![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I fly in Italy, and Garmin COTS are accepted for badges up to gold,
excluding the heigth (1000 and 3000 m). For diamonds and 1000m, 3000m, 5000m you need an approved IGC logger. Once you understand that COTS can be manipulated anytime without even bothering touching the hardware, you also understand that an IGC approved recorder cannot even be tampered and leaves no doubts about the flight. If we consider a COTS like a camera, then it all comes down to the observation of a judge/supervisor just like with cameras in the good old times. Fact is, that there are too many COTS and unless there are some restrictions on models we cannot expect that a man is able to know and understand each of them. So there has to be a "white list" and a "black list". I fly with Garmin 76S and 76CSX. Like all Garmin models they cannot be hacked. There's no way one can change the firmware, otherwise one could also load pirated maps and everybody know that with Garmin it's impossible on COTS unless you have an unlock code. The newer Colorado 400T has glide calculations as well and seems to be the only valid alternatives to palms at least for basic data and good maps. However, with garmins you can save a flight and then load it back as the current track. Or you can load a track and then put it on as the current track. Not that this means anything, cause the track should be coherent to the flight times which you cannot predict. Personally I think that COTS are ok for most of the times, even in competitions if a competent supervisor is on the field. Paul "nimbusgb" ha scritto nel messaggio ... So, before we go off into fantasy land, let's start talking about the REALISTIC threats and the differences between the two approaches. IGC Approved loggers clearly have the advantage in that they offer an easier administrative approach at contests and other gatherings where there isn't direct supervision of the FRs. COTS loggers will require additional manual intervention which make them less attractive for those situations, but they are equally desirable for a supervised Silver C. Off to go skiing. At least I'll be on the ridge... P3 So we agree then! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Standalone Flight Recorders for Club Use | ContestID67 | Soaring | 8 | April 24th 07 01:27 AM |
Amendment 9 to the Technical Specification for IGC Flight Recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 0 | July 1st 06 06:50 PM |
IGC-approval levels for some types of Flight Recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 42 | March 19th 05 05:42 PM |
Commercial - Mounts for GPS Flight Recorders | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | March 13th 04 02:03 PM |
Approved IGC Flight recorders | mat Redsell | Soaring | 2 | March 5th 04 03:35 PM |