Badges ? ... We don't need no stinkin' badges

[Doug Snyder]

My first BFR is coming up soon. That gives you an idea of how long I've
been flying. At this point, I figure Gold Distance and Duration are
quite doable on a "good" day. Those badges will be challenging, but
within reach. The altitude gain is not impossible, but unlikely where I
fly.

The biggest hold up to making some badge claims is cost. I'm not sure
I'm willing to cough up a grand for a data logger. I don't understand
why the igc files produced by my WinPilot ADV are unacceptable. Is
cheating that much of a problem in badge claims? Hell, by today's
standards, Gold Badges are fairly modest accomplishments. Are there
really glider pilots who would rather manipulate files than do the
flying? Quite frankly, I think the flying is easier. (and I'm a
programmer by profession)

Lately, I've been thinking about a barograph and a digital camera. On
the other hand, maybe the badges are just too much trouble.

Doug

[BTIZ]

you don't need no stinking data logger... but it does make things easier to
process.

Baro and camera work just fine.. but last I knew, digital cameras are out.
Still have to go back to the uncut negative for proof of sequence of turn
points etc.

Best to ask the Badge Lady

BT

"Doug Snyder" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My first BFR is coming up soon. That gives you an idea of how long I've
> been flying. At this point, I figure Gold Distance and Duration are
> quite doable on a "good" day. Those badges will be challenging, but
> within reach. The altitude gain is not impossible, but unlikely where I
> fly.
>
> The biggest hold up to making some badge claims is cost. I'm not sure
> I'm willing to cough up a grand for a data logger. I don't understand
> why the igc files produced by my WinPilot ADV are unacceptable. Is
> cheating that much of a problem in badge claims? Hell, by today's
> standards, Gold Badges are fairly modest accomplishments. Are there
> really glider pilots who would rather manipulate files than do the
> flying? Quite frankly, I think the flying is easier. (and I'm a
> programmer by profession)
>
> Lately, I've been thinking about a barograph and a digital camera. On
> the other hand, maybe the badges are just too much trouble.
>
> Doug
>

[bumper]

"Doug Snyder" > wrote in message On
> the other hand, maybe the badges are just too much trouble.
>
> Doug
>

I guess for some, the accomplishment and whatever recognition happens is
important. No problem. Me? I don't need no stinkin' badges either. I enjoy
soaring for it's own sake. I've been to 28,000 and at my age, have little
desire to do so again.

bumper

[Stewart Kissel]

Meeting soaring goals is 99% self achievement....if
badge flights do not interest you because of the hassle,
don't do them. Surely don't do them if you think parading
about with a stupid looking Gilligan's Island hat adorned
with badges means much to other pilots.

However if the effort to do the badge flight pushes
your limitations in a safe manner, then by all means
use them to open the door to the beauty of cross country.

[[email protected]]

Different people soar for different reasons. Some live for contests,
some like the challenge of badge work, and some like Bumper and me just
love to soar for the sake of soaring, with no predefined route. That
way, when we get up and see better conditions somewhere they weren't
expected, we can strike out in that direction instead of being confined
to a declared route.

While that is my preferred mode of soaring, I am thankful for all the
different types attracted to this sport. We are few enough in number
that we need to value every addition. And, even if that weren't the
case, it's absoultely understandable that different people soar for
different reasons. I was glad to see that this thread hadn't
degenerated into a "But that isn't REAL soaring," kind of thing. There
are probably as many perceptions of what constitutes "real soaring" as
there are glider pilots.

Martin

[Kilo Charlie]

On several occasions here in Arizona, someone has offered to lend a flight
logger to a pilot so that they may use it for a badge attempt. If you only
need it for a day or two that works great as long as you fly where there are
other folks and that they are willing to do that. Obviously you'll need
power to the logger and if it doesn't have a GPS as part of it will need to
borrow one of those too. Seems like that may be the easiest solution if
you're just wanting it for a flight or two.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Eric Greenwell]

Stewart Kissel wrote:

> However if the effort to do the badge flight pushes
> your limitations in a safe manner, then by all means
> use them to open the door to the beauty of cross country.

I think this is the best reason for pursuing badges or records. For me,
the focus on a task (Badge, record, or contest), with it's planning and
commitment, is a pleasant change from the rambling exploration I
normally do about 70% of the time.

This year, I discovered a very enjoyable combination some of the best
features rambling and a task: the OLC (Online Contest). It lets you go
off in any direction you like at any time, since a task isn't declared,
but some planning before the flight and a little strategy (mainly, keep
the first 3 legs long) during the flight can yield a much higher score.

This year I focused on doing long O&R flights to visit as much new
territory as possible (after 30 years of flying from Richland, WA, the
first 100 miles in any direction was becoming a "commute"). Inspired by
pilots like Kempton Izuno and Gordon Boettger, and empowered by Dr.
Jack's Blipmaps, I had a very successful season. No badges or records
yet, but some great flights. Next year I will continue to pursue long
O&Rs, and also distance flights if the weather is good or better at the
turnpoint.

All to be placed on the OLC, of course, hoping others will be inspired.
I'd especially like to see motorglider pilots become more adventurous.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> On several occasions here in Arizona, someone has offered to lend a flight
> logger to a pilot so that they may use it for a badge attempt. If you only
> need it for a day or two that works great as long as you fly where there are
> other folks and that they are willing to do that. Obviously you'll need
> power to the logger and if it doesn't have a GPS as part of it will need to
> borrow one of those too. Seems like that may be the easiest solution if
> you're just wanting it for a flight or two.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>
>
Where I come from it is not unheard of to lend the whole glider with the logger
in it to someone who wants to fly a badge, and does not have a suitable personal
aircraft. My Cirrus has done four Silver Cs that way.

What goes round comes round - next time you need a retrieve, and it certainly
helps the club/community thing...

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[ContestID67]

Quick - where did the line "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
come from?

[Tim Ward]

"ContestID67" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Quick - where did the line "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
> come from?
>
Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Tim Ward

[ContestID67]

Give that man a free $100 tow.

With Humphrey Bogart. Great dark movie about human greed.

- John

[Northlondon]

and there was me thinking it was a reference to UHF (weird Al Jankovic)

Raul to television audience: "Today we're teaching poodles to fly."
Raul to delivery man with truckload of badgers: "Badgers!? We don't need no
steenking badgers!"

um..I guess you have to hear that in context.

[Tony Verhulst]

ContestID67 wrote:
> Quick - where did the line "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
> come from?
>

Mel Brooks "Blazing Saddles"

Tony V.

[Mike the Strike]

First known usage:

Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Gold Hat (Mexican): "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no
badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges."

Mike

Tony Verhulst wrote:
> ContestID67 wrote:
> > Quick - where did the line "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
> > come from?
> >
>
> Mel Brooks "Blazing Saddles"
>
> Tony V.

[Doug Snyder]

Ok, I didn't get the quote quite right. I was going for the Treasure of
the Sierra Madre allusion.

The question remains, is cheating in badge flights so rampant as to
justify the cost difference between secure and non secure igc files? I
mean really, in a land of conspiracy theories, I could always get
someone else to do the flying for me.

The truth is, I would like to have that Gilligan's Island hat with the
the pins. I guess I'll wait until I can borrow a logger (a real
possibility) or until I buy a logger for contest purposes.

In the meantime, I'll have fun flying. I hope everyone else does too.
It was never my intention to denigrate badge flying or those who pursue
badges.

Doug

[ttaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Doug,

The answer is no. There is no reason why for most country specific
badges a GPS trace is not good enough. We should allow that for all
flights up to gaining the gold badge. We need to lower the cost and
encourage badge flying. It builds skills and discipline that make
better cross-country pilots. We have let the paranoid take over again.
If someone wants to cheat on a badge that is their problem. No one
but ourselves care about what we did to earn the badge.

I have old cameras you can have if you want them and I have an EW-D
logger you can barrow if you would like to try some badge flights. All
you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.

I just got news today that my diamond badge was approved. Only took 14
years to get that pesky altitude gain knocked off. And yes, it was
worth the trouble to get it.

Tim

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Snyder wrote:
> Ok, I didn't get the quote quite right. I was going for the Treasure of
> the Sierra Madre allusion.
>
> The question remains, is cheating in badge flights so rampant as to
> justify the cost difference between secure and non secure igc files? I
> mean really, in a land of conspiracy theories, I could always get
> someone else to do the flying for me.
>
> The truth is, I would like to have that Gilligan's Island hat with the
> the pins. I guess I'll wait until I can borrow a logger (a real
> possibility) or until I buy a logger for contest purposes.

Cameras and mechanical barographs are quite suitable for badge flights.
You can buy a usable 35 mm cameras in any thrift store for a dollar or
so, then you just have to find an "old timer" with a barograph to loan
you. You may know a person like that already, and he might be a good
choice for an official observer. Since he owns one, he probably knows
the procedures for badges using cameras and barographs.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jancsika]

ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:

>
> I have old cameras you can have if you want them and I have an EW-D
> logger you can barrow if you would like to try some badge flights. All
> you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.

Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc file will be fine;)
This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year. Few enthusiastic
pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing has changed so
far:(

/Janos

[Jancsika]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> Cameras and mechanical barographs are quite suitable for badge flights.
> You can buy a usable 35 mm cameras in any thrift store for a dollar or
> so, then you just have to find an "old timer" with a barograph to loan
> you. You may know a person like that already, and he might be a good
> choice for an official observer. Since he owns one, he probably knows
> the procedures for badges using cameras and barographs.
>

Yes, but there is hugh disadvantage. While I just fly over the
turnpont and turn after the beep, the camera user has to fly well over
the turnpont -> bank the glider -> realize that it was not enough -> go
a but further again -> bank again -> take one or two pictures. It's
valid for all turnpoints including start sector.
I already donated my 35mm camera to the club but noone use it...

/Jancsika

[Andrew Warbrick]

Don't be misleading.

If someone tries to claim a badge using an EW and a
'mouse type GPS' it will be rejected. The IGC approval
of the EW barographs requires the use of a GPS off
an approved list. The approved list GPS's output a
proprietary NMEA sentence for selected map datum which
is recorded by the logger to stop people displacing
turnpoints by changing map datum in flight.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, there
is an argument for COTS loggers, but this is the way
it is, you can't claim a badge with an EW and just
any old GPS.

At 08:54 16 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> I have old cameras you can have if you want them and
>>I have an EW-D
>> logger you can barrow if you would like to try some
>>badge flights. All
>> you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.
>
> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc
>file will be fine;)
> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year.
>Few enthusiastic
>pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing
>has changed so
>far:(
>
>/Janos
>

[Jancsika]

Hehe, if there is no datum change from the GPS (like in case of most
of the mouse type GPS) the final igc file will be the same as if it were
from an approved Garmin. This is what I said. Yes, it's against the
current rules, but who cares. Let's have their fun with the valid igc file;)

/jancsika


Andrew Warbrick wrote:
> Don't be misleading.
>
> If someone tries to claim a badge using an EW and a
> 'mouse type GPS' it will be rejected. The IGC approval
> of the EW barographs requires the use of a GPS off
> an approved list. The approved list GPS's output a
> proprietary NMEA sentence for selected map datum which
> is recorded by the logger to stop people displacing
> turnpoints by changing map datum in flight.
>
> I'm not saying this is the way it should be, there
> is an argument for COTS loggers, but this is the way
> it is, you can't claim a badge with an EW and just
> any old GPS.
>
> At 08:54 16 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>
>>ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have old cameras you can have if you want them and
>>>I have an EW-D
>>>logger you can barrow if you would like to try some
>>>badge flights. All
>>>you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.
>>
>> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc
>>file will be fine;)
>> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year.
>>Few enthusiastic
>>pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing
>>has changed so
>>far:(
>>
>>/Janos
>>
>
>
>
>

[toad]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Cameras and mechanical barographs are quite suitable for badge flights.
> ...

When I started flying XC and trying for my silver badge, I read the
rules for camera/baro, made 1 attempt, then decided that all of the
rigamarole was not worth it and bought a Colibri. Then all I had to do
was declare the flight and fly it !

Todd
3S

[Andrew Warbrick]

I realise you are just trying to recruit disgruntled
pilots to the COTS cause. They will be disgruntled
because their NAC will have rejected their claim.

I'll say it again, clearer this time and using shorter
words. The EW will log with any GPS but it will only
make an IGC file valid for a badge claim with one of
the approved GPS's, your NAC will reject a claim made
with an EW and any non approved GPS. You could, in
theory, build a circuit to inject valid datum sentences
into the EW, but any OO who let you get away with it
shouldn't be an OO and it's more effort than just using
an approved GPS.

At 10:24 16 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>
> Hehe, if there is no datum change from the GPS (like
>in case of most
>of the mouse type GPS) the final igc file will be the
>same as if it were
>from an approved Garmin. This is what I said. Yes,
>it's against the
>current rules, but who cares. Let's have their fun
>with the valid igc file;)
>
>/jancsika
>
>
>Andrew Warbrick wrote:
>> Don't be misleading.
>>
>> If someone tries to claim a badge using an EW and
>>a
>> 'mouse type GPS' it will be rejected. The IGC approval
>> of the EW barographs requires the use of a GPS off
>> an approved list. The approved list GPS's output a
>> proprietary NMEA sentence for selected map datum which
>> is recorded by the logger to stop people displacing
>> turnpoints by changing map datum in flight.
>>
>> I'm not saying this is the way it should be, there
>> is an argument for COTS loggers, but this is the way
>> it is, you can't claim a badge with an EW and just
>> any old GPS.
>>
>> At 08:54 16 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>>
>>>ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have old cameras you can have if you want them and
>>>>I have an EW-D
>>>>logger you can barrow if you would like to try some
>>>>badge flights. All
>>>>you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.
>>>
>>> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc
>>>file will be fine;)
>>> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year.
>>>Few enthusiastic
>>>pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing
>>>has changed so
>>>far:(
>>>
>>>/Janos
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jancsika]

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
> I realise you are just trying to recruit disgruntled
> pilots to the COTS cause. They will be disgruntled
> because their NAC will have rejected their claim.

You are right more or less;) I do hate that we have to buy an
(otherwise fantastic) expensive tool for this purpose.

> I'll say it again, clearer this time and using shorter
> words. The EW will log with any GPS but it will only
> make an IGC file valid for a badge claim with one of
> the approved GPS's, your NAC will reject a claim made
> with an EW and any non approved GPS. You could, in
> theory, build a circuit to inject valid datum sentences
> into the EW, but any OO who let you get away with it
> shouldn't be an OO and it's more effort than just using
> an approved GPS.
>

No, EW WILL create valid IGC file with any GPS provides (RMC, GGA)
NMEA sentences at 4800. EW could recognize if there is a change in datum
if you use a garmin, because garmin sends this information inside NMEA.
I can send samples if you need.
There is no need to create any special circuit.
And I think at least 99% of the OO will accept it.

/jancsika (finally a Colibri user)

[Marc Ramsey]

Jancsika wrote:
> ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> I have old cameras you can have if you want them and I have an EW-D
>> logger you can barrow if you would like to try some badge flights. All
>> you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.
>
>
> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc file will be fine;)
> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year. Few enthusiastic pilot
> joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing has changed so far:(

Like it, or not, if one wants to get a badge with an EW, one must use
one of the Garmin GPS units listed in the approval document...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Jancsika wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>
>> Cameras and mechanical barographs are quite suitable for badge
>> flights. You can buy a usable 35 mm cameras in any thrift store for a
>> dollar or so, then you just have to find an "old timer" with a
>> barograph to loan you. You may know a person like that already, and he
>> might be a good choice for an official observer. Since he owns one, he
>> probably knows the procedures for badges using cameras and barographs.
>>
>
> Yes, but there is hugh disadvantage. While I just fly over the turnpont
> and turn after the beep, the camera user has to fly well over the
> turnpont -> bank the glider -> realize that it was not enough -> go a
> but further again -> bank again -> take one or two pictures. It's valid
> for all turnpoints including start sector.

I don't think this is a huge disadvantage for a badge flight, where
speed is not the essence of the flight. I used cameras for my badge
flights, and had very little trouble. Easily identifiable turnpoints
should be chosen, and the pilot should practice taking pictures locally
before making the badge flights. With this practice, it takes perhaps a
minute or so longer to do it than with a GPS. That's a maximum of two
minutes extra on an O&R, four minutes extra on a triangle flight. This
is not what will keep a new pilot from success.

If the pilot is navigating with a cheap GPS, it may not even take a
minute extra at the turnpoint, but perhaps 20 seconds, based on my
experience.

For record flights (especially speed), for small clubs where an official
observer may be hard to get just before the flight, and for the
convenience of the OO, a logger is very useful. For free turnpoint
flights and the OLC, of course, it is a requirement.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jancsika]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Jancsika wrote:
>
>> ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have old cameras you can have if you want them and I have an EW-D
>>> logger you can barrow if you would like to try some badge flights. All
>>> you need is a Garmin GPS to feed a signal to it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc file will be fine;)
>> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year. Few enthusiastic
>> pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing has changed
>> so far:(
>
>
> Like it, or not, if one wants to get a badge with an EW, one must use
> one of the Garmin GPS units listed in the approval document...
>
> Marc

It's just funny to see the weakness of the system...
There is a good summary about other possibilities in Sailplane&Gliding
June-July page 53.

/Jancsika

[Eric Greenwell]

Jancsika wrote:

>>> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc file will be fine;)
>>> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year. Few enthusiastic
>>> pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing has changed
>>> so far:(
>>
>>
>>
>> Like it, or not, if one wants to get a badge with an EW, one must use
>> one of the Garmin GPS units listed in the approval document...
>>
>> Marc
>
>
> It's just funny to see the weakness of the system...

It's my understanding the IGC file will NOT be fine if a mouse type GPS
is used, because it will be missing the NMEA sentence with the datum
that is in use. With a Garmin GPS, the sentence is not sent only when
the datum is changed, but with every data point.

I also suspect the Garmin GPS sends a sentence identifying itself, which
is recorded in the file, but I don't know that for sure. Perhaps Marc or
other knowledgeable person can comment?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jancsika]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Jancsika wrote:
>
>>>> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc file will be fine;)
>>>> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year. Few enthusiastic
>>>> pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but nothing has
>>>> changed so far:(
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like it, or not, if one wants to get a badge with an EW, one must use
>>> one of the Garmin GPS units listed in the approval document...
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>>
>>
>> It's just funny to see the weakness of the system...
>
>
> It's my understanding the IGC file will NOT be fine if a mouse type GPS
> is used, because it will be missing the NMEA sentence with the datum
> that is in use. With a Garmin GPS, the sentence is not sent only when
> the datum is changed, but with every data point.
>
> I also suspect the Garmin GPS sends a sentence identifying itself, which
> is recorded in the file, but I don't know that for sure. Perhaps Marc or
> other knowledgeable person can comment?
>
>

At startup some GPS sends (even a cheap mouse type could do it) this
data but to get a valid IGC file boot messages doesn't have to be in the
NMEA stream. I sent you one example (Vali-ewa.exe validated this).
Regards,

/Janos

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 06:24 20 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Jancsika wrote:
>>
>>>>> Or any other cheap mouse type GPS. The final igc
>>>>>file will be fine;)
>>>>> This badge&cheap GPS issue come up year by year.
>>>>>Few enthusiastic
>>>>> pilot joined and created COTS proposal to IGC but
>>>>>nothing has
>>>>> changed so far:(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like it, or not, if one wants to get a badge with
>>>>an EW, one must use
>>>> one of the Garmin GPS units listed in the approval
>>>>document...
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's just funny to see the weakness of the system...
>>
>>
>> It's my understanding the IGC file will NOT be fine
>>if a mouse type GPS
>> is used, because it will be missing the NMEA sentence
>>with the datum
>> that is in use. With a Garmin GPS, the sentence is
>>not sent only when
>> the datum is changed, but with every data point.
>>
>> I also suspect the Garmin GPS sends a sentence identifying
>>itself, which
>> is recorded in the file, but I don't know that for
>>sure. Perhaps Marc or
>> other knowledgeable person can comment?
>>
>>
>
> At startup some GPS sends (even a cheap mouse type
>could do it) this
>data but to get a valid IGC file boot messages doesn't
>have to be in the
>NMEA stream. I sent you one example (Vali-ewa.exe validated
>this).
> Regards,
>
>/Janos
>

Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
should reject the claim.

[Jancsika]

Andrew Warbrick
>
> Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
> of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
> records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
> should reject the claim.
>

Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?

"The following fixes are not recorded as being relative to the WGS84
geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes are not used
to validate the flight.

22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04 11:24:02 UTC inclusive.

EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc' is VALID."

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 08:36 20 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>Andrew Warbrick
>>
>> Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
>> of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
>> records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
>> should reject the claim.
>>
>
>Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?
>
>'The following fixes are not recorded as being relative
>to the WGS84
>geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes
>are not used
>to validate the flight.
>
> 22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04
>11:24:02 UTC inclusive.
>
>EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc'
>is VALID.'
>
That's interesting, it would appear I was wrong. Are
you saying that file was generated with a 'mouse GPS'
and contains more than 22 fixes?

I was under the impression the datum record would only
be generated by Garmin's proprietary PGRMM sentence.
My 'mouse GPS', based on the SiRF chipset definitely
can't output this sentence.

I'm afraid I can't do any testing, as I haven't owned
an EW for nearly four years now. If you've got sample
files, feel free to send me a copy (I do have some
old files generated with an IGC upgraded EW model B
and a GPS from the approved list).

[Jancsika]

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
> At 08:36 20 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
>
>>Andrew Warbrick
>>
>>>Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
>>>of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
>>>records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
>>>should reject the claim.
>>>
>>
>>Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?
>>
>>'The following fixes are not recorded as being relative
>>to the WGS84
>>geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes
>>are not used
>>to validate the flight.
>>
>> 22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04
>>11:24:02 UTC inclusive.
>>
>>EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc'
>>is VALID.'
>>
>
> That's interesting, it would appear I was wrong. Are
> you saying that file was generated with a 'mouse GPS'
> and contains more than 22 fixes?
>
> I was under the impression the datum record would only
> be generated by Garmin's proprietary PGRMM sentence.
> My 'mouse GPS', based on the SiRF chipset definitely
> can't output this sentence.
>
> I'm afraid I can't do any testing, as I haven't owned
> an EW for nearly four years now. If you've got sample
> files, feel free to send me a copy (I do have some
> old files generated with an IGC upgraded EW model B
> and a GPS from the approved list).

I checked the official specification and you are partly right. GPS
shall send the datum change but if there was no change (or GPS boot up)
while the EW is connected you won't have datum info. In this case the OO
is responsible to ensure that the GPS sends (is set to do) WGS84 based data.
The specification says also something about the previous vali
revision. So probably you referred to a previous version.
It's not important, it's just something to show that we are almost at
the COTS security level;)


/jancsika

[Marc Ramsey]

Jancsika wrote:
> I checked the official specification and you are partly right. GPS
> shall send the datum change but if there was no change (or GPS boot up)
> while the EW is connected you won't have datum info. In this case the OO
> is responsible to ensure that the GPS sends (is set to do) WGS84 based
> data.
> The specification says also something about the previous vali revision.
> So probably you referred to a previous version.
> It's not important, it's just something to show that we are almost at
> the COTS security level;)

The approval document makes it quite clear in Annex B1.1 that "only
listed GPS units which conform to the criteria given under 'hardware' at
the beginning of this document are permitted for IGC flight evidence"
and that it is the official observer's responsibility to "make a record
of the type and serial number of the GPS unit." So, independent of
whether it is detectable using the IGC file alone, an official observer
would have to falsely state the type of GPS unit used on the badge
application form for a claim using a GPS unit other than those listed.
If one can't trust OOs to follow the stated requirements, or make
truthful statements about EW equipment, there will be far more room for
OO mischief with COTS-based evidence.

No one questions that the EW units provide a lesser level of security
than other approved flight recorders. That is why they are only
approved for badges up to Diamonds. They nonetheless provide some
features that COTS units will not. In particular, they record pressure
altitude, and generate a digital signature that provides some nominal
assurance that the IGC file has not been tampered with after download.

Once again, I'll state that I support use of COTS evidence for badges.
But, any successful proposal is going to have to find a way to address
the concerns of the IGC delegates concerning the pressure altitude and
the validity of the evidence. If one argues that it is silly to be
concerned about these things for badges, then I (and others) will ask:
why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed statement that a badge
flight was completed as stated, and require no further evidence?

Marc

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 18:06 20 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
> If one argues that it is silly to be
>concerned about these things for badges, then I (and
>others) will ask:
>why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed statement
>that a badge
>flight was completed as stated, and require no further
>evidence?
>
>Marc
>

Probably mostly because thirty years ago some git was
faking world records and generated bad publicity for
gliding when he was found out.

[Eric Greenwell]

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
> At 18:06 20 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>>If one argues that it is silly to be
>>concerned about these things for badges, then I (and
>>others) will ask:
>>why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed statement
>>that a badge
>>flight was completed as stated, and require no further
>>evidence?
>>
>>Marc
>>
>
>
> Probably mostly because thirty years ago some git was
> faking world records and generated bad publicity for
> gliding when he was found out.

Taking it just on the pilot's word wasn't allowed before those
incidents, so I don't think that's it. In any case, Marc was referring
to badges, not world records.

Like Marc, I like the idea of COTS for badges, at least up to Diamond,
at which point I think the pilot is hooked and will buy an IGC recorder
without quibble. I'm not familiar with all the COTS proposals, but the
ones I've seen seem little more than taking the pilot's word for it. I
hope this situation will change, so it's cheaper to use GPS
documentation for the easier badges.

In the ideal world, the badge claim submission would be much like the
OLC, except the official observer would also submit some information,
and one minute later "Ta-Da!", a new badge is issued. OK, make it a day
or two, it'd still be more satisfying than the longer process now required.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jancsika]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Andrew Warbrick wrote:
>
>> At 18:06 20 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>> If one argues that it is silly to be concerned about these things for
>>> badges, then I (and
>>> others) will ask: why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed
>>> statement
>>> that a badge flight was completed as stated, and require no further
>>> evidence?
>>>
>>> Marc

Just because if we follow the COTS proposal more pilots will learn how
to use the whole system. How to declare a task, how to record the glider
path, how to analyze these logs etc-etc. The main issue: as side effect
they will learn how easy to fly a task with GPS support!
The badge system should motivate pilots to do something more. The
whole soaring community could benefit if more people could discover XC
and other special (wave) soaring adventures. Next step could be a
contest or a new world record with "real" loggers;)
IGC is about to coordinate soaring on the whole world and not only the
part where IGC approved loggers are easy to reach...

Eric:

here is the COTS proposal:
http://bauerj.fw.hu/vitorla/COTS/PROPOSAL_TO_APPROVE_COTS.htm
I don't know if this is the latest version but at least it gives you
some more details.

/jancsika