altitude record

[tango4]

I'm thinking of claiming a record. I have a valid IGC trace aquired recently
in the Pyrenees during which I climbed to 79275' ( yes seventy nine thousand
two hundred and seventy five feet ) after taking off at 8228' - a 71000 plus
gain of height. The logger was sealed in the glider, a nimbus 3 t, and
still is as is the trace, the flight was witnessed.

Although only dressed in shorts and t shirt I suffered no high altitude
effects and the EDS O2 system worked perfectly. Lift was frequently over 30
m/s although I'm damned if I can remember it being that good.

Anyone interested in the trace can mail me for a copy ( 40 kb )

Regards

Ian

[John Giddy]

tango4 wrote:
> I'm thinking of claiming a record. I have a valid IGC trace aquired
> recently in the Pyrenees during which I climbed to 79275' ( yes
> seventy nine thousand two hundred and seventy five feet ) after
> taking off at 8228' - a 71000 plus gain of height. The logger was
> sealed in the glider, a nimbus 3 t, and still is as is the trace,
> the flight was witnessed.
>
> Although only dressed in shorts and t shirt I suffered no high
> altitude effects and the EDS O2 system worked perfectly. Lift was
> frequently over 30 m/s although I'm damned if I can remember it
being
> that good.
>
> Anyone interested in the trace can mail me for a copy ( 40 kb )
>
> Regards
>
> Ian

Something wrong here. You would have died from your blood boiling
over about 53,000 feet !!! (Unless you were in a pressurised
glider...)
I suspect the logger has gone walkabout.
Cheers, John G.

[Bruce Greeff]

tango4 wrote:
> I'm thinking of claiming a record. I have a valid IGC trace aquired recently
> in the Pyrenees during which I climbed to 79275' ( yes seventy nine thousand
> two hundred and seventy five feet ) after taking off at 8228' - a 71000 plus
> gain of height. The logger was sealed in the glider, a nimbus 3 t, and
> still is as is the trace, the flight was witnessed.
>
> Although only dressed in shorts and t shirt I suffered no high altitude
> effects and the EDS O2 system worked perfectly. Lift was frequently over 30
> m/s although I'm damned if I can remember it being that good.
>
> Anyone interested in the trace can mail me for a copy ( 40 kb )
>
> Regards
>
> Ian
>
>
You would not have used one of those little old vacuum pump things to prove a
point would you? ;-)

[tango4]

Absolutely not. This is a genuine trace from my logger! The logger is in the
glider, still sealed in position ready for inspection. I go on holiday with
a lot of equipment but a vacuum pump is not one of them! The GPS altitude
echoes the pressure altitude in a similar manner but on a scale of perhaps
1:10

Ian



"Bruce Greeff" > wrote in message
...
> tango4 wrote:
> > I'm thinking of claiming a record. I have a valid IGC trace aquired
recently
> > in the Pyrenees during which I climbed to 79275' ( yes seventy nine
thousand
> > two hundred and seventy five feet ) after taking off at 8228' - a 71000
plus
> > gain of height. The logger was sealed in the glider, a nimbus 3 t, and
> > still is as is the trace, the flight was witnessed.
> >
> > Although only dressed in shorts and t shirt I suffered no high altitude
> > effects and the EDS O2 system worked perfectly. Lift was frequently over
30
> > m/s although I'm damned if I can remember it being that good.
> >
> > Anyone interested in the trace can mail me for a copy ( 40 kb )
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> You would not have used one of those little old vacuum pump things to
prove a
> point would you? ;-)

[Don Johnstone]

Ian

Surely you are not telling us all that the GPS accurately
recorded your true height but the barometric logger
got it wrong. This cannot be, and a valid trace as
well, this is blasphemy, the ICG sacred cow, the barometric
height widget has failed, the world will end.

Don
ASW17 401

At 10:24 06 August 2004, Tango4 wrote:
>Absolutely not. This is a genuine trace from my logger!
>The logger is in the
>glider, still sealed in position ready for inspection.
>I go on holiday with
>a lot of equipment but a vacuum pump is not one of
>them! The GPS altitude
>echoes the pressure altitude in a similar manner but
>on a scale of perhaps
>1:10
>
>Ian
>
>
>
>'Bruce Greeff' wrote in message
...
>> tango4 wrote:
>> > I'm thinking of claiming a record. I have a valid
>>>IGC trace aquired
>recently
>> > in the Pyrenees during which I climbed to 79275'
>>>( yes seventy nine
>thousand
>> > two hundred and seventy five feet ) after taking
>>>off at 8228' - a 71000
>plus
>> > gain of height. The logger was sealed in the glider,
>>>a nimbus 3 t, and
>> > still is as is the trace, the flight was witnessed.
>> >
>> > Although only dressed in shorts and t shirt I suffered
>>>no high altitude
>> > effects and the EDS O2 system worked perfectly. Lift
>>>was frequently over
>30
>> > m/s although I'm damned if I can remember it being
>>>that good.
>> >
>> > Anyone interested in the trace can mail me for a
>>>copy ( 40 kb )
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> >
>> You would not have used one of those little old vacuum
>>pump things to
>prove a
>> point would you? ;-)
>
>
>

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Don Johnstone
> writes
>Ian
>
>Surely you are not telling us all that the GPS accurately
>recorded your true height but the barometric logger
>got it wrong. This cannot be, and a valid trace as
>well, this is blasphemy, the ICG sacred cow, the barometric
>height widget has failed, the world will end.

There will always be occasional failures in systems needed for flight
verification. Cameras, barographs, GPS, pilots and OOs sometimes fail
to record what they are supposed to (I deliberately include human
factors as well as technical ones!).

The questions are, how often do problems occur, can they be easily seen
for what they are, and what "checks and balances" are there to prevent
false data from being used in validated claims.

In more detail:

(1) Is the failure obvious or is it difficult to detect?

In this case what seems to be a failure in pressure altitude recording
is easy to pick up. A gross error is easy to see, a small one is
difficult. I understand that this particular anomaly was due to the use
of a high input voltage to the recorder unit (up to 16.5 volts). The
anomaly is understood to have ceased when a 12 volt DC input was used.
Correspondence is taking place with the manufacturer and an announcement
giving more detail may be made shortly. Meanwhile users are advised to
be cautious in using battery inputs other than the large range of 12V
sealed lead-acid "gel" calls that are available worldwide.

and,

(2) Independent sources of data.

The merit of being able to compare the figures from two independent
altitude sensors (GPS above ellipsoid and ICAO ISA pressure altitude) is
clearly shown in the example. Relying on only one system, either
pressure or GPS, would lessen the chance of any anomalies being
detected.

and,

(3) Rate of anomalies found in IGC files.

How many significant anomalies are found in proportion to the total
number of IGC files looked at? Particularly, what is the "anomaly
rate" of electronic pressure altitude transducers and recording in IGC
files, compared to the recording of GPS altitudes in IGC files? In my
experience of analysing thousands of IGC files over the last 10 years,
the ratio is of the order of 1 to 10 in favour of pressure altitude
figures.

In other words, anomalies do occur, of course, but the large majority of
anomalies in terms of altitude figures in IGC files are in GPS altitude
compared to baro. Baro altitude is generally very reliably recorded,
GPS altitude in IGC files has a higher anomaly rate with unexplained
"spikes" both up and down and unlocks both with and without simultaneous
lat/long recording.

----------------------

Finally, pilots are advised to use high voltage inputs with caution
where equipment designed primarily for 12 volts DC is concerned. As
indicated above, up to 16.5 volts seems to have been used in the case
concerned and almost certainly caused this problem.

Please report any other suspected anomalies by email to me, including
the IGC file concerned as an attachment. The situation can then be
looked at and we can correspond with the manufacturer if this seems to
be required.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[John Galloway]

A Cambridge logger with low voltage?


At 05:12 09 August 2004, Tango4 wrote:
>Sorry you seem to have missed the point. My fully legal
>and observed flight
>using and IGC logger has provided a trace showing a
>climb to a barometric
>pressure altitude of nearly 80000'. I appear to have
>exposed a weakness in a
>brand of loggers that could be exploited quite simply.
>
>This was done accidentally by the way.
>
>Ian
>
>'jorgie' wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why would you only think of claiming the record, accepting
>>of course
>> that you didn't only get the 7,100 feet as suggested
>>by another post.
>> If I thought I had a valid claim I'd be getting it
>>certified pronto.
>>
>>
>> --
>> jorgie
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-------
>> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au
>>]
>> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when,
>>why, or what they
>fly -
>>
>
>
>

[f.blair]

No, a Colibri
"John Galloway" > wrote in message
...
> A Cambridge logger with low voltage?
>
>
> At 05:12 09 August 2004, Tango4 wrote:
> >Sorry you seem to have missed the point. My fully legal
> >and observed flight
> >using and IGC logger has provided a trace showing a
> >climb to a barometric
> >pressure altitude of nearly 80000'. I appear to have
> >exposed a weakness in a
> >brand of loggers that could be exploited quite simply.
> >
> >This was done accidentally by the way.
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >'jorgie' wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Why would you only think of claiming the record, accepting
> >>of course
> >> that you didn't only get the 7,100 feet as suggested
> >>by another post.
> >> If I thought I had a valid claim I'd be getting it
> >>certified pronto.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> jorgie
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>-------
> >> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au
> >>]
> >> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when,
> >>why, or what they
> >fly -
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>