UH's comment was that the rules were approved a couple of days ago. I
read what's on the SSA site and it says no COTS at the nationals
level, period. Regionals are subject to specific RC approval/waiver.
To be fair, the RC was very receptive to P3's and my arguments last
fall and examples of how COTS can be made at least as secure as IGC
loggers. At the time, they simply didn't know much about this
alternative. The COTS route isn't perfect. For example, in the case of
the Garmin GPSMAP 76 that P3 and I use(d), you are recording GPS
altitude only. That can differ from pressure altitude by several
hundred feet, usually on the high side, so you're taking a chance that
your altimeter (and primary logger) could say you were in the start
cylinder (or uncontrolled airspace) and your backup logger might say
something to the contrary. The burden is on the pilot. Otherwise, we
didn't see anything about the right COTS logger(s) and download
software that was any less secure than a primary IGC logger that, for
example, isn't checked at point in the current process to verify that
the pilot actually carried it in his/her own glider.

To repeat, the RC has said they're willing to look at and approve
specific COTS/software combinations where security isn't jeopardized,
and I believe they're sincere. But per the published Rules for 2009,
that does NOT apply to national contests, whether or not you're vying
for the US Team.

And don't talk to me about borrowing an IGC logger for, say, the
Sports Class in Elmira. The IGC logger I borrowed last May didn't have
a security seal at the time. Many of the CAI Model 20s lying around
are the same way. With no disrespect intended, I can buy a replacement
COTS with a built in moving map, self-contained power, and infinitely
higher reliability for what it costs to have the security reset on my
CAI MOdel 20. I shouldn't HAVE to borrow one of these things. That's
the argument that was tossed out years ago when loggers cost $3,000
(though we were assured they would soon be only hundreds of dollars)
and were made mandatory. We've been down this path before. We have a
chance to do it a little more equitably this time. All it takes is a
reasonable weighing of the costs and benefits. I think the RC does try
to think in these terms informally but we really haven't given them
much in the way of specific direction to do so formally. That's the
idea I raised. I don't think that constitutes disrespect or bitching
or rabble rousing. I believe the terms I've heard before are
"constructive debate" and "specific suggestions."

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA