of height a good argument exists
to keep using pressure altitude.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Mike Borgelt]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:19 +0100, Tim Newport-Peace
]> wrote:

>X-no-archive: yes
>In article >, Graeme Cant
> writes
>>The trouble is that the GFAC is a committee of geeks and they take a
>>geek approach to security. Their paradigm is a geek paradigm. They
>>understand machines so they try to build smarter machines to defeat
>>cheats. Most security breaches in any system though are related to
>>people problems. Incompetence, corruption and ill-will are the main
>>problems.
>>
>If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
>sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention
>to your ranting.
>
>GOODBYE!
>
>Tim Newport-Peace
>
>"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."


Nice dummy spit!

Mike

[Graeme Cant]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I like the COTS idea, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I
> suspect most pilots would find it easier to buy, borrow, or rent an
> approved logger than to find an "approved OO"! So, be careful what you
> wish for, in case you get it.

> For pilots that don't operate out of large club, the approved logger is
> a god send, because getting an experienced OO when you need one can be
> impossible. The approved logger makes the OO's task much easier,
> especially if it's used sealed to the glider.

I take your point, Eric, and it's a valid one to some extent - more so
in your country than most others I'd guess. The approved logger system
is well established though and could continue in parallel with an
"approved OO" system. I think an alternative system for badges up to
Silver/Gold would certainly be helpful at Club level. In most
countries, willing, experienced OOs are more common than expensive loggers.

Actually, as Tim's post showed, the opposition to any alternative is so
violent and resistance to different ideas is so entrenched within the
IGC establishment that I don't expect any change. I wouldn't waste too
much of my life thinking about it if I were you. I didn't. I flew my
"new" Ka6 on Saturday and had a wave flight in a DG-500 today. Great
weekend! I hope yours was as good.

Graeme Cant

[Graeme Cant]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> I wrote:
>>The trouble is that the GFAC is a committee of geeks and they take a
>>geek approach to security. Their paradigm is a geek paradigm. They
>>understand machines so they try to build smarter machines to defeat
>>cheats. Most security breaches in any system though are related to
>>people problems. Incompetence, corruption and ill-will are the main
>>problems.
>>
>
> If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
> sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention
> to your ranting.
>
> GOODBYE!

I'm not sure what the problem is, Tim. I understand a "geek" to be
someone with an interest and competence in technology, particularly
electronic technology. I didn't intend it to be insulting.

Are you upset to be told there may be other viewpoints?

My comments about weaknesses in security systems are the commonplace
stuff of basic courses in security to police and military people the
world over and it's the GFAC that thought gliding included untrustworthy
people, not me.

The GFAC have set an extraordinary level of security in approved
electronic loggers. Who are they guarding against? Who did they have
in mind when they specified a kill switch to destroy the records if the
box is opened? Why does the record have to be encrypted? To stop the
FBI reading our private files? No. To stop other people in the comp
knowing where we found the thermals? No. The GFAC thought some gliding
people - maybe all - pilots, OOs, EVERYBODY - MIGHT be corrupt,
incompetent or ill-intentioned.

So it's not my original thought, Tim. I'm just suggesting better ways
of solving the problems the GFAC told me existed. I didn't invent the
problem. YOU did. I'm just offering another solution. In fact, I'm
saying that there's much LESS of a problem than you imply and it could
be solved with much less effort.

The GFAC's specs imply widespread untrustworthiness. You'd have to have
a tin ear not to hear outrage at this implication in many of the GFAC's
opponent's emails.

Now, what about the substance of my post?

I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

Graeme Cant

> Tim Newport-Peace
>
> "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

Here's a different thought: Indecision is the key to killing yourself
in flying and is the bureaucrat's refuge in everything else. Good
flying, Tim.

[Marc Ramsey]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
system, fine. But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Marc

[f.blair]

What can anyone expect when they get a reply like the one from Tim that
says."

" If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention to
your ranting."

GOODBYE"

Spelling in all caps is 'yelling', how is anyone to expect to be heard when
you get that type of response?
I think the idea of 'furthering the sport' needs attention and making the
sport more complicated and expensive will certainly not make it grow.

Fred

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
> Graeme Cant wrote:
> > I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.
>
> No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
> advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
> technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
> system, fine. But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
> we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
> accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
> old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)
>
> Marc

[Graeme Cant]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Graeme Cant wrote:
>
>> I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.
>
> No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
> advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
> technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
> system, fine.

I do, Marc. So let's hear your response to my original post. To my
mind it contained no insult or disparagement. I said that "technical
people" (if you take "geek" amiss, I don't, I'm one myself) tend to
think of technical solutions, not procedural. I advocated procedural
solutions as possibly being cost-effective and no less secure where it
mattered, gave some useful examples and made some tentative suggestions.
How about joining a discussion?

I also said that the GFAC/IGC seems to be actively antagonistic to
procedural solutions. That wasn't just a wild guess. I based this
assertion on four years (to my knowledge) of Ian Strachan's, Tim's,
yours and several other's posts. I can quote if you like. I can also
quote Robert Danewid who has direct, personal experience of the IGC's
institutional resistance to different ideas. I would call it evidence -
it's not intended as personal attack. I'm sorry you see it as that. I
understand why it's a problem because it is, after all, the voting
behaviour of GFAC and IGC members that we're discussing.

But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
> we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
> accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
> old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Well, Marc, mine are nearly 40 now but I always found it very useful to
listen to what 6 year olds were really trying to tell me. I said you
don't seem to hear the irritation from many members of the gliding
fraternity at the heavy-handed - "we can't trust any of you" - attitude
of the GFAC. If you hear that message, you need to show it. I've
seldom seen a group in a public service role so sensitive to criticism
as the GFAC cabal.

When neither you nor Tim even mentioned my roughly outlined proposal
it's hard to say I'm upset because you won't accept it and its
"righteous glory" (good phrase, Marc!). I have no idea what you think
about it. It would be nice to know that you even heard it.

Does the IGC have a panel similar to the GFAC whose role is to develop
cheap, secure PROCEDURAL solutions to any security problems in assessing
badge flights and scoring comps with non-approved FRs? Why does the
technical group - the GFAC - chosen only for their technical expertise -
see it as their role to comment on possible procedural alternatives?
Would it be a good idea if they sent a message to the IGC that the
existing approved FR system is both overly expensive and restrictive on
the expansion of the sport and that the IGC should also investigate
procedures to allow the use of cheaper, non-approved FRs? Or that their
discussions would be much more fruitful if some human factors people
were appointed to the GFAC in lieu of some of the electronic experts.
Positive support from the GFAC would be very helpful.

Best wishes,
Graeme Cant

[Marc Ramsey]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> I do, Marc. So let's hear your response to my original post. To my
> mind it contained no insult or disparagement. I said that "technical
> people" (if you take "geek" amiss, I don't, I'm one myself) tend to
> think of technical solutions, not procedural. I advocated procedural
> solutions as possibly being cost-effective and no less secure where it
> mattered, gave some useful examples and made some tentative suggestions.
> How about joining a discussion?

Both Tim and I had been discussing "procedural solutions" in this thread
for about a week before you piped up. We have also discussed them many
times over the years. Google is a very valuable resource for researching
topics like this, if you missed it.

> When neither you nor Tim even mentioned my roughly outlined proposal
> it's hard to say I'm upset because you won't accept it and its
> "righteous glory" (good phrase, Marc!). I have no idea what you think
> about it. It would be nice to know that you even heard it.

Frankly, I pretty much decided not to engage in discussion with you
after the first paragraph. The lunchbox idea has come up numerous times
over the years, but so far has gotten bogged down once the practical
issues are examined. If you can explain how you can meet the Sporting
Code requirements for use of calibrated pressure altitude for measuring
altitude performances (including loss of height for distance flights),
please do. Also, requiring that OOs meet "graded standards", may work
in certain high density gliding realms, but is essentially unworkable in
most of the world.

> Does the IGC have a panel similar to the GFAC whose role is to develop
> cheap, secure PROCEDURAL solutions to any security problems in assessing
> badge flights and scoring comps with non-approved FRs?

Not that I know of. The rules for scoring of non-world level contests
are handled by the appropriate national organization. Most countries
permit use of non-approved flight recorders (including COTS GPS), as
there is a greater level of supervision than there is for the typical
badge or record flight.

> Why does the technical group - the GFAC - chosen only for their
> technical expertise - see it as their role to comment on possible
> procedural alternatives?

For the same reason you see it as your role to comment on them. Comments
made here by GFAC members are simply comments, just like yours.

> Would it be a good idea if they sent a message to the IGC that the
> existing approved FR system is both overly expensive and restrictive on
> the expansion of the sport and that the IGC should also investigate
> procedures to allow the use of cheaper, non-approved FRs?

The IGC voted down a COTS GPS proposal at the last plenary session.
Obviously, they had concerns that were not addressed by that proposal.
If you think you can come up with a better proposal, submit it to the IGC.

> Or that their discussions would be much more fruitful if some human
> factors people were appointed to the GFAC in lieu of some of the
> electronic experts. Positive support from the GFAC would be very
> helpful.

The IGC appoints GFAC members for 3 year terms. If you want to propose
alternatives to the existing members (including yourself), your IGC
delegate is the person to talk to.

Marc

[tango4]

I remember a lot of the original threads on procedures vs technical
solutions.

One of the great advantages of the technical route is that one can now have
an OO seal a logger into a glider. You can then go on a two week gliding
holiday making electronic declarations each day and on return home get the
OO to observe the intact seals and download and verify the flights made
without the OO being present.

Ian

[Graeme Cant]

Marc,

I have no beef with you so I don't intend to answer all your points. I
did research Google a while ago when my curiosity was piqued by the way
this topic keeps coming up. It's a question that should also cause you
to do some wondering.

One thing that interested me was that a search on a couple of names (not
yours) produced very similar results to a search on loggers/GPS. I
think that some people may have been in this area for too long and it's
time for some new blood and new thinking.

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Frankly, I pretty much decided not to engage in discussion with you
> after the first paragraph. The lunchbox idea has come up numerous times
> over the years, but so far has gotten bogged down once the practical
> issues are examined. If you can explain how you can meet the Sporting
> Code requirements for use of calibrated pressure altitude for measuring
> altitude performances (including loss of height for distance flights),
> please do.

Only too willing, Marc. Change the Sporting Code. It's done regularly
for some triviality or other. How about it allows the use of GPS
altitude? How about the GFAC throw their weight behind such a change?
How about the appointees to the GFAC vote to _strongly recommend_ such a
change to the IGC? And then lobby for it.

A number of others have made the GPS altitude suggestion in the last
fortnight. Nobody gave us a reason why the Sporting Code _shouldn't_
change on this. Is there one?

Also, requiring that OOs meet "graded standards", may work
> in certain high density gliding realms, but is essentially unworkable in
> most of the world.

I think that's wrong, Marc and I don't believe your opinion is research
based. It would obviously depend on the standards set and at what
level. It seems a lot easier for "most of the world" to find willing,
club level OOs than to afford expensive loggers. But here's the real
problem - I don't detect any enthusiasm for a new system in your tone.

....snip, snip...

> The IGC voted down a COTS GPS proposal at the last plenary session.
> Obviously, they had concerns that were not addressed by that proposal.

That's a very disingenuous view of how the politics of international
organisations work and I'm sure you know it. If the GFAC threw STRONG
support behind researching such a proposal and lobbied hard for it, the
plenary would think very differently.

As you say, this discussion comes up again and again. I'd like to come
at it from a different angle which you might not have covered here
before. Tell us how the GFAC and the IGC works. Who runs the show?
Who are the dominant figures? Who's been there the longest? How long?
Does everybody get heard? Are there solid factions who always back
each other? Are you ever surprised when you read the final
recommendations? Is there a continuing staff member? Who writes the
minutes? Who wrote the original specs? I know all this stuff is
tedious but I'm certain it moves the IGC and its commissions just like
it moves your Congress.

I've heard no reason whatsoever why a GPS in a lunchbox is any different
from a sealed barograph. Of course it would be possible. So I'm
puzzled why it doesn't happen. My guess is it's as much to do with
WHO's telling me it can't be done as it is to WHY.

Best wishes,
Graeme

[Marc Ramsey]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> I've heard no reason whatsoever why a GPS in a lunchbox is any different
> from a sealed barograph. Of course it would be possible. So I'm
> puzzled why it doesn't happen. My guess is it's as much to do with
> WHO's telling me it can't be done as it is to WHY.

You are focused on imagined draconian security requirements (which are
actually rather minimal for badge-only flight recorders), and glossing
over the major objection.

A sealed barograph records pressure altitude that can be corrected
according to a calibration chart. This is the standard by which glider
altitude performances have been measured from nearly the beginning. A
COTS in or out of a sealed lunchbox either measures GPS-derived
geometric altitude, or if it has a pressure sensor, a mode-dependent
form of altitude which can not be corrected to pressure altitude using
standard calibration techniques.

My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.

Marc

[Papa3]

Marc or others,

As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is
there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the "members
of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic research
(along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became pretty
obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage.

Regards,

Erik Mann


"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
> over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
> altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
> the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.
>
> Marc
>

[Michel Talon]

Papa3 > wrote:
> Marc or others,
>
> As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
> appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is
> there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the "members
> of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic research
> (along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became pretty
> obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik Mann
>
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
>> over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
>> altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
>> the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.
>>
>> Marc
>>

Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people
who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have
barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is
nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS.

>
>

--

Michel TALON

[Janos Bauer]

So far you seemed to be the most competent in the GFAC team, who else
think different than you and what are the reasons behind such an
opinion? Can we involve him/her in this open discussion?
Maybe that member should visit an average club and see how these
barographs and barograms are treated...

/Janos

Marc Ramsey wrote
>
> My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
> over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
> altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
> the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.

[Papa3]

Michael,

Good point. I'll add it to the list of "issues to be resolved". My gut is
that for Silver/Gold badge flights a barogram could be an acceptable means
of altitude verification in combination with camera (if distance is
involved), as long as that method of validation continues to be supported by
the IGC.

In terms of the cost being "nil", at some point the barograph has to be sent
to an approved facility for recalibration, no? Around here, that sets us
back around $40. So, there is a recurring cost, whereas the GPS cost is a
one-time event.

P3

"Michel Talon" > wrote in message
...
> Papa3 > wrote:
> > Marc or others,
> >
> > As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
> > appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units.
Is
> > there a public record anywhere of specifically what objections the
"members
> > of the IGC, or even GFAC" have raised? In doing just some basic
research
> > (along with the help of a major instrument manufacturer) it became
pretty
> > obvious that geometric altitude is the way to go at this stage.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik Mann
> >
> >
> > "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> >>
> >> My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
> >> over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
> >> altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
> >> the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
>
> Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people
> who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have
> barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is
> nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS.
>
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Graeme Cant]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Graeme Cant wrote:
>
>> I've heard no reason whatsoever why a GPS in a lunchbox is any
>> different from a sealed barograph. Of course it would be possible.
>> So I'm puzzled why it doesn't happen. My guess is it's as much to do
>> with WHO's telling me it can't be done as it is to WHY.
>
> You are focused on imagined draconian security requirements (which are
> actually rather minimal for badge-only flight recorders), and glossing
> over the major objection.

It only takes a few small requirements to make an OTS recorder unusable
for soaring. I see the aim as being to be able to use OTS equipment
straight out of the box. Some years ago in Oz, protectionist car
"safety" requirements for IIRC only tail lights and wipers made the
importation of most European cars almost impossible. It doesn't take
much to stymie things.

> ...snip...
> My opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
> over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
> altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
> the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.

Yes, Marc, I picked up your opinion earlier - and its loneliness! So,
next question, WHY don't the majority accept the change? Wide use of
OTS recorders would be enormously useful to gliding. I can't see any
technical objection to a parallel altitude standard being available for
badges and comps. I can see there may be a comparability problem for
records but that could be worked on after a geometric standard was
established and in use.

That's why I'm getting curious about the politics of these
organisations. As Sherlock Holmes said - when all other explanations
are eliminated, what remains is the truth. There has to be a political
problem because the technical ones commonly turn out to be actually
willpower.

Graeme.

[Graeme Cant]

Michel Talon wrote:

> Suppose that one switches to "geometric altitude". What about people
> who used to document their flights with barogaphs? Here all clubs have
> barographs and lend them to the pilots when necessary. Hence the cost is
> nil, which is certainly cheaper than the cheapest GPS.

Have a parallel standard. Use whichever you want. You just have to use
the same one throughout the flight (to state the obvious, I guess).

I see no problem with badge flights since they're not compared to other
flights which might use the other standard.

Graeme.

[Marc Ramsey]

Janos Bauer wrote:
> So far you seemed to be the most competent in the GFAC team,

It has nothing to do with competence. I agree with some of your
opinions, others do not.

> who else think different than you and what are the reasons
> behind such an opinion?

Tradition is a big factor. The perceived (but not adequately studied,
in my opinion) inaccuracy of GPS altitude is another.

> Can we involve him/her in this open discussion?
> Maybe that member should visit an average club and see how these
> barographs and barograms are treated...

It doesn't matter how they are treated, as long as they can be
successfully calibrated within the set interval. The corrected pressure
altitudes taken from a barogram may be off by a hundred feet or so, but
they still provide a more accurate measurement of the precise form of
altitude required by the current IGC rules, than any COTS GPS.

Marc

[Janos Bauer]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Janos Bauer wrote:
>
>> So far you seemed to be the most competent in the GFAC team,
>
>
> It has nothing to do with competence. I agree with some of your
> opinions, others do not.

I mean, you usually aware of the technical background (security, GPS
issues, etc-etc). On the other hand you often refuse certain suggestions
referring to existing rules and not to technical problems.

>> who else think different than you and what are the reasons
>
> > behind such an opinion?
>
> Tradition is a big factor. The perceived (but not adequately studied,
> in my opinion) inaccuracy of GPS altitude is another.

I also haven't really studied it but last Sunday it was the second
time when I had to fly xc without variometer and I was happy with the
simple GPS (no WAAS etc.) based palm&soaringpilot combo. I think it
would be impossible if there was really huge error (bigger than on those
20 year old barographs).

>> Can we involve him/her in this open discussion?
>> Maybe that member should visit an average club and see how these
>> barographs and barograms are treated...
>
>
> It doesn't matter how they are treated, as long as they can be
> successfully calibrated within the set interval. The corrected pressure
> altitudes taken from a barogram may be off by a hundred feet or so, but
> they still provide a more accurate measurement of the precise form of
> altitude required by the current IGC rules, than any COTS GPS.

I don't think they are calibrated for all the temperatures. I don't
think all the mechanical impacts can be handled by calibration (I myself
(saw others do it few times) locked out the needle of one old smoky
barograph and we had to bent it back to working position, how do you
handle such an "impact"?) And the most important issue, what I stated
before: neither barographs nor cameras are sealed by OO on most of the
places I visited...
No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on
some (maybe most) places.

/Janos

[Marc Ramsey]

Janos Bauer wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> It has nothing to do with competence. I agree with some of your
>> opinions, others do not.
>
> I mean, you usually aware of the technical background (security, GPS
> issues, etc-etc). On the other hand you often refuse certain suggestions
> referring to existing rules and not to technical problems.

So, I must not be truly competent 8^)

>> Tradition is a big factor. The perceived (but not adequately studied,
>> in my opinion) inaccuracy of GPS altitude is another.
>
> I also haven't really studied it but last Sunday it was the second time
> when I had to fly xc without variometer and I was happy with the simple
> GPS (no WAAS etc.) based palm&soaringpilot combo. I think it would be
> impossible if there was really huge error (bigger than on those 20 year
> old barographs).

You are comparing apples to oranges. GPS measures geometric altitude
with a typical error of, say, +/- 50 feet. Barographs measure
calibrated pressure altitude with a typical error of, say, +/- 50 feet.
GPS altitude can not be corrected to pressure altitude with reasonable
error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the
time and place of the flight. Pressure altitude can not be corrected to
geometric altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific
meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight.
Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and
calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a
Diamond altitude gain.

>> It doesn't matter how they are treated, as long as they can be
>> successfully calibrated within the set interval. The corrected
>> pressure altitudes taken from a barogram may be off by a hundred feet
>> or so, but they still provide a more accurate measurement of the
>> precise form of altitude required by the current IGC rules, than any
>> COTS GPS.
>
>
> I don't think they are calibrated for all the temperatures.

There is no requirement that barographs be corrected for temperature.

> I don't think all the mechanical impacts can be handled by calibration
> (I myself (saw others do it few times) locked out the needle of one
> old smoky barograph and we had to bent it back to working position,
> how do you handle such an "impact"?)

That barograph should have been marked as potentially faulty. An OO, if
aware of this, should refuse to certify a flight using it until it is
repaired and recalibrated.

> And the most important issue, what I stated
> before: neither barographs nor cameras are sealed by OO on most of the
> places I visited...

The Sporting Code requires sealing the barograph, but not necessarily
the cameras (SC3 4.6.3, 4.7.2). If an OO is unable to follow these
simple rules, how likely is it that he/she will follow the more
technically complex procedures that might be required for a COTS GPS?

> No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on some
> (maybe most) places.

I've seen similar things. Given this, the obvious solution would be to
award badges using the honor system. If this is not acceptable, then
some level of procedural and/or technical security measures must be in
the rules (even if some do not follow them). How much security is enough?

Marc

[Janos Bauer]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> You are comparing apples to oranges. GPS measures geometric altitude
> with a typical error of, say, +/- 50 feet. Barographs measure
> calibrated pressure altitude with a typical error of, say, +/- 50 feet.
> GPS altitude can not be corrected to pressure altitude with reasonable
> error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the
> time and place of the flight. Pressure altitude can not be corrected to
> geometric altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific
> meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight.
> Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and
> calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a
> Diamond altitude gain.

The whole altitude task is about the ability to gain certain amount of
energy from air (thermal, wave, something else). For me it's a geometric
issue. If someone is able to get from A to B and the altitude difference
is more than X than it's fine. Not the air pressure at that altitude
qualifies the pilot.
You already agree with it so what do we argue about? :)

>> I don't think they are calibrated for all the temperatures.
> There is no requirement that barographs be corrected for temperature.

Hmm, those thin metal plates and other small parts could behave quite
differently at +40C than -40C (typical wave temperature at my country).

> That barograph should have been marked as potentially faulty. An OO, if
> aware of this, should refuse to certify a flight using it until it is
> repaired and recalibrated.

Should.

>> And the most important issue, what I stated
>> before: neither barographs nor cameras are sealed by OO on most of the
>> places I visited...
>
>
> The Sporting Code requires sealing the barograph, but not necessarily
> the cameras (SC3 4.6.3, 4.7.2). If an OO is unable to follow these
> simple rules, how likely is it that he/she will follow the more
> technically complex procedures that might be required for a COTS GPS?

No they won't.

>> No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on
>> some (maybe most) places.
>
>
> I've seen similar things. Given this, the obvious solution would be to
> award badges using the honor system. If this is not acceptable, then
> some level of procedural and/or technical security measures must be in
> the rules (even if some do not follow them). How much security is enough?

I would accept any trace file and a sign from the OO. Yes, from the
same OO who doesn't seal the barograph. It's the same level of security
as the current barograph+photo process.

/Janos

[Don Johnstone]

At 10:18 01 June 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote: (snip)
How much security is enough?

It is perhaps here where there is the greatest problem.
It seems that most people view the 'security' measures
applied to barographs and loggers as a measure to prevent
cheating. They do not and never will. All security
does is buy time, it makes cheating more difficult
so the 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' (for those across
the pond, the ordinary man in the street) cannot easily
fake a trace. While reading this thread I am somewhat
at a loss as to why somene would want to load in a
flight to a GPS using a simulator, much easier to doctor
the ensuing computer file. Any security measure involving
a computer can be defeated, it's the time it takes
that makes the difference.
For that reason I always, if I am the OO download to
my own computer, never to anyone elses and I keep a
copy of the file forever.
A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger, the
security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file.

I seem to recall someone earlier inthis thread saying
that geometric altitude was more accurate and easily
corrected than barometric, which as we all know is
wildly inaccurate dependent on temperature which the
barograph does not record.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Papa3 wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> All good points. However, I think (for example) the issue of the number of
> data points is something for the market to decide. I'm sure there are
> plenty of folks for whom an 11 hour trace is more than sufficient. At the
> end of the day, once the standards are "reasonable" (let's not worry exactly
> what that means for a moment) , market forces will dictate what is
> available.
>

I don't agree these are good points. I did all my distance badges using a
Volkslogger for documentation, while I was using my good old Garmin 12 for
navigation, except the silver distance, for which I used a camera and a
barograph. For all these flights the old Garmin 12 would have been fairly suffcient.
It is configured with a recorded point every 30 seconds, which allows for
more than 8 hours, no flight reached this duration. As I didn't knew
how the Volkslogger detects that I passed a turn point, I checked it
on my Garmin 12, so spending at least 30 seconds in the observation
zone. I found it a very acceptable penalty. As for the overwriting
of the track log on the Garmin, this is a selectable feature, you
can also choose to stop recording when the memory is full. Anyway
I don't understand why you would want to keep several flights
recorded in the unit when trying a badge distance, if your last
flight is a success, you want to download it immediately, just in order
to verify it is really a success, otherwise, if you know it was not
a success (e.g . you didn't round some turn point), there is no
problem with overwriting this track log. And the argument about
uploaded fake track logs is defeated by the fact that each recorded
point has a time stamp, while uploaded tracks logs have their
time stamps zeroed. So I think that even the sealed box is not
necessary.

[Paul Bart]

Hi

> Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and
> calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a
> Diamond altitude gain.

> Marc

I do not know about the conversion process required to convert geometric and
I assume the actual within the bounds of GPS error altitude, to pressure
altitude. However given the assertion that the pressure altitude can differ
by as much as 1000ft from the geometric altitude, does it imply that two
pressure altitudes can actually differ by 2000ft? Would it not provide
sufficient argument to switch to geometric altitude?

Paul

[Marc Ramsey]

Paul Bart wrote:
> I do not know about the conversion process required to convert geometric and
> I assume the actual within the bounds of GPS error altitude, to pressure
> altitude. However given the assertion that the pressure altitude can differ
> by as much as 1000ft from the geometric altitude, does it imply that two
> pressure altitudes can actually differ by 2000ft? Would it not provide
> sufficient argument to switch to geometric altitude?

Yes, this is correct. You don't have to climb as high on a cold winter
day, as you would on a hot summer day, to obtain a specific pressure
altitude gain. But, I suspect some (maybe most?) would say that we have
always measured pressure altitude is this sport, and that we should
continue doing so...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
> than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
> as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger, the
> security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
> almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
> is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
> not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
> if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult
> than decoding and faking a computer file.


Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.
--


Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
>>replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
>>don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
>>would pass the verification test.
>
>But now that you've got the seal removed, you're not done.
>You have to make a fake baro trace (something that has been
>detected in the past) and a fake set of photos (something
>that has also been detected before). In fact, I believe the
>details of an analog baro and photo set are harder to fake
>and easier to detect as fake than a bunch of digital
>numbers.

I was responding to a comment that said:

"Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file."

And the context was about sealing a COTS GPS in a lunch box, so I
addressed only the sealing.

I haven't thought it through carefully, but I still think I could make a
fake barogram and photos more easily than a file that could pass a IGC
verification program. Neither effort might make it past the OO.
--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[Graeme Cant]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
> replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
> don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
> would pass the verification test.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
for GPS loggers used for those same purposes? Very few of us will ever
compete in a World Championship or set a World record. Until we do, a
COTS GPS sealed in an OOed lunchbox would be fine.

....and yes, I know YOU could unravel the seal - but then you ARE a very
special person. :)


Graeme Cant

[Paul Bart]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
> Paul Bart wrote:
>> However given the assertion that the pressure altitude can differ
> > by as much as 1000ft from the geometric altitude, does it imply that two
> > pressure altitudes can actually differ by 2000ft? Would it not provide
> > sufficient argument to switch to geometric altitude?

> Yes, this is correct. You don't have to climb as high on a cold winter
> day, as you would on a hot summer day, to obtain a specific pressure
> altitude gain. But, I suspect some (maybe most?) would say that we have
> always measured pressure altitude is this sport, and that we should
> continue doing so...
>
> Marc

Hi Marc

Thanks for your reply. Given the budding status of my gliding career, this
is not likely to be an issue for me any time soon :), however given that GPS
can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000 ft it should be seriously
considered. I wonder if the resistance to change is mainly due to the high
average age of the gliding fraternity?

Paul

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:52:29 GMT, "Paul Bart" >
wrote:

>
>"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
>> Paul Bart wrote:
>>> However given the assertion that the pressure altitude can differ
>> > by as much as 1000ft from the geometric altitude, does it imply that two
>> > pressure altitudes can actually differ by 2000ft? Would it not provide
>> > sufficient argument to switch to geometric altitude?
>
>> Yes, this is correct. You don't have to climb as high on a cold winter
>> day, as you would on a hot summer day, to obtain a specific pressure
>> altitude gain. But, I suspect some (maybe most?) would say that we have
>> always measured pressure altitude is this sport, and that we should
>> continue doing so...
>>
>> Marc
>
>Hi Marc
>
>Thanks for your reply. Given the budding status of my gliding career, this
>is not likely to be an issue for me any time soon :), however given that GPS
>can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000 ft it should be seriously
>considered. I wonder if the resistance to change is mainly due to the high
>average age of the gliding fraternity?
>

I have a strong suspicion that climbing to a pressure altitude should
present much the same difficulty regardless of which way it differs
from the geometric altitude, but climbing to a geometric altitude will
get easier as the pressure (and hence pressure altitude) rises.

Unless I'm much mistaken, this could be used as an argument for
retaining the pressure altitude for badges.

What have I missed or misunderstood here?

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Marc Ramsey]

Paul Bart wrote:
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
>>Yes, this is correct. You don't have to climb as high on a cold winter
>>day, as you would on a hot summer day, to obtain a specific pressure
>>altitude gain. But, I suspect some (maybe most?) would say that we have
>>always measured pressure altitude is this sport, and that we should
>>continue doing so...
>
> Thanks for your reply. Given the budding status of my gliding career, this
> is not likely to be an issue for me any time soon :), however given that GPS
> can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000 ft it should be seriously
> considered.

But, using GPS altitude only reduces the error if we were measuring
geometric altitude. Using GPS altitude under the present rules would
*increase* the error, because we are presently measuring pressure altitude.

> I wonder if the resistance to change is mainly due to the high
> average age of the gliding fraternity?

I'm not going to touch that one...

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
> adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
> for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?

A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence (i.e.,
photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance legs. The
additional security required of approved flight recorders was a direct
response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera documentation
for world records (the result of a number of known cheating incidents).

Marc

[Don Johnstone]

I have never used a lead seal, I have used sticky paper
tape signed over the join. I would far rather use the
power of my computer over unlimited time than try and
unstick and restick in exactly the same place while
the baro is still in the glider. Remember the OO seals
the baro and witnesses it's placement in the glider
and it's removal. I am not saying it cannot be done,
what I am saying is that it cannot be done in the time
available. Security buys time, that is all it does.
Time, as far as a digital file is concerned, remember
that it is just a series of 0s and 1s, is unlimited.
As far as personally faking a file, I may not have
that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does
though.

At 20:30 02 June 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
>> than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
>> as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger,
>>the
>> security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
>> almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
>> is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
>> not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
>> if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more
>>difficult
>> than decoding and faking a computer file.
>
>
>Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could
>remove and
>replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown
>to the OO, but I
>don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved
>flight recorder that
>would pass the verification test.
>--
>
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>
>

[Andy Durbin]

"Paul Bart" > wrote in message news:<x2Gvc.4102

> however given that GPS
> can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000 ft it should be seriously
> considered. I wonder if the resistance to change is mainly due to the high
> average age of the gliding fraternity?
>
> Paul


You seem to have missed the frequently stated point that the
difference is not an error. An error free measurement of pressure
altitude will not be equal to an error free gps (geometric) altitude
except under rare conditions.

Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the
real issues are recognizing what is to be measured, why it is being
measured, and then determining whether it is reasonable to change to
measuring something else.


Andy

[Janos Bauer]

Just one additional idea to this topic: why don't we create an open (OLC
like) web database from all badge logs. I think this could scare away
some potential cheater, if there is any. Additionally all these flight
logs could be used for further analysis.

/Janos

[Mark James Boyd]

Hahaha... boy this is silly. The current system allows
the use of a baro with a certain amount of error. How
about allowing geometric altitude to be used "within an error
range of 100 feet, or 1000 feet, or whatever?"
Beyond this, why not let the
GPS geometric altitude be used to verify "continuity of flight?"

Sure I can understand why pressure altitude need be accurate for
someone trying to set an altitude record, but for continuity
of flight or altitude gain, pressure altitude was historically
used not because it was "best", but simply because it was
the best thing easily available.

Relief from the silly pressure altitude requirement
greatly reduces the calibration and expense for loggers.
This change is inevitable. When the various committees
eventually decide to abandon steam engines and the
use of the fine but outdated abacus, I'm sure there
will be much rejoicing...

Pure silliness...

As far as COTS GPS goes, not all GPS's are suited to
soaring flights. I'd guess if enough soaring pilots approached
GARMIN and asked for a fully plastic encased GPS
that couldn't upload anything but would download
..igc secure files, they'd doctor up one of their
El Cheapo devices and sell it to ya.

I doubt this will happen soon, however, since most of you
gadget hounds out there would never agree to a dumb, cheap logger.
Hell, most of you have watches that calculate cosines, right?
I use mine to tell the time... ;PPPPPP

So in the meantime, I'll continue to take my dumb, cheap
Volklogger and stick it in the back of the
glider in a box, quietly recording away, while I use
my COTS pilot III for navigation...

By the way, my VL is for sale, since I've done all the
flight recording I need :)

Michel Talon > wrote:
>Papa3 > wrote:
>> Marc or others,
>>
>> As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
>> appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
> GPS altitude can not be corrected to pressure altitude with reasonable
>error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the
>time and place of the flight. Pressure altitude can not be corrected to
>geometric altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific
>meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight.
>Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and
>calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a
>Diamond altitude gain.

So what's so bad about 1000ft of error? That's 8% for a diamond gain.
If one uses a GPS, make 'em go 1000ft higher than the requirement...

4281 ft for silver, 10843 ft for gold, 17404 ft for
diamond... would that be enough to make up for any error?

Sounds good to me...still quite silly, since we are talking about
a gain when measured by the same device for badges (not a
comparison of pressure to geometric altitude).

Really accurate altitude and the distinction only has meaning
for situations where altitude, rather than gain or loss of
altitude, is a factor. Requiring pressure altitude for badges
makes no sense at all, IMHO, if fairly accurate GPS altitudes
are available...and I believe this is available and verifiable under
the current system (although the FAA has been slow allowing
GPS vertical guidance for approaches as a matter of caution
and safety, RAIM is available)...
altitude gain or loss
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

I've found it a little funny that there's all this fuss about
the measuring devices, yet I've read in several articles about
silver badge flights and radio chatter and finding
thermals despite:

SC 3, 2.1.1 a

"The Silver distance flight should be flown without navigational
or other assistance given over the radio (other than permission
to land on an airfield) or help or guidance from other aircraft."

This sport has elements of the honor system in it already, there
are already some who do cheat (most often inadvertently), but
I for one think that the sport is so small that the overemphasis
on security discourages participation to a much greater degree
than any cheating under a COTS gps approval for badges would
detract or discourage.

>>> No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on
>>> some (maybe most) places.
>>
>> I've seen similar things. Given this, the obvious solution would be to
>> award badges using the honor system. If this is not acceptable, then
>> some level of procedural and/or technical security measures must be in
>> the rules (even if some do not follow them). How much security is enough?
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Todd Pattist > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>How much for your "cheap VL"?

Anyone interested please contact me privately...I know it seems
silly since I could put out all the info in the same time
it takes to type this, but I would just loathe myself if
I BLATANTLY used this NG purely for an ad... ;)

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Janos Bauer" > wrote in message
...
> Just one additional idea to this topic: why don't we create an open (OLC
> like) web database from all badge logs. I think this could scare away
> some potential cheater, if there is any. Additionally all these flight
> logs could be used for further analysis.
>
> /Janos

Very creative thought.

Bill Daniels

[Bruce Friesen]

Excellent! After hundreds of posts, a straight statement of policy (or
at least one well-connected individual's version of policy) - that a
data recording device, sealed by and OO, placed in the glider and
removed from the glider by an OO - whether that device is a camera, a
barograph or a simple GPS engine - is not good enough. That implies
the technical people working to support our sport seized on the new
digital world as the opportunity to solve a problem, to deal with an
unsatisfactory situation.

Perhaps we need to debate that proposition.

Bruce

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Graeme Cant wrote:
>
>> Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as
>> completely adequate security for all purposes, why do we need
>> heightened security for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?
>
>
> A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
> number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence
> (i.e., photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance
> legs. The additional security required of approved flight recorders
> was a direct response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera
> documentation for world records (the result of a number of known
> cheating incidents).
>
> Marc

[Paul Bart]

"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
om...
> "Paul Bart" > wrote in message news:<x2Gvc.4102
>
> > however given that GPS
> > can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000 ft it should be
seriously
> > considered. I wonder if the resistance to change is mainly due to the
high
> > average age of the gliding fraternity?
> >
> > Paul
>
>
> You seem to have missed the frequently stated point that the
> difference is not an error. An error free measurement of pressure
> altitude will not be equal to an error free gps (geometric) altitude
> except under rare conditions.

No I did not. You are correct, I have incorrectly used the word error if
one considers it's meaning in a relation to the output of the measuring
device, however that was not my intention.


> Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the
> real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,



Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand the preceding
discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because there were no other
viable options, not because it was a good measure of height above ground.



> why it is being measured,



To either establish benchmark, or to fulfill some requirements. For each of
these I would rather know the actual distance above ground, not a measure
that depends on prevailing meteorological conditions. Unless, of course,
you consider Martin's observation, that the effort to climb to a particular
pressure altitude takes about the same effort regardless of the geometric
altitude and also assuming that it is the effort that is important, rather
then the actual height above ground.



> and then determining whether it is reasonable to change to
> measuring something else.





Thank you for your observation.



Paul

[Don Johnstone]

Have I got this right? We use barometric pressure to
measure altitude, difference in height, whatever. It
actually measures pressure which has to be converted
to height. We know that this 'measurement' will be
inaccurate dependent on temperature and the pressure
situation at the location, the amount of the accuracy
is completely unknown. Two height diamonds gained on
the same day at different locations will have to 'gain'
different amounts of height.
GPS measures the height above a known datum, with error
correction the height readouts are the same everywhere,
GPS measures the altitude in the units we use (Metres
or feet), there is no conversion required.
The question I am asking is why are we clinging on
to and outdated and inaccurate system when a much more
accurate system is available. We measure distance over
the globe in feet or metres and happily use GPS for
that, why do we not use it to measure the vertical
directly distance as well?

Perhaps we should revert to measuring in cubits

At 09:54 04 June 2004, Paul Bart wrote:
>
>'Andy Durbin' wrote in message
om...
>> 'Paul Bart' wrote in message news:
>> > however given that GPS
>> > can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000
>>>ft it should be
>seriously
>> > considered. I wonder if the resistance to change
>>>is mainly due to the
>high
>> > average age of the gliding fraternity?
>> >
>> > Paul
>>
>>
>> You seem to have missed the frequently stated point
>>that the
>> difference is not an error. An error free measurement
>>of pressure
>> altitude will not be equal to an error free gps (geometric)
>>altitude
>> except under rare conditions.
>
>No I did not. You are correct, I have incorrectly
>used the word error if
>one considers it's meaning in a relation to the output
>of the measuring
>device, however that was not my intention.
>
>
>> Recognition of this fact may have something to do
>>with age, but the
>> real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,
>
>
>
>Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand
>the preceding
>discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because
>there were no other
>viable options, not because it was a good measure of
>height above ground.
>
>
>
>> why it is being measured,
>
>
>
>To either establish benchmark, or to fulfill some requirements.
>For each of
>these I would rather know the actual distance above
>ground, not a measure
>that depends on prevailing meteorological conditions.
> Unless, of course,
>you consider Martin's observation, that the effort
>to climb to a particular
>pressure altitude takes about the same effort regardless
>of the geometric
>altitude and also assuming that it is the effort that
>is important, rather
>then the actual height above ground.
>
>
>
>> and then determining whether it is reasonable to change
>>to
>> measuring something else.
>
>
>
>
>
>Thank you for your observation.
>
>
>
>Paul
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
>> replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
>> don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
>> would pass the verification test.
>
>I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
>sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
>self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

Clearly, my post addressed the sealing only, and not the overall system.
I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth, since I am in favor
of the COTS idea, as I have stated before.

>
>It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
>the past fortnight, however, which is that:
>
>(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
>sealed barograph and...

I think this could be true, using the proper GPS and procedures. The
challenge, I think, is to choose GPS(s) that pilots want to use AND
allow simple procedures, so the OO is not burdened excessively.

>(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
>for the vast majority of glider flights so...

I'm assuming you mean "badge flights". Correct?

>
>(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
>would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
>flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

As another poster mentioned, World records require a secure recorder. I
don't know what is required in World comps, but I see no reason to not
to require secure recorders. The usual argument for COTS is to encourage
participation in badges by newer pilots, which certainly doesn't include
World comp capable pilots. I think sticking to the "early pilot" group
will make it easier to get COTS accepted, and attempting to extend to
World comps and records will make acceptance much less likely.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[stephanevdv]

I'm new on this forum, and this thread has captured my attention because
the theme is really popular in the gliding world. So I'll try to give
my opinion on a number of posts I read.

It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

And indeed, finding an OO is still often the hardest part of the
administrative burden. Luckily it's only necessary for badge flights,
if you are using an approved FR.

I don't now if you have decentralized contests in Oz, like the OLC in
Europe. For this kind of flights, who are certainly as interesting as
badge flights, the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
the badge system itself.

In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

In France, you can use some non-approved loggers in their NetCoupe, but
because of that, the system is much less automatic, and for
non-approved loggers you need indeed paperwork and an OO. I much prefer
the Flemish system, even if I was obliged to get an approved FR. All
clubs here have one or two FR's for rent to their members, some have
one per club glider.

I've read somewhere in this thread that because of different club
systems between Europe and Oz / USA, it would be impractical to have
the clubs buying FR's and renting them to their members. This seems
rubbish to me: if a club can buy and rent something as expensive as a
glider with radio, parachute, trailer etc., surely a FR can't make much
difference. And I suppose it has always been done with barographs, just
like here. Or does everybody have to buy his own to fly for badges?

I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it. Geeks they may be, I don't know them personally, but as so
often in gliding, they probably are the people who volunteered to do
the job. Having been rather active as volunteer for lots of little and
bigger jobs on club, regional and national level, it strikes me that
there are very few people who agree to spend much time in doing things
like studying lots of documents, participating in conferences,
workshops, meetings... instead of flying. But when decisions are made
by these few (always the same, hence the accusation of "oligarchy",
"self-appointed", etc.), lots of people start to question them. I don't
think that's fair.

I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Andy Durbin]

"Paul Bart" > wrote in message >...
> > Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the
> > real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,
>
>
>
> Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand the preceding
> discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because there were no other
> viable options, not because it was a good measure of height above ground.
>


Without any effort I can identify 3 different measurements that are
curently derived from pressure based barographs and flight recorders.
They are:

continuity of flight
altitude gained following a low point
absolute altitude achieved

Height above ground is not a parameter that is used for any badge,
award, or record as far as I know.

Please don't interpret my reply as being an objection to COTS GPS.

If ever there was an opportunity to change the world from pressure
altitude to GPS altitude it was when RVSM was introduced. But no,
many aircraft faced expensive air data system retrofits because the
system was too enrenched in barometric altimetry.

Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

In article <e0Rvc.625398$Pk3.282686@pd7tw1no>,
says...
>Excellent! After hundreds of posts, a straight statement of policy (or
>at least one well-connected individual's version of policy) - that a
>data recording device, sealed by and OO, placed in the glider and
>removed from the glider by an OO - whether that device is a camera, a
>barograph or a simple GPS engine - is not good enough.

To discover this "policy" for world records, all you had to do was read
the rules. It's been there for several years. Cameras and barographs
still suffice for badges - this "policy" is also in the rules.

> That implies
>the technical people working to support our sport seized on the new
>digital world as the opportunity to solve a problem, to deal with an
>unsatisfactory situation.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Do you know the history of the flight
recorder, and how it was developed in response to a request from people
running an international competition in New Zealand? It was not a
solution that went looking for a problem.

>
>Perhaps we need to debate that proposition.
>
--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, stephanevdv
> writes
>
>I'm new on this forum, and this thread has captured my attention because
>the theme is really popular in the gliding world. So I'll try to give
>my opinion on a number of posts I read.

Welcome to the wonderful world of RAS!
>
>It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
>barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
>Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
>gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
>more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
>about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
>difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
>is not that far off.
>
>And indeed, finding an OO is still often the hardest part of the
>administrative burden. Luckily it's only necessary for badge flights,
>if you are using an approved FR.
>
>I don't now if you have decentralized contests in Oz, like the OLC in
>Europe. For this kind of flights, who are certainly as interesting as
>badge flights, the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
>free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
>has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
>the badge system itself.
>
>In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
>flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
>program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
>points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
>real time how I did in comparison with others today.

An interesting point. While there has been considerable discussion about
the use of Pressure Altitude Vs GPS Altitude, the vertical limits of
Airspace are expressed in terms of Pressure Altitude, which is unlikely
to change any time soon.
>
---snip--------------
>I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
It may seem that way, but one objective is to avoid having the revise
the level on an annual basis, which could imply annual updates to
recorders at the owners expense. Better to set it higher and wait for
technology to catch up.

>but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
>developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
>put it. Geeks they may be, I don't know them personally, but as so
>often in gliding, they probably are the people who volunteered to do
>the job. Having been rather active as volunteer for lots of little and
>bigger jobs on club, regional and national level, it strikes me that
>there are very few people who agree to spend much time in doing things
>like studying lots of documents, participating in conferences,
>workshops, meetings... instead of flying. But when decisions are made
>by these few (always the same, hence the accusation of "oligarchy",
>"self-appointed", etc.), lots of people start to question them. I don't
>think that's fair.

There is much truth on what you say.
>
>I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
>my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
>Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
>cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
>serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
>you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
>other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
>an (almost) annual refresher course.

Considering the issue of COTS units, almost all of the invective has
been directed against the Flight Recorder Specification which currently
prohibits them.

However, I am of the opinion that changing the Specification is not the
correct route to take. The specification should remain 'as is' for
approved units above whatever level is deemed the appropriate ceiling
for COTS.

To change the specification to allow COTS also implies that each
Make/model has to be submitted for approval, which would be an
impossible task.

What needs to be changed is the wording in the Sporting Code to allow
COTS to be use up to a specific level (e.g. Gold C) and an approved
Flight Recorder thereafter.
>
>So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!
>
>
Join the club!

Best regards,

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Papa3]

A couple of thoughts:

"stephanevdv" > wrote in
message ...
>
>
> It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
> barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
> Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
> gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
> more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
> about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
> difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
> is not that far off.

On the other hand, we now have the chance to use truly cheap units that cost
less than a quarter of your Volkslogger and which can be viewed, tried out,
etc. at your local camping supply store. I think that's what the real hue
and cry is about. Not only that, you can then take that same COTS unit and
use it to navigate to aunt Susie's house in your car or to go out and locate
your favorite fishing hole in your boat. Try that with your smoked foil
barograph.

>
> In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
> flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
> program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
> points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
> real time how I did in comparison with others today.

In New Jersey (USA) where I live, I can come home and dowload my GPS76 trace
and upload it to the Governor's Cup website. I don't need to validate
anything, because we use an honor system for the flight since there's really
not a whole lot at stake . . .


> I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
> but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
> developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
> put it.

That's the risk we all face in taking on a job like the GFAC. I'm pretty
sure that Ian, Tim, and the rest don't lose tons of sleep over this forum. I
know I don't when folks object to things I do in the Governor's Cup or when
I was president of a local Soaring Club. On the other hand, I sure hope
that they, and the other IGC folks who lurk in the shadows can sense the
fact that this is a very hot topic. One positive thing that has happened
in this thread is that a number of issues have crystallized and been open to
view to the entire world. My biggest complaint with the GFAC (which I have
conveyed directly, privately to the GFAC members with whom I have
corresponded) is that there is no visibility to exactly HOW the committee
works and what the driving objectives are. The main answer I've received
to date is that the GFAC exists to serve the standards as currently written
( I don't mean it to sound sarcastic - it's not intended that way) E.G.
"Why do we have to use Pressure Altitude - because the standard says so? "
I think the GFAC and IGC would do themselves a great service if there were
minutes or at least position papers that explained the rationale BEHIND
various decisions. I for one intend to publish a position paper that
radically challenges the fundamental assumptions behind the current
standards and will request that the IGC and GFAC come back with a formal
response..

>
> I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
> my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
> Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
> cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
> serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
> you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
> other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
> an (almost) annual refresher course.

Bingo. I realilzed that about 2 weeks ago, and that's definitely where I'm
going. So far, I've lined up objective data by polling a large club
organization to find out exactly what GPS equipment already exists in the
hands of pilots (60% in this club actually own a COTS logger, somewhat
surprisingly), am in the process of polling the US State Governors and
Record Keepers to get inputs on direction (so far about 75% in favor of
actively pushing COTS for badges), and am putting together a formal position
paper (no not a proposal) which will state that we should aggressively
pursue unmodified COTS (thus adhering to the spirit of "OTS"). I would
love to enlist others in the US to sign up for pro-COTS organization to
work with all of the SSA directors to convince them to push our IGC
representative in that direction. I would love to see the same happen in
other countries. But yes, the only way to make things change is to work up
the chain of command. That is both a price and a protection of these types
of organizations, which I think is one of the biggest takeaways from this
whole thread.

I also would recommend that people who feel strongly enough about this make
it an issue for their local soaring organization representatives. I think
for example, if the folks in Sweden, Australia, and Poland (to pick three
places where I know that there are active COTS movements) made this the
primary issue for their directors and met with their IGC reps, I think
things would start to move much more rapidly.

> So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!

Welcome to the club :-))
>
> --
> stephanevdv
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
fly -
>

[Janos Bauer]

Todd Pattist wrote:
> stephanevdv >
> wrote:
>
>
>>[discussing OLC contests] the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
>>free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
>>has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
>>the badge system itself.
>
>
> I agree that OLC contests are a great motivator, but I don't
> see why approved FR's need to be used there either.

Here are the requirements for different national OLCs (copy from the
info&rules page):

olc land validated igc-files required approved igc-FR required
olc-af Africa N N
olc-ar Argentina N N
olc-at Austria J J
olc-au Australia N N
olc-be Belgium N N
olc-br Brazil N N
olc-ca Canada N N
olc-ch Switzerland J J
olc-cz Czech-Rep./Slovakia N N
olc-d Germany J J
olc-dk Denmark J J
olc-es Spain J J
olc-fi Finland N N
olc-fr France N N
olc-gr Greece N N
olc-hu Hungary N N
olc-i International J J
olc-it Italy J J
olc-jp Japan N N
olc-lu Luxembourg J J
olc-mo Aeromodelling N N
olc-nl Netherlands N N
olc-no Norway N N
olc-nz New Zealand N N
olc-pl Poland N N
olc-pt Portugal N N
olc-se Sweden N N
olc-si Slovenia N N
olc-uk United Kingdom N N
olc-usa USA N N


olc continent validated igc-files required approved igc-FR required
olc-kaf Africa J J
olc-kaq Antarctika J J
olc-kar Arctika J J
olc-kas Asia (Near East, East, all Asia) J J
olc-kau Australia and Oceania J J
olc-keu Europe J J
olc-kna North America J J
olc-ksa South America (Latin America, Middle and Caribic) J J
olc-kw World (Panet Earth) J J

Shall we treat it as a votes for COTS?:)

/Janos

[Martin Gregorie]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:09:58 -0400, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Tim Newport-Peace ]> wrote:
>
>>What needs to be changed is the wording in the Sporting Code to allow
>>COTS to be use up to a specific level (e.g. Gold C) and an approved
>>Flight Recorder thereafter.
>
>Agreed. I'd let the O.O have the responsibility for
>verifying compliance of the GPS with a bare minimum list of
>required GPS features , and provide a list of COTS GPS
>units known to meet those standards: as in "Capable of
>recording time and position fixes according to WGS 84," etc.
>
It would be simpler for all concerned if the pilot is required to
demonstrate compliance with the (published) list of required features
to the OO. Benefits:

- the pilot has a checklist to use when buying the GPS
- the OO doesn't have to understand the GPS and its
documentation in the detail needed to verify compliance

A demerit that nobody has yet mentioned is that of the poor suffering
OO having to understand a multitude of GPS and download programs.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[John Bisscheroux]

Janos Bauer > wrote in message >...
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> > stephanevdv >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[discussing OLC contests] the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
> >>free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
> >>has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
> >>the badge system itself.
>
A Canadian answer

As some of you may know, the National organisation of Canada
presented a
request for IGC to approve some COTS GPS/Recorders (such as the Garmin
Etrex Plus and 76S, both of which have WAAS based accuracy of position
and height).
This was shot down at the annual meeting in March.
Garmin is now trying to have their units tested with revised
software made to comply with so called "reduced" security requirements
for the purpose of FAI badge proof of achievement.
It seems to take a lot of time to even have the IGC/GNSS agree to
accept
Garmin's offer and have this company send the units for testing and I
am beginning to think that there is an urgent need to review the
obstacles put in place by that body's rule making, not to mention the
lack of personnell and time etc etc. After all, we ARE a sport and
99.999% honest pilots participate!!
IGC has decided to be unflexible on the security issue rule making
and mostly by- passing the Official Observer function, all based on
required uncontestable proof of records and international competitions
etc. Why must Garmin jump through the same hoops when it is only
seeking approval for FAI badge flight recording? Why are the records
already filed in OLC not accepted by 25% of countries (mostly in
Europe)who insist on IGC approved recordings only? 75% of countries
have seen the benefit of COTS units and accept the sport of it.
Is it possible that IGC has just gone a little bit overboard? Are
there "other" interests present who don't want this to happen?
I welcome your opinions,

John Bisscheroux

[John Bisscheroux]

I wish to set the record straight of where we are with respect to COTS

1) Height recordings....WAAS corrects barometric and satellite
readings with
an accuracy not found in barographs. I tested the position changes
and
recorded an hour with a stationary Garmin Etrex Vista (latest
software versi
version) Is 9 square meters accurate enough? I compared the
altitudes
recorded with the maximum altitude altimeter readings and, again,
spot on!
Don't forget that we know of at least one diamond climb approval on
the basis
of a photograph of the (certified)altimeter in the pilot's cockpit.

2) Garmin has been in touch with me ever since the IGC threw out the
Canadian
request for approval of certain COTS units. This company is ready
to send
any number of units for testing purposes by IGC subcommittee.
There appears to be an inordinate time taken by IGC/GFAC reps to
reply to
Garmin. Garmin has been extraordinarily gracefull to me going over
all the obstacles thrown at them by the IGC rep. even to the tune
of
going over the same ground over and over again. Don't forget; the
IGC wrote
the rules, including that only manufacturers can apply for approval
of a
unit.

3) There was mentioned "a reduced standard of security for FAI badge
applications" but Garmin is required to meet the existing stringent
standards.

4) Official Observers are being left out of the security process to
the degree
that they may as well not be there. For example; how many OO's
understand
the Sporting Code rules concerning the use of IGC approved FDR's??

5) I am very disappointed in those among us who think that we are
surrounded by
cheats and that we must AT ALL COSTS (C$1300 IGC FDR v.s C$450
COTS) prevent
these villains to get theirs!! I heard of two or three cases, so
what!!!!!

6) I come from an airforce background where it is important to be safe
(aircraft maintenance)but I also have received training to be
flexible enough
not to unneccessarily ground an aircraft when it can accomplish its
mission.
Are we not too presumptious as to be holier than thou and that the
IGC gospel
is the only true one? Come on guys, IT IS A SPORT and that is the
short of
it.

7) I receive the impression that at least one member of the gFAC
committee is
not being kept abreast of the Garmin correspondence with the
chairman GFAC.
If any of you wish to be kept informed of what Garmin is doing, I
will be
happy to copy you in.

I am very disappointed in the complex mountain built by IGC just to
curb a few bad eggs. In sports it does not matter, since there are
very few and it is no skin off my back. I will not loose my joy in
having accomplished a 450 k flight with my "illegal" Garmin Etrex
Vista recorder. I know I have done the flight and bugger the gospel
thumpers.

John Bisscheroux

[Pete Brown]

The IGC/FAI are dragging their feet needlessly on COTS
approval.

There is no reason that the process of documenting basic
badge flights (through Gold) flight should be as difficult
or expensive as it currently is. (This proposal would not
apply to national or world records where we would certainly
want to comply with the more rigorous standards.)

Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
a record of personal achievement, very little more. No one
cares who has Silver badge # 5526 (me) or when I got it
(years ago), except me. When someone goes to great lengths
to cheat by faking a flight record, I view it as the
cheater's personal problem, not mine, and not the sports. It
certainly does not devalue my first 50k, the memories of
which I still warmly cherish.

I don't see the need to make the process of Silver and Gold
badge documentation as difficult as the flight itself. The
soaring community is faced with declining membership and
diminishing interest in cross country flight and this is an
unnecessary obstacle.

I also think that there is great additional value in
capturing more flight records for analysis. Having just
reviewed a flight record of a relatively new pilot, I was
able to discern where the pilot got a little too close to
the edge of the safety margin. Going over the flight with
the pilot was an eye-opener for him and he learned something
from the instant replay that he missed while he was in the
air. It was a good lesson, a lesson that would have been
just as valuable with a COTS unit as with an IGC approved unit

Any device other than a COTS recorder will never bring the
price down sufficiently to make these readily affordable for
most pilots because the size of the glider pilot market is
just too small to achieve the economies of scale for a
purpose built device, IGC approved device. More pilots
will more readily use cheaper units and I think that is
beneficial.

To the extent that others agree, we all need to put pressure
on our respective national organizations to get the FAI/IGC
to respond.


Pete Brown


--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:53:17 -0800, Pete Brown > wrote:

..../...

>
>Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
>a record of personal achievement, very little more. No one
>cares who has Silver badge # 5526 (me) or when I got it
>(years ago), except me. When someone goes to great lengths
>to cheat by faking a flight record, I view it as the
>cheater's personal problem, not mine, and not the sports. It
>certainly does not devalue my first 50k, the memories of
>which I still warmly cherish.
>
This may be the case in your local patch. In other parts of the world
the Silver C is NOT "primarily a record of personal achievement".

In fact I'd say the Silver C is a carefully designed set of tasks for
determining when a pilot is capable of solo xc flights. Think about
it. Height gain means you can find and centre a decent thermal.
Duration means you can stay up long enough to fly a few hundred km.
Distance means you can navigate.

As such it is also regarded as a standardised pilot skill benchmark.
In most European countries and NZ the Silver C is a recognised
qualification and you WILL be asked about having it if you want to fly
solo at a club you're visiting and your answer WILL be used, along
with a check ride, to assess whether you'll be allowed to fly a single
seater.

Kindly think about how the rest of the world works before you push for
world wide changes that could devalue the Silver C as a piloting
qualification.

>Any device other than a COTS recorder will never bring the
>price down sufficiently to make these readily affordable for
>most pilots because the size of the glider pilot market is
>just too small to achieve the economies of scale for a
>purpose built device, IGC approved device. More pilots
>will more readily use cheaper units and I think that is
>beneficial.
>
A little perspective may be called for here. An EW logger represents a
one off cost of around 13% of a season's flying in the UK. Add a COTS
GPS and you're still looking at under 20% of a season's flying costs.
That's a one-off cost for FR and nav. kit that will last you a good
decade. Given that COTS GPS units are cheaper in the USA than here and
flying costs are higher, the relative cost of buying the kit will be
15% of a season's flying at the outside. Do you really think that an
additional cost of under 2% per year (20% spread over 10 years) is
even remotely significant in the greater scheme of things? I bet you
spend more on after-flying beers every season without even thinking
about it.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Janos Bauer]

Martin Gregorie wrote:

> Kindly think about how the rest of the world works before you push for
> world wide changes that could devalue the Silver C as a piloting
> qualification.

How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another way of documenting
it...

> A little perspective may be called for here. An EW logger represents a
> one off cost of around 13% of a season's flying in the UK.

Would you be surprised if I state that the price of one EW logger
(let's stay with this cheapest solution) is about 2-300% of the average
flying season cost in my club? Maybe if we would sell one of our SZD30
Pirats we could buy 3-4 loggers from it...
90% of the club members are students. They would be happy with another
cheap solution...

/Janos

[Papa3]

We recently increased dues in our club some 30%-40% after a long period of
having them frozen. This was due to increasing insurance costs, tiedown
costs, maintenance costs, etc. The actual dollar amount was less than
$100 for the average member, but that was enough to lose several people who
are struggling with layoffs, kids going to college, etc.

It's this type of attitude, "Oh, just another couple hundred bucks" (or
Pounds, or Euros) that continues to drive folks away. At least here in the
US, there is no government subsidy or support, so every dime we save is a
dime that we have left to put back into the sport.

Erik Mann


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:53:17 -0800, Pete Brown > wrote:
>
> .../...
>
> >
> >Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
> >a record of personal achievement, very little more. No one
> >cares who has Silver badge # 5526 (me) or when I got it
> >(years ago), except me. When someone goes to great lengths
> >to cheat by faking a flight record, I view it as the
> >cheater's personal problem, not mine, and not the sports. It
> >certainly does not devalue my first 50k, the memories of
> >which I still warmly cherish.
> >
> This may be the case in your local patch. In other parts of the world
> the Silver C is NOT "primarily a record of personal achievement".
>
> In fact I'd say the Silver C is a carefully designed set of tasks for
> determining when a pilot is capable of solo xc flights. Think about
> it. Height gain means you can find and centre a decent thermal.
> Duration means you can stay up long enough to fly a few hundred km.
> Distance means you can navigate.
>
> As such it is also regarded as a standardised pilot skill benchmark.
> In most European countries and NZ the Silver C is a recognised
> qualification and you WILL be asked about having it if you want to fly
> solo at a club you're visiting and your answer WILL be used, along
> with a check ride, to assess whether you'll be allowed to fly a single
> seater.
>
> Kindly think about how the rest of the world works before you push for
> world wide changes that could devalue the Silver C as a piloting
> qualification.
>
> >Any device other than a COTS recorder will never bring the
> >price down sufficiently to make these readily affordable for
> >most pilots because the size of the glider pilot market is
> >just too small to achieve the economies of scale for a
> >purpose built device, IGC approved device. More pilots
> >will more readily use cheaper units and I think that is
> >beneficial.
> >
> A little perspective may be called for here. An EW logger represents a
> one off cost of around 13% of a season's flying in the UK. Add a COTS
> GPS and you're still looking at under 20% of a season's flying costs.
> That's a one-off cost for FR and nav. kit that will last you a good
> decade. Given that COTS GPS units are cheaper in the USA than here and
> flying costs are higher, the relative cost of buying the kit will be
> 15% of a season's flying at the outside. Do you really think that an
> additional cost of under 2% per year (20% spread over 10 years) is
> even remotely significant in the greater scheme of things? I bet you
> spend more on after-flying beers every season without even thinking
> about it.
>
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
>

[Jamie Denton]

> How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another
>way of documenting
>it...

Your silver, as it stands at the moment, says to an
insurance company that, with an amount of certainty,
that you have a certain level of competence neccesary
for the silver badge, introducing COTS loggers for
the silvers cannot help but reduce that level of certainty,
as cannot be avoided that it is easier to hack these
devices (due to there being easier ways to manipulate
files these devices, I'm not saying current loggers
are immune to hacking, but COTS systems certainly lower
the bar).

Hypothetically, taken to it's extreme, if silver paperwork
became a self declaration job, involving you to simply
self declare you completed the task, with no OO or
logger evidence, we would not expect an insurance company
to take it seriously as a measure of competance, as
there is no worthwhile evidence.

If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...

I'd be careful before lowering the bar... few people
may cheat, but insurance companies don't always act
rationally....

J

[Papa3]

Jamie,

Prove your statement? Assume, for a moment, that a document exists which
gives specific (simple) pre/post flight requirements to the OO for dealing
with a couple of approved COTS units (same as we have today for photographic
and barogroph validation). For instance:

1. Validate that track logs are cleared prior to flight. This is done
by... Or, identify existing track logs prior to flight. This is done
by...

2. Observe dowload of track log post flight. This is done by...

I have it on pretty good authority from folks that have actually spent a lot
of time working with COTS units that this perceived decrease in security is
a complete, total farce. Since I'm in the US, I'll use the standard of
innocent until proven guilty - in other words, COTS is no less secure if OO
procedures are followed.

I think this idea that we're going from some iron-clad proof of validity to
basically self-certifying is a joke. How did your insurance companies know
that the OO was not in complicity with a pilot when, for example, certifying
that the barograph was sealed or a fresh roll of film was inserted under
his/her observation. Etc.




"Jamie Denton" > wrote in
message ...

>>
> If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
> neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge etc
> in the eyes of the insurance companies...
>

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer >
wrote:

>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>> Kindly think about how the rest of the world works before you push for
>> world wide changes that could devalue the Silver C as a piloting
>> qualification.
>
> How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another way of documenting
>it...
>
Sure, if there's a proper paper trail - by that I mean with some sort
of approved FR and the paper work inspected, checked and signed off by
an OO then no problem. COTS is OK if they get type approval and/or the
IGC publish an FR requirements spec and mandate that the pilot must
demonstrate that his FR can match or exceed that spec.

What I was getting at is that if all the North American ****ing and
moaning about cheaper FRs and drastically over simplified checking
procedures should be introduced, let alone an unpoliced honour system,
then that would completely stuff the way the rest of the world
currently works.

>> A little perspective may be called for here. An EW logger represents a
>> one off cost of around 13% of a season's flying in the UK.
>
> Would you be surprised if I state that the price of one EW logger
>(let's stay with this cheapest solution) is about 2-300% of the average
>flying season cost in my club? Maybe if we would sell one of our SZD30
>Pirats we could buy 3-4 loggers from it...
> 90% of the club members are students. They would be happy with another
>cheap solution...
>
Sounds like I should come and fly with you! Ranking the relatively few
places I've flown in descending order gives:

- USA
- Germany
- NZ
- UK

Seriously, all the agitation seems to be coming from North American
shores, home of the cheapest electronic kit and some of the more
expensive glider flying in the world. My comments about the relative
costs of FRs vs. gliding were addressed entirely to them.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Papa3]

Uhh, last time I checked, Sweden is in Europe and Australia is a continent
of its own (lucky *******). Both of these countries have significant COTS
movements. I also seem to recall folks from Poland weighing in...

The reason you may find that the US and possibly Canada are different is
that there is absolutely NO government support or subsidy of soaring. Every
time I read an article about some soaring camp in the Alps with full-time
instructors and government buildings or how the local group of RAF Cadets
did xyz, I just have to laugh. Over here, we have many bare-bones
operations with a couple of ratty gliders, a part-time tow pilot, and a few
folks that show up on weekends to take tows if the weather is good. I am
personally aware of 3 clubs in my immediate area that are struggling to stay
ahead of bills. Their entire capital improvement budget for the year is
$1,000, so a flight recorder is out of the question. On the other hand,
many of these folks already own a handheld which they can take from their
car to the glider for zero incremental cost. See the point?


"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer >
> wrote:
>
> >
> Seriously, all the agitation seems to be coming from North American
> shores, home of the cheapest electronic kit and some of the more
> expensive glider flying in the world. My comments about the relative
> costs of FRs vs. gliding were addressed entirely to them.
>
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :
>

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:53:33 GMT, "Papa3" >
wrote:

>We recently increased dues in our club some 30%-40% after a long period of
>having them frozen. This was due to increasing insurance costs, tiedown
>costs, maintenance costs, etc. The actual dollar amount was less than
>$100 for the average member, but that was enough to lose several people who
>are struggling with layoffs, kids going to college, etc.
>
I know people think that way. The trouble is that too many people
can't distinguish between one-off and continuing costs. They should
learn to do so and to spread one-off costs over the likely life of the
item. That would make them far happier because they would then realise
they could do more fun stuff with their money.

In this case the proper comparison between a $600 FR + GPS is that it
will last at least 10 years and so the cost is only $60 a year.
However, thanks to inflation that effectively reduces as time goes by,
while your dues increase is more like $1000 over a decade, but as it
will continue to rise with inflation the effective cost will, of
course be more than that.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Bert Willing]

There is no government support to soaring in Germany, and there is very
little in Switzerland. Try to find another excuse for your rattled gliders
:-)

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Papa3" > a écrit dans le message de
k.net...
> Uhh, last time I checked, Sweden is in Europe and Australia is a continent
> of its own (lucky *******). Both of these countries have significant COTS
> movements. I also seem to recall folks from Poland weighing in...
>
> The reason you may find that the US and possibly Canada are different is
> that there is absolutely NO government support or subsidy of soaring.
Every
> time I read an article about some soaring camp in the Alps with full-time
> instructors and government buildings or how the local group of RAF Cadets
> did xyz, I just have to laugh. Over here, we have many bare-bones
> operations with a couple of ratty gliders, a part-time tow pilot, and a
few
> folks that show up on weekends to take tows if the weather is good. I am
> personally aware of 3 clubs in my immediate area that are struggling to
stay
> ahead of bills. Their entire capital improvement budget for the year is
> $1,000, so a flight recorder is out of the question. On the other hand,
> many of these folks already own a handheld which they can take from their
> car to the glider for zero incremental cost. See the point?
>
>
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Seriously, all the agitation seems to be coming from North American
> > shores, home of the cheapest electronic kit and some of the more
> > expensive glider flying in the world. My comments about the relative
> > costs of FRs vs. gliding were addressed entirely to them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie : Harlow, UK
> > demon :
> > co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> > uk :
> >
>
>

[Jamie Denton]

I'm not saying that COTS equates to self certifying,
I was trying (badly) to make the point that you have
more reason to believe something when a higher standard
of proof is required. And that anything where there
could be a perception of lowering the bar for cheaters
should be approached with extreme care....

If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
unit. As for procedures, the potential problem is
that, with a COTS logger (say for example an iPaq with
winpilot or some other hypothetical approved software),
who is to say the person flying hasn't downloaded to
their iPaq a little utility (no doubt disguised as
a calculator ;-) ) to emulate the serial port and
feed in a rubbish NMEA feed? The OO would need to have
seen the iPaq being hard resest and all new software
installed to be able to guarentee no additional software
is installed... Not an easy task.

These are things it's far harder to do with volkslogger
and other specially designed loggers because they were
not designed to allow easy access (although I realise
an EW takes an NMEA feed, but even there, pressure
altitude is hard to fake, without a pressure chamber).


This is not a case of 'innocent until proven guilty',
it's about requiring a standard of proof high enough
to keep insurance types satisfied and not lowering
any bars. Fail to keep them happy with your qualifications,
your premiums go up... not good.

And as for OO's being complicit with a cheater, that
could happen anyway, whether or not we have COTS units,
who's to say your driving examiner wasn't bribed? Insurance
companies have to accept a small potential rate of
false declarations by people, otherwise they would
never manage to insure anyone (no insurance = no money
for them), all their risks are factored into the premiums.
There will always be some degree of cheating, that's
just human nature, all we can do is throw as many roadblocks
at them as we can.

Anything we can do to make soaring cheaper is good,
but if we are not careful we just drive up costs in
other areas....


J

At 13:48 09 June 2004, Papa3 wrote:
>Jamie,
>
>Prove your statement? Assume, for a moment, that a
>document exists which
>gives specific (simple) pre/post flight requirements
>to the OO for dealing
>with a couple of approved COTS units (same as we have
>today for photographic
>and barogroph validation). For instance:
>
>1. Validate that track logs are cleared prior to flight.
> This is done
>by... Or, identify existing track logs prior to
>flight. This is done
>by...
>
>2. Observe dowload of track log post flight. This
>is done by...





>
>I have it on pretty good authority from folks that
>have actually spent a lot
>of time working with COTS units that this perceived
>decrease in security is
>a complete, total farce. Since I'm in the US, I'll
>use the standard of
>innocent until proven guilty - in other words, COTS
>is no less secure if OO
>procedures are followed.
>
>I think this idea that we're going from some iron-clad
>proof of validity to
>basically self-certifying is a joke.
> How did your insurance companies know
>that the OO was not in complicity with a pilot when,
>for example, certifying
>that the barograph was sealed or a fresh roll of film
>was inserted under
>his/her observation. Etc.
>
>
>
>
>'Jamie Denton' wrote in
>message ...
>
>>>
>> If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
>> neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge
>>etc
>> in the eyes of the insurance companies...
>>
>
>
>

[Papa3]

Jamie,

I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. For the near term, I
think most folks are focused on self-contained GPS units, e.g. the Garmin76.
In this case, the navigation and logging functions are co-located. I've
personally sat on the deck after flying and paged through someone's Garmin
trace (Garmin 12, I think) to validate to my satisfaction that the person
did what they said they did. So, imagine the following (simple)
instruction sheet for OO validation:

1. Review any existing track logs prior to takeoff noting date/time stamps
(simple to do - OO doesn't need to know how to navigate the functions; owner
of the unit shows him/her). This is to show tht there is nothing "fishy"
prior to takeoff, eg. a post-stamped track log created at home (though I
believe that the Garmin upload interface automatically wipes out timestamps,
but anyway).

2. Immediately upon landing, OO reviews log file using UI of GPS unit to
validate timestamps, basic continuity, turnpoints, etc. The OO doesn't need
to know how do navigate the features; the pilot simply walks him/her through
it. Again, the units themselves facilitate this, so it is still
self-contained. You can zoom in on turnpoints, check altitude profile,
etc. RIGHT FROM THE COTS UNIT. As far as I am concerned this is an INCREASE
in security over my existing "secure" Cambridge unit. In other words, you
can validate prior to connecting any external computer that the file is
intact.

3. Download the file. Best case, the OO observes the dowload of trace
same day right on the airfield while keeping the COTS unit in his posession.
Second best is that the pilot hands over the unit to the OO who downloads
the trace later that night or next day. Third best is that the OO takes a
few key data points from the UI and notes them down, then allows the pilot
to take control of the unit and dowload from home. For almost all badges,
the main issues are: a) When/how high did the pilot release from tow b) how
low/high did he get (for altitude gains, airspace incursion) c) did he land
along the way and d) did he accomplish the claimed turnpoint(s). All of
these require only a few points to be validated.

If we ever trusted the OO to do his or her job in the past, then we need to
hold that assumption constant. Given that, only the truly talented and
somewhat deranged individual would be able to pass the above tests. Forget
about the technical complexity of accomplishing an upload in flight. The
trick would be to create a file a day or two in advance that accurately
mirrors the actual conditions on the day of the flight. If we truly
believed an individual was cheating, comparison to other local flights or
even something as simple as reviewing estimated wind drift versus
observations would tip the OO off. Again, that's certainly an option to be
written into the rules.

Regards,
Erik Mann

p.s. A slightly used Garmin76 listed on eBay right now for $150. Checked
for Volkslogger and Cambridge, didn't find any :-))



"Jamie Denton" > wrote in
message ...
>
> If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
> gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
> of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
> to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
> unit. As for procedures, the potential problem is
> that, with a COTS logger (say for example an iPaq with
> winpilot or some other hypothetical approved software),
> who is to say the person flying hasn't downloaded to
> their iPaq a little utility (no doubt disguised as
> a calculator ;-) ) to emulate the serial port and
> feed in a rubbish NMEA feed? The OO would need to have
> seen the iPaq being hard resest and all new software
> installed to be able to guarentee no additional software
> is installed... Not an easy task.
>

[Jamie Denton]

>
>And I can do the same by opening an approved FR and
>fiddling
>with the GPS streams from the engine, and I can do
>that at
>home without an OO watching and get a world record.
>
>

agreed, but hacking a box you potentially know nothing
about by opening it up is a far less tempting possibility
than fiddling with the internal workings of an OTS
device via a direct connection from the comfort of
your pc. The idea of breaking a logger with a screwdriver
doesn't appeal to many people ;-)

>Who is to say the OO isn't in cahoots with the pilot
>and
>supplied fake photos and baro trace? My wife was OO
>for all
>my badges up to the 1000K. Come on! These are badges,
>not
>records. If you really care, require the OO to supply
>the
>download computer, not the pilot, but I think it would
>be a
>needless waste (as opposed to needed waste?).

To be honest, I personally don't really give a monkeys
if someone fakes a badge claim, it's rather sad. But
at many clubs Silver and other badges are actual flying
requirements, the higher the flying requirements, the
lower the insurance.


>They have a simple internal switch, and an OTS GPS
>engine
>supplying data to the processor.

which is sealed into some package that makes it more
secure than a simple OTS system. Not perfect mind
you, but better.


>I just don't believe insurance premiums are based on
>the
>security level of our FAI badge system. Sorry. Even
>if it
>was, I don't think COTS proposals lower it in any way.

What matters is the confidence these people have in
the system. If we are seen to lower the standard of
proof, most insurance people are not glider pilots,
and will likely assume some drop in standards (a blatantly
false assumption, but it wouldn't be illogical for
them to assume...). To some non gliding insurance
monkey, a little sealed box going blip (technical term...honest
;-) ), is far more reasuring than some gps you could
buy in some outdoor store.

>
>So, IMHO, having an OO watch each flight and d/l a
>COTS
>trace is more secure than having a pilot magically
>produce
>his trace from a FR that he's had in his possession
>and
>control for the last 6 months.

in that particular case yes, but thats an OO procedural
matter, not anything to do with the logging method
used. I really have no issues with the OO system (my
reference to it was soley in reply to what whoever
has the handle 'Papa3'). Just download at the end
of the flight... simple (I hope!).

OTS loggers are a great idea for most people, cheap,
'reasonably' secure, most people are honest and unless
it's a world record or a comp I couldn't give a rats
ass if traces are faked. All I'm concerned about is
how this appears to insurance people... Imagine you
are a non gliderpilot insurance bod, how to you rate
a pilot you've never met or flown with? By hours, badges
and ratings (e.g. instructor ratings), do anything
that undermines their confidence in any element of
that set and you are liable to shoot yourself in the
foot...

Anyways, enough ramblings, go fly! :-P

cheers

Jamie

[Robert Ehrlich]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> ...
> As far as personally faking a file, I may not have
> that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does
> though.

If he is able to fake a digital signature, he is an
advanced researcher in cryptography ...

[Robert Ehrlich]

Janos Bauer wrote:
>
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> > stephanevdv >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[discussing OLC contests] the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
> >>free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
> >>has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
> >>the badge system itself.
> >
> >
> > I agree that OLC contests are a great motivator, but I don't
> > see why approved FR's need to be used there either.
>
> Here are the requirements for different national OLCs (copy from the
> info&rules page):
>
> olc land validated igc-files required approved igc-FR required
> olc-af Africa N N
> olc-ar Argentina N N
> olc-at Austria J J
> olc-au Australia N N
> olc-be Belgium N N
> olc-br Brazil N N
> olc-ca Canada N N
> olc-ch Switzerland J J
> olc-cz Czech-Rep./Slovakia N N
> olc-d Germany J J
> olc-dk Denmark J J
> olc-es Spain J J
> olc-fi Finland N N
> olc-fr France N N
> olc-gr Greece N N
> olc-hu Hungary N N
> olc-i International J J
> olc-it Italy J J
> olc-jp Japan N N
> olc-lu Luxembourg J J
> olc-mo Aeromodelling N N
> olc-nl Netherlands N N
> olc-no Norway N N
> olc-nz New Zealand N N
> olc-pl Poland N N
> olc-pt Portugal N N
> olc-se Sweden N N
> olc-si Slovenia N N
> olc-uk United Kingdom N N
> olc-usa USA N N
>
> olc continent validated igc-files required approved igc-FR required
> olc-kaf Africa J J
> olc-kaq Antarctika J J
> olc-kar Arctika J J
> olc-kas Asia (Near East, East, all Asia) J J
> olc-kau Australia and Oceania J J
> olc-keu Europe J J
> olc-kna North America J J
> olc-ksa South America (Latin America, Middle and Caribic) J J
> olc-kw World (Panet Earth) J J
>
> Shall we treat it as a votes for COTS?:)
>
> /Janos

Just a little precision concerning France. Our "NetCoupe" makes a
difference between pre-declared XC flights and free ones (coefficient
0.8 for free, 1. for pre-declared). Last year, an approved igc-FR was
required for pre-declared flights, this year COTS GPS (even without
altitude recording) are allowed.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Papa3 wrote:
> ...
> Every time I read an article about some soaring camp in the Alps with full-time
> instructors and government buildings [...] I just have to laugh.
> ...

I think the above is an allusion to our national center in St Auban (France),
the CNVV (Centre National de Vol a Voile), where it is true that we have full-
time instructors, and the buildings were certainly at least for some extent
payed by the governement. It is also true that in the past ther was a lot
of government support for soaring, but this time is over, it was already
over whe I started gliding 9 years ago. The full-time instructors at CNVV
are payed by the pilot's fees. I had 3 recent stays there, 2 weeks for a
prepartory course for an intructor rating, 3 weeks for the proper instructor
course, and 2 other weeks for the prepartory course for the 2nd level
intructor course (I botched the last one, so I have to do it again or
find an alternative). Each of these weeks costed 850 euros. I got a total
of 900 euros as help from our regional commitee for soaring. Even if this
commitee receives some government subside, a lot of its resources come
from the fees all glider pilots pay to our national organization. However
the old time of government support has still some effect on the present
costs. A general consensus on the fact that gliding should remain as
cheap as possible remains and most people are working for that, e.g. most
instructors (including myself) are volunteers. Also some glider fields
are always owned by the french State and let for free to the clubs
(including mine).

[Paul Repacholi]

Robert Ehrlich > writes:

> Don Johnstone wrote:

>> As far as personally faking a file, I may not have that skill, I
>> know an 12 year old next door who does though.

> If he is able to fake a digital signature, he is an advanced
> researcher in cryptography ...

But you don't have to fake the file, just fake the signals into the
FAI logger and use a pressure chamber.

Some one should submit a `suitable' claim file, flown at 100K' :) with
all the security intact.

Logging raw satelite data and carrier phase would be a bit more
secure, it could be post proscessed when the prescision ephemeris data
is available a few days later. It would be REALLY hard to predict that!

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Ian Strachan]

>> >>[discussing OLC contests] the use of an approved FR allows one to
>> >>be completely
>> >>free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
>> >>has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
>> >>the badge system itself.

Many thanks for the above.

In the formulation of rules and procedures for IGC-approved GNSS Flight
Recorders, that is exactly what we have tried to achieve since the IGC
GFA Committee (GFAC) was set up in March 1995.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[Arbr64]

> >If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
> >gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
> >of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
> >to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
> >unit.
>
> And I can do the same by opening an approved FR and fiddling
> with the GPS streams from the engine, and I can do that at
> home without an OO watching and get a world record.
>
Actually, that is a false assumption.
The "Technical Specification" for IGC Approved FR specifically requires that
any "interference" (such as opening the box or electronically fiddling with
the unit) will activate an internal device that erases the Digital Security
code of the box, which is unique to each FR serial#.
So all traces generated during or after the "interference" will not
validate.
Their security signature will be invalid, as any IGC reading program will
say.
If you try to manually edit that file, it will generate yet another
inconsistency in the signature.

The only way to get a "violated" FR back to "secure" mode is to send it back
to the manufacturer, which has to insert a new, one-time digital security
code that is specific to that particular unit's serial #, assigned by the
IGC.

In other words, if you open your FR, the only way you will get it to
generate a secure (valid) tracklog is by involving the manufacturer and the
IGC.

I don't think this is something you can work around at home, no matter how
much of an electronic genious you are.

[Janos Bauer]

Arbr64 wrote:

> In other words, if you open your FR, the only way you will get it to
> generate a secure (valid) tracklog is by involving the manufacturer and the
> IGC.
>
> I don't think this is something you can work around at home, no matter how
> much of an electronic genious you are.

Please read Mike Borgelt's post about this issue.

/Janos

[Graeme Cant]

Jamie Denton wrote:
> Your silver, as it stands at the moment, says to an
> insurance company that, with an amount of certainty,
> that you have a certain level of competence neccesary
> for the silver badge, introducing COTS loggers for
> the silvers cannot help but reduce that level of certainty,
> as cannot be avoided that it is easier to hack these
> devices (due to there being easier ways to manipulate
> files these devices, I'm not saying current loggers
> are immune to hacking, but COTS systems certainly lower
> the bar).

The security system surrounding badges isn't only the log file but the
entire set of circumstances surrounding the flight. That's why the OO
is still an integral part of the system despite all the IGC's efforts to
dehumanise it. It's unrealistic to try to build a system based solely
on "impregnable" technology as the IGC seems to have set out to do.

Here's how silly it is. The level of security around the logbooks and
licence required to get a pilot's job at an airline is orders of
magnitude less than for the documentation required to claim a Silver
Badge! The basis for the logbook and licence security (and it's not
perfect, it's adequate) is the web of checkable human contacts defined
in those documents. No sealed loggers are involved.

The OO is the link with a similar human web for the badge system and,
used properly, would provide adequate surety that the flight is genuine
while allowing significantly less secure - and much cheaper - technology
to be used.

Perfection in human affairs is unattainable. Adequate security is all
you can usefully aim for. Excessive security is very wasteful and
expensive as the soaring community now knows. Reducing excessive to
adequate would be a win for the entire gliding community.

> Hypothetically, taken to it's extreme, if silver paperwork
> became a self declaration job, involving you to simply
> self declare you completed the task, with no OO or
> logger evidence, we would not expect an insurance company
> to take it seriously as a measure of competance, as
> there is no worthwhile evidence.

Nobody suggested that. Adequate security doesn't mean no security.
>
> If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
> neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge etc
> in the eyes of the insurance companies...

> I'd be careful before lowering the bar... few people
> may cheat, but insurance companies don't always act
> rationally....

Yes they do. They're going to set their premiums where they can make a
profit based on claims experience. Just like they do now.

Graeme Cant

[Robert Ehrlich]

Paul Repacholi wrote:
> ...
> But you don't have to fake the file, just fake the signals into the
> FAI logger and use a pressure chamber.
>
> Some one should submit a `suitable' claim file, flown at 100K' :) with
> all the security intact.
>
> Logging raw satelite data and carrier phase would be a bit more
> secure, it could be post proscessed when the prescision ephemeris data
> is available a few days later. It would be REALLY hard to predict that!
> ...


Todd Pattist wrote:
> ...
> He doesn't have to fake it. When you buy an approved FR, it
> comes with software and hardware right inside the FR that
> will create the digital signature he needs. All the fancy
> cryptography we use is based on keeping the secret key a
> secret, but the way we use it, we have to put the secret key
> and the software and hardware that use that key to create
> the digital signature inside the box the pilot owns. The
> security boils down to a switch inside a box closed with
> some screws.
> ...

But in these both cases we are no more at the level of what
a 12 years old boy can do with his home computer.

[ADP]

Never has so much been written by so many about so little.

Allan


"Graeme Cant" > wrote in message
...
> Jamie Denton wrote:
> > Your silver, as it stands at the moment, says to an
> > insurance company that, with an amount of certainty,
> > that you have a certain level of competence neccesary
> > for the silver badge, introducing COTS loggers for
> > the silvers cannot help but reduce that level of certainty,
> > as cannot be avoided that it is easier to hack these
> > devices (due to there being easier ways to manipulate
> > files these devices, I'm not saying current loggers
> > are immune to hacking, but COTS systems certainly lower
>Snip<

[Mark James Boyd]

Martin Gregorie > wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer >
>>
>> How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another way of documenting
>>it...
>>
>Sure, if there's a proper paper trail - by that I mean with some sort
>of approved FR and the paper work inspected, checked and signed off by
>an OO then no problem. COTS is OK if they get type approval and/or the
>IGC publish an FR requirements spec and mandate that the pilot must
>demonstrate that his FR can match or exceed that spec.

I think a lot of us think that the O/O looking at the trace immediately
after the flight is really the key. It's hard to
fake a trace with the takeoff and release happening at
exactly the time and place the towpilot observed, and
then modifying it in flight. A good O/O should be
able to notice such discrepencies...

Just my opinion, but I think the O/O is the real key, not the
logger security...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>
> I think a lot of us think that the O/O looking at the trace immediately
> after the flight is really the key. It's hard to
> fake a trace with the takeoff and release happening at
> exactly the time and place the towpilot observed, and
> then modifying it in flight. A good O/O should be
> able to notice such discrepencies...
>
> Just my opinion, but I think the O/O is the real key, not the
> logger security...

How about a distance flight that ends at a different airfield? It might
be hours - or the next day - before the OO can examine the trace. For
these kinds of flights, should the COTs be sealed in a box, or are you
assuming it already is?


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Papa3]

Unrelated to security, but still on the thread.

Has anybody bothered to read Annex B, the section on altitude measurement.
It's a hoot. It's not really rules so much as a combination white
paper/position paper. But I digress...

In the same section, we have a statement that one can use "Optical
Measurement from the Ground" (ie. the good old fashioned start gate) and
Radar Ranging (!) if "accurate enough for the purpose" (with the word
"accurate" not defined) to validate start height followed by a section with
a long discourse on how GPS Altitude isn't suitably accurate for
measurement.

If that doesn't give everyone some indication of what a strange mix the IGC
has created in terms of standards and accuracy acceptability, I don't know
what does.

Erik Mann


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:40cd4e88$1@darkstar...
> Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> >On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer >
> >>
> >> How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another way of documenting
> >>it...
> >>
> >Sure, if there's a proper paper trail - by that I mean with some sort
> >of approved FR and the paper work inspected, checked and signed off by
> >an OO then no problem. COTS is OK if they get type approval and/or the
> >IGC publish an FR requirements spec and mandate that the pilot must
> >demonstrate that his FR can match or exceed that spec.
>
> I think a lot of us think that the O/O looking at the trace immediately
> after the flight is really the key. It's hard to
> fake a trace with the takeoff and release happening at
> exactly the time and place the towpilot observed, and
> then modifying it in flight. A good O/O should be
> able to notice such discrepencies...
>
> Just my opinion, but I think the O/O is the real key, not the
> logger security...
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Papa3]

Forgot the link:

http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3b.pdf

"Papa3" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Unrelated to security, but still on the thread.
>
> Has anybody bothered to read Annex B, the section on altitude measurement.
> It's a hoot. It's not really rules so much as a combination white
> paper/position paper. But I digress...
>
> In the same section, we have a statement that one can use "Optical
> Measurement from the Ground" (ie. the good old fashioned start gate) and
> Radar Ranging (!) if "accurate enough for the purpose" (with the word
> "accurate" not defined) to validate start height followed by a section
with
> a long discourse on how GPS Altitude isn't suitably accurate for
> measurement.
>
> If that doesn't give everyone some indication of what a strange mix the
IGC
> has created in terms of standards and accuracy acceptability, I don't know
> what does.
>
> Erik Mann
>
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> news:40cd4e88$1@darkstar...
> > Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> > >On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer >
> > >>
> > >> How does it devalue the Silver C? It's just another way of
documenting
> > >>it...
> > >>
> > >Sure, if there's a proper paper trail - by that I mean with some sort
> > >of approved FR and the paper work inspected, checked and signed off by
> > >an OO then no problem. COTS is OK if they get type approval and/or the
> > >IGC publish an FR requirements spec and mandate that the pilot must
> > >demonstrate that his FR can match or exceed that spec.
> >
> > I think a lot of us think that the O/O looking at the trace immediately
> > after the flight is really the key. It's hard to
> > fake a trace with the takeoff and release happening at
> > exactly the time and place the towpilot observed, and
> > then modifying it in flight. A good O/O should be
> > able to notice such discrepencies...
> >
> > Just my opinion, but I think the O/O is the real key, not the
> > logger security...
> > --
> >
> > ------------+
> > Mark Boyd
> > Avenal, California, USA
>
>

[Michael]

Pete Brown > wrote
> Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
> a record of personal achievement, very little more.

Well, not quite. For one thing, they are used as a prerequisite for
entering contests. For another, lots of people seem determined to
prevent 'dilution' of the accomplishment, for whatever reason. Some
mention insurance, but I've never had an insurer inquire about my
badges.

I don't have a Silver badge. I suppose that had I been more concerned
with documenting rather than flying I might. I didn't own a logger,
or a barograph for that matter, but my club had barographs and I'm
certain that had I asked, I could have borrowed one. I know, because
I remember seeing a pilot trying to get a barograph to work and
filling in paperwork while I was getting ready to make a flight. It
didn't look like fun. See, that's what flying is about for me -
having fun.

I flew to a nearby (60 km) field, but that didn't seem like much of a
challenge. At that point I was glad I hadn't bothered with a
barograph, because I decided to turn around and come home. I knew
there was a way to make the flight count anyway, with a turnpoint
camera and a barograph, but the last time someone tried to explain how
that worked to me, my eyes glazed over. I guess I wasn't up to the
challenge.

Getting home, fighting a 30kt headwind in a metal ship, almost landing
out - THAT was a challenge. I'm really glad I made that flight - it
taught me things about soaring that no book can teach. I wrote about
that flight for this newsgroup when it happened.

Soon thereafter, I heard there was going to be a local contest. I
knew I had no chance of winning, but I considered entering anyway,
just for the experience. I was thinking about getting my glider
instructor rating, and I felt that flying in a contest was something I
ought to experience. Certainly participating in a skydiving
competition is required to become a skydiving instructor, and I always
thought the requirement was a good one.

Turned out I needed a Silver badge. It was kind of amusing, because
another pilot was dead set on entering the contest. Like me, he had
already flown a qualifying flight, and unlike me he actually attempted
to document it - but something had gone wrong with the documentation
and he needed to redo it. The day was marginal, but he declared the
flight, saying that he would either get his Silver that day or land
out. He landed out. I believe he eventually got the SSA to accept
his original documentation and entered the contest. He was
persistent. I guess I wasn't.

I never did enter a contest. I eventually got my glider instructor
rating and taught some. I still fly a great deal, but mostly in
power. Less hassle, more fun. I still teach too, but also mostly in
power. I just finished teaching a glider pilot to fly instruments.
He also doesn't have a Silver badge, even though he has made more than
one qualifying flight. He doesn't fly gliders anymore either. But
hey, I'm sure keeping guys like us out is a small price to pay for
maintaining the integrity of the badge system. After all, if we were
truly serious, we would have overcome the obstacles. I'm sure soaring
is better off without us.

Michael

[f.blair]

I can't believe that the documentation for the Silver flight made you leave
Soaring. A barograph trace or a picture of the field as you circled it
would have proven the flight. The flight back with it's challenges is what
keeps people in Soaring, they want the challenge and it is different on
every day. I know a lot of people that fly alot and never got their
badges, but they still enjoy the beauty and the challenge of using energy
from Mother Nature to sustain a flight. In my personal opinion, cross
country experience should be required of any CFIG so that you can prepare
the students for all phases of Soaring, just my 2 cents worth.

Next time you are droning across the sky in the rented power plane, keep
looking at the clouds and wondering if I was in a glider could I get from
here to there.

Fly safely,
Fred
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Pete Brown > wrote
> > Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
> > a record of personal achievement, very little more.
>
> Well, not quite. For one thing, they are used as a prerequisite for
> entering contests. For another, lots of people seem determined to
> prevent 'dilution' of the accomplishment, for whatever reason. Some
> mention insurance, but I've never had an insurer inquire about my
> badges.
>
> I don't have a Silver badge. I suppose that had I been more concerned
> with documenting rather than flying I might. I didn't own a logger,
> or a barograph for that matter, but my club had barographs and I'm
> certain that had I asked, I could have borrowed one. I know, because
> I remember seeing a pilot trying to get a barograph to work and
> filling in paperwork while I was getting ready to make a flight. It
> didn't look like fun. See, that's what flying is about for me -
> having fun.
>
> I flew to a nearby (60 km) field, but that didn't seem like much of a
> challenge. At that point I was glad I hadn't bothered with a
> barograph, because I decided to turn around and come home. I knew
> there was a way to make the flight count anyway, with a turnpoint
> camera and a barograph, but the last time someone tried to explain how
> that worked to me, my eyes glazed over. I guess I wasn't up to the
> challenge.
>
> Getting home, fighting a 30kt headwind in a metal ship, almost landing
> out - THAT was a challenge. I'm really glad I made that flight - it
> taught me things about soaring that no book can teach. I wrote about
> that flight for this newsgroup when it happened.
>
> Soon thereafter, I heard there was going to be a local contest. I
> knew I had no chance of winning, but I considered entering anyway,
> just for the experience. I was thinking about getting my glider
> instructor rating, and I felt that flying in a contest was something I
> ought to experience. Certainly participating in a skydiving
> competition is required to become a skydiving instructor, and I always
> thought the requirement was a good one.
>
> Turned out I needed a Silver badge. It was kind of amusing, because
> another pilot was dead set on entering the contest. Like me, he had
> already flown a qualifying flight, and unlike me he actually attempted
> to document it - but something had gone wrong with the documentation
> and he needed to redo it. The day was marginal, but he declared the
> flight, saying that he would either get his Silver that day or land
> out. He landed out. I believe he eventually got the SSA to accept
> his original documentation and entered the contest. He was
> persistent. I guess I wasn't.
>
> I never did enter a contest. I eventually got my glider instructor
> rating and taught some. I still fly a great deal, but mostly in
> power. Less hassle, more fun. I still teach too, but also mostly in
> power. I just finished teaching a glider pilot to fly instruments.
> He also doesn't have a Silver badge, even though he has made more than
> one qualifying flight. He doesn't fly gliders anymore either. But
> hey, I'm sure keeping guys like us out is a small price to pay for
> maintaining the integrity of the badge system. After all, if we were
> truly serious, we would have overcome the obstacles. I'm sure soaring
> is better off without us.
>
> Michael

[Jack]

On 6/16/04 6:38 PM, in article
, "Michael"
> wrote:

> Pete Brown > wrote
>> Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
>> a record of personal achievement, very little more.
>
> Well, not quite. For one thing, they are used as a prerequisite for
> entering contests.

[....]

> I never did enter a contest. I eventually got my glider instructor
> rating and taught some. I still fly a great deal, but mostly in
> power. Less hassle, more fun. I still teach too, but also mostly in
> power. I just finished teaching a glider pilot to fly instruments.
> He also doesn't have a Silver badge, even though he has made more than
> one qualifying flight. He doesn't fly gliders anymore either. But
> hey, I'm sure keeping guys like us out is a small price to pay for
> maintaining the integrity of the badge system. After all, if we were
> truly serious, we would have overcome the obstacles. I'm sure soaring
> is better off without us.

I'm sure it is not better off. However, to be fair, if it wasn't the badge
system it would have been something else -- considering the route you have
traveled since.

Here's hoping you come back to soaring someday soon.

In the meantime, those of us who stay will continue to try to improve the
system, and to make those badge flights (paperwork and all) just to show we
are as good as those who went before, and as good as those who will come
after.



Jack

[Michael]

"f.blair" > wrote
> I can't believe that the documentation for the Silver flight made you leave
> Soaring.

It didn't. But see, had I gone to the contest and gotten hooked, I
might still be soaring regularly.

What made me leave? There was a higher fun/challenge to hassle ratio
in other forrms of aviation. The documentation was just one of the
hassles - there were many others. I know many, many glider-rated
pilots who are still flying regularly - just not in gliders. Those
are ALL people with the time, money, and desire to fly who gave
soaring a shot - and were not retained.

> The flight back with it's challenges is what keeps people in Soaring

You're right. Some people are dedicated enought that they stay in
despite the hassles.

> In my personal opinion, cross
> country experience should be required of any CFIG so that you can prepare
> the students for all phases of Soaring, just my 2 cents worth.

And I agree with you. In fact, it IS required most places. In the
UK, the Silver is required before you can instruct at any level. When
I found that out, I put my CFIG training on hold until I met the
requirement. I guess I was of the opinion that what counted was
making the flight, not the documentation. I'm not so sure anymore.

> Next time you are droning across the sky in the rented power plane, keep
> looking at the clouds and wondering if I was in a glider could I get from
> here to there.

There is much, much more to power flying than what you describe. It
has its own challenges. Sure, droning along in a rental Cherokee on a
blue sky day isn't much of a challenge. In fact, if that were my only
other option, I would still be soaring, in spite of the hassles. In
power as in soaring, doing the fun stuff generally requires that you
become an owner. Go cross the Gulf of Mexico sometime (in a twin, of
course) in and out of cloud, dodging T-storms by a combination of
visual and electronic references, and top it off with a landing on a
2700x20 strip in the Florida Keys with a built-in 20kt crosswind -
then tell me about challenge.

Michael

[Pete Reinhart]

All,
Michael makes two very salient points:
1. The hassel to fun ratio is very high in soaring.
2. You can have a lot of fun flying an airplane. In addition, the hassel
factor is , in most cases, much lower.
I add a couple of my own;
3. There is little cost difference.
4. There is very little seasonal variation in usefulness, that is, you can
power fly all year round.
5. No SSA politics and a generally friendlier bunch at the airport as
opposed to the glider operation.
All that said, I'm back in a glider after a 20 year lay off.
Cheers!, Pete
"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "f.blair" > wrote
> > I can't believe that the documentation for the Silver flight made you
leave
> > Soaring.
>
> It didn't. But see, had I gone to the contest and gotten hooked, I
> might still be soaring regularly.
>
> What made me leave? There was a higher fun/challenge to hassle ratio
> in other forrms of aviation. The documentation was just one of the
> hassles - there were many others. I know many, many glider-rated
> pilots who are still flying regularly - just not in gliders. Those
> are ALL people with the time, money, and desire to fly who gave
> soaring a shot - and were not retained.
>
> > The flight back with it's challenges is what keeps people in Soaring
>
> You're right. Some people are dedicated enought that they stay in
> despite the hassles.
>
> > In my personal opinion, cross
> > country experience should be required of any CFIG so that you can
prepare
> > the students for all phases of Soaring, just my 2 cents worth.
>
> And I agree with you. In fact, it IS required most places. In the
> UK, the Silver is required before you can instruct at any level. When
> I found that out, I put my CFIG training on hold until I met the
> requirement. I guess I was of the opinion that what counted was
> making the flight, not the documentation. I'm not so sure anymore.
>
> > Next time you are droning across the sky in the rented power plane, keep
> > looking at the clouds and wondering if I was in a glider could I get
from
> > here to there.
>
> There is much, much more to power flying than what you describe. It
> has its own challenges. Sure, droning along in a rental Cherokee on a
> blue sky day isn't much of a challenge. In fact, if that were my only
> other option, I would still be soaring, in spite of the hassles. In
> power as in soaring, doing the fun stuff generally requires that you
> become an owner. Go cross the Gulf of Mexico sometime (in a twin, of
> course) in and out of cloud, dodging T-storms by a combination of
> visual and electronic references, and top it off with a landing on a
> 2700x20 strip in the Florida Keys with a built-in 20kt crosswind -
> then tell me about challenge.
>
> Michael

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Pete Reinhart
> writes
>All,
>Michael makes two very salient points:
>1. The hassel to fun ratio is very high in soaring.

Not if you have a share in a motor glider. Including self-sustainers
of course, including Schempp's Turbos.

Anyway, when there was hassle on gliding fields in my youth, that did
not put me off. mending cable breaks was all too common, soaring was
not. It is the other way round nowadays, fortunately.

But I am a lifelong fanatic, which others obviously are not.

Soaring is always challenging but some times it may not be fun when you
are about to land in some nasty field a long way fro base. Hence my
long-term addiction to having an "outboard engine" like the small
sailing boats I used to crew for .....

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK