IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

And while awaiting for Al's appology, I decided to no longer post my
flights to olc. I am sure I am not going to be the only one with this
decision .

Signing off,

Ramy



wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

The flight in question is this one here .
http://tinyurl.com/fe2k8

I ask users of both software to look at this flight and report their
findings.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

Thanks

Al

Ramy wrote:
And while awaiting for Al's appology, I decided to no longer post my
flights to olc. I am sure I am not going to be the only one with this
decision .

Excellent!

If it ever stops raining, I move to the head of the pack -- only need
about 15,000 more points.


Jack

588 wrote:
Ramy wrote:
And while awaiting for Al's appology, I decided to no longer post my
flights to olc. I am sure I am not going to be the only one with this
decision .

Excellent!

If it ever stops raining, I move to the head of the pack -- only need
about 15,000 more points.

To paraphrase a contest pilot (Dick Wolters, I think) who said "Look,
honey! I'm ahead of the guy that went home two days ago!" Now it's
"Look, honey! I'm ahead of the guy that stopped posting two months ago!"
I know the feeling - persistence counts, I say.

I wonder if the OLC will pick up some pilots that will now see the
contest as more fair and sportsmanlike?

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

Strepla is clearly wrong on the altitude, as I told you privately, I
carefully extracted all of the pressure altitude data from the IGC file,
and there wasn't a single fix that exceeded 18,000 feet, once corrected
for the *landing* altitude and calibration error. I invite you to do
the same.

The airspace problem is more complicated, we're talking a hundred or so
feet either side of the boundary. Given that there are not two, but
actually three pieces of software involved (SeeYou, Strepla, and
WinPilot), minor calculation errors in any of them could put one on
either side of the boundary. I have no desire to put any energy into
figuring out how the fixes in the IGC file relate to the published
airspace boundary, but perhaps someone else does.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

I believe you owe Ramy an apology in any case, it is ridiculous to be
wasting time on violations that don't amount to much more than 100 feet,
at worst.

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...

Marc

Total Madness. (Which is a great compilation of ska tunes from a band
that could teach us all to lighten up.)
Jim

"JS" wrote in message
oups.com...

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...

Marc

Total Madness. (Which is a great compilation of ska tunes from a band
that could teach us all to lighten up.)
Jim


But what if he went "One Step Beyond"!?!?!?

Marc you TOLD me that you had reviewed please pass along the file or
other data that supports your claim.

Enough hearsay as there is obviously a software error here on either
Seeyou or Strepla.

Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
incursion either way you look at it.
I would be curious to here that form contest scorers.

I remember a case a while back a pilot was allowed a turnpoint in a
contest even though the GPS point was not in the turn zone. It was
later protested out and his flight devalued.

Thanks

Al


Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
OK in order to sort a dispute that is running between Ramy and myself.

Anal nit-picking has now become the most important aspect of soaring,
apparently, thanks to the SSA-OLC collaboration...

I have Strepla which shows minor airspace and altitude violations which
Seeyou does not.

FYI. Ramy's Logger Calibration report shows a +169ft error at 18000ft.

Strepla is clearly wrong on the altitude, as I told you privately, I
carefully extracted all of the pressure altitude data from the IGC file,
and there wasn't a single fix that exceeded 18,000 feet, once corrected
for the *landing* altitude and calibration error. I invite you to do
the same.

The airspace problem is more complicated, we're talking a hundred or so
feet either side of the boundary. Given that there are not two, but
actually three pieces of software involved (SeeYou, Strepla, and
WinPilot), minor calculation errors in any of them could put one on
either side of the boundary. I have no desire to put any energy into
figuring out how the fixes in the IGC file relate to the published
airspace boundary, but perhaps someone else does.

If this exercise highlights a bug in Strepla I owe Ramy an apology.

I believe you owe Ramy an apology in any case, it is ridiculous to be
wasting time on violations that don't amount to much more than 100 feet,
at worst.

Marc

wrote:

Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
incursion either way you look at it.

No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device.
For a glider with a cheap altimeter and a cheap GPS, 1-200 feet is well
within the possible measurement error at 18K. 1000 feet isn't (usually).

Read some of the stuff to do with RVSM.

The calibration of the logger and altimeter doesn't take into account
the position error when connected to the glider static source. Then
there are the gliders where the static source is just cockpit pressure.
Even if it's accurate in the test chamber, God knows what an altimeter
or logger will say when screwed in the glider.

Dick Johnson's reports always begin with calibration of the pitot-static
system and he has been scathing about the inaccuracy of some gliders -
mostly due to poor positioning of static sources. He's found errors of
7 knots in airspeed readings. Imagine what means for altimeter accuracy.

How is a pilot to KNOW that his logger is recording 18,200ft when his
altimeter says 17,900ft? On the OLC, YOU see what the logger said. The
pilot only knew what his altimeter said. When he lands, he has no
evidence that his altimeter never saw a violation.

These are gliders with no natural vibration. Next time you're climbing
through 17,500 feet, tap your altimeter. Ten bucks says it will jump
more than 100 feet if it's more than 5 minutes since your last tap. If
you get to 25,000, it'll jump nearly 200 feet.

Set your altimeter sub-scale to quarter of an inch above QNH, tap it,
then wind it back to QNH and read the altimeter without tapping. Do it
again but start from quarter of an inch below QNH. Even at near sea
level altitudes, many gliders will differ by 50-100ft AT THE SAME QNH!

You've got a lot more faith in cheap instruments than I have, Al.

GC

Graeme Cant schrieb:

Lastly is a 100ft or 1000ft violation any different. it is still an
incursion either way you look at it.

No, it isn't. You can't ignore the accuracy of the measuring device.

Yes, it is. If your devices are inaccurate, then it's your
responsibility to add some extra safety margin. Simple as that.

Stefan