Re: IGC Rejects Garmin GPS

[Michael]

> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >We're really talking about making it even easier than it ever was, not
> >"making it as easy as it used to be".

If you're standing still, you're falling behind. Even if you're
moving ahead slowly, you're probably falling behind. You may not like
that, but that's how it is.

EVERYTHING is easier than it used to be, mostly a lot easier. Soaring
is not the one and only thing in life (for most people), it's just
another form of recreation that has to compete for people and dollars
with other forms of recreation - which are mostly becoming
dramatically more customer-focused and hassle-free.

> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
> I didn't say the IGC isn't making any progress, just that words
> like "molasses" and "cold winter" come to mind.

Bingo.

> I'm a fan and advocate for a hopefully new source of
> soaring pilots: soaring consumers. They have choices,
> and some choose golf if the soaring barriers to entry (including
> barriers to entering contests) are too high...

There are barriers, and there are barriers. I think most people
accept the need and even desirability of barriers based on skill and
knowledge directly relevant to the sport. Nobody is suggesting that
someone who can't complete a silver distance flight should be in a
constest - any contest. On the other hand, barriers that are about
dealing with hassles and jumping through hoops are becoming less and
less acceptable. Some might call it paying dues, but most of us call
it crap.

I didn't choose golf when the barrier to entry became too high - but I
chose to largely abandon soaring in favor of powered flight. I know
many, many people who have done the same - and for the same reason.
They all love the actual soaring part of it - it's the hassles they
can't stand.

Michael

[Janos Bauer]

You right Mark, but as I experienced other pilots in my club don't buy
these units just because they are not IGC accepted and compared to their
limited income it looks as luxury. They lose the special xc experience
what a GPS could provide and some of them will leave this sport sooner
or later. As I heard it's somehow same for other clubs as well. It's
hard to convince these pilots with limited income to buy a GPS just for
navigation, but if it's also for documentation than the number of users
could increase again. The value of a GPS is always underestimated unless
you once try it for real xc.
Before I started to use GPS all the xc flights was full of stress for
me. More then 50% of my effort was spent on navigation. But now I can
really focus on the soaring part, I have all the informations what are
requested for in-flight decisions. It's something really different (much
more fun) and something what could keep pilots at the airports.
Regards,

/Janos


Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> It's that darned baro recalibration. I HATE that.
>> Beyond that I'd like to see COTS GPS used for badges so
>> they become ubiquitous in training aircraft.
>> Students could share flight info back and forth and O/Os don't have to
>> sit on the ground to note
>> when the glider landed for the Bronze badges (required for
>> entry in Sport's class contests).
>
>
> There is no reason why COTS GPS can't be ubiquitous in your training
> aircraft, right now. The track log functions work perfectly well,
> whether or not you can use them to get an FAI badge. The US Bronze
> badge rules are established by the SSA, so if you want to use COTS GPS
> to document these flights, why don't you petition them?
>
> Marc
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Janos Bauer wrote:
> You right Mark, but as I experienced other pilots in my club don't buy
> these units just because they are not IGC accepted and compared to their
> limited income it looks as luxury. They lose the special xc experience
> what a GPS could provide and some of them will leave this sport sooner
> or later. As I heard it's somehow same for other clubs as well. It's
> hard to convince these pilots with limited income to buy a GPS just for
> navigation, but if it's also for documentation than the number of users
> could increase again. The value of a GPS is always underestimated unless
> you once try it for real xc.

I'm sorry, Janos, but this is ridiculous. I don't know of anyone who
needs to document every flight they make with an IGC approved flight
recorder (it isn't the fault of the IGC that the OLC or other contests
require approved flight recorders in some countries). Your club could
buy an EW or two for use by members who are actually attempting a badge
flight. The rest could be happily navigating and recording their
flights with inexpensive non-approved GPS units. Frankly, I think if
COTS GPS units were approved for FAI badges tomorrow, people would still
find some reason to complain that it is just too difficult or expensive...

Marc

[Erik mann]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> I'm simply amazed at all the people who complain that it is too hard
> to get a silver badge! Gimme a break - Do the 5 hours in sight of the
> field, fly out to a field >50km away and land there, then borrow a
> logger (or even a barograph!), get your altitude, then if needed send
> off the logger to get it calibrated.
>
> That's hard?

Kirk,

Is 50Km hard? It depends. From KMEV in 12kts up to 9,000 AGL in a
40:1 glass bird - probably not. From an east coast field with 2kts up
to 4,000 AGL in a 23:1 club ship - yeah it's hard, especially for a
pilot who may never have been away from the home field in an aircraft
before.

But, I don't think anyone here is objecting to the challenge of the
flight itself. I think what really gets folks going is the
administrivia required to document this flight and, more importantly,
the high propensity for failure. I have no documented figures, but
in 20 years of soaring I would have to estimate that some 20% of
barograph recordings are no good for one reason or another. I've
seen everything from: forgot to wind the unit (duh) to paper peeled
away from drum (crap) to stylus got jammed against case due to the
hold down straps (ouch) to something moved and bumped the on/off
switch to off (doh). And that's just me! Just last week, a guy in
our club did a really great flight in his 1-26 that would have gotten
him Silver distance, except that he forgot to baseline the trace and
there was not a clear notch at his release from tow.

So, the real issue is that we have an opportunity to remove some of
the failure modes and do it using a piece of equipment that doesn't
need to be mailed into a calibration lab every year and can be
purchased at the local Walmart. I don't think anyone believes this
is the change that will radically alter the face of badge flying as we
know it, but it should help some people achieve that exciting first
"big badge" without being turned off by the administrative aspects.

[Eric Greenwell]

Papa3 wrote:

>>The current IGC is made up of pilots who have accepted the
>>badge system and earned their badges. It's more likely
>>they'll continue to advocate this sytem than if the IGC
>>was made up of pilots who think the badge system is frustrating
>>and therefore didn't get their badges. Of course this second group
>>can't be IGC members. Sort of circular, isn't it?
>>
>>Built in hysterisis. Not entirely all bad, since some stability
>>is good, but we should be aware of it and help change along
>>a bit for the sake of the underrespresented pilots new
>>to the sport...
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Truly one of the most temperate and articulate posts on this subject in a
> long time. Power to the people!

I also agree with Mark's remarks. This situation, where the people
pleased with the current system are willing to work for the system,
tends to perpetuate the system. When I was an SSA director in the 80's,
I wanted the contest rules to "foster and promote" soaring, which meant
serving a larger purpose than just making the current contest pilots
happy. It was a hard sell philosophically, because many people truly
believe what is good for contests is good for the sport. It was also a
problem practically, for how do you get people that _might_ be
interested in contests to serve on the rules committee?

So, along Mark's line, maybe the SSA contest committee (and the similar
committee for the IGC), should have a "promotion/novice/etc" oriented
person to get the "entry level" pilot represented.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In the military, for FUN events, commonly the LEAST qualified person was
selected to run the event. For a dining in or post-deployment party,
the personnel officer would find the NEWEST, least experienced lieutenant
to run the thing. This provided much hilarity, and a lot of originality
to the events.

So (and I'm NOT suggesting this), these contest committees positions could
be offered to the LEAST qualified peole first. In other words, if you
meet the minimum qualifications, you are offered the job first, and if
you decline, the next minimally qualified person is offered the position,
and so on.

Not a good idea for the whole committee (remember, some hysterisis is good),
but perhaps an excellent idea for the "newbie" position.

Keep in mind that whole divisions of companies are fired sometimes
just based on their becoming stale and too resistant to change.
They are then replaced with the freshest, minimally qualified replacements.
A lot of times the outgoers are surprised by the "young" replacements.
In their ignorance, they fail to realise it is the young mind, not the
young age that prevails.

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Papa3 wrote:
>
> >>The current IGC is made up of pilots who have accepted the
>>>badge system and earned their badges. It's more likely
>>>they'll continue to advocate this sytem than if the IGC
>>>was made up of pilots who think the badge system is frustrating
>>>and therefore didn't get their badges. Of course this second group
>>>can't be IGC members. Sort of circular, isn't it?
>>>
>>>Built in hysterisis. Not entirely all bad, since some stability
>>>is good, but we should be aware of it and help change along
>>>a bit for the sake of the underrespresented pilots new
>>>to the sport...
>>
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Truly one of the most temperate and articulate posts on this subject in a
>> long time. Power to the people!
>
>I also agree with Mark's remarks. This situation, where the people
>pleased with the current system are willing to work for the system,
>tends to perpetuate the system. When I was an SSA director in the 80's,
>I wanted the contest rules to "foster and promote" soaring, which meant
>serving a larger purpose than just making the current contest pilots
>happy. It was a hard sell philosophically, because many people truly
>believe what is good for contests is good for the sport. It was also a
>problem practically, for how do you get people that _might_ be
>interested in contests to serve on the rules committee?
>
>So, along Mark's line, maybe the SSA contest committee (and the similar
>committee for the IGC), should have a "promotion/novice/etc" oriented
>person to get the "entry level" pilot represented.
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>


--

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