![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:53:42 -0700, Ian Strachan wrote:
From Ian Strachan, the other side of "the Pond": Very interesting, Papa 3. Further questions a to what zero-altitude datum are the altitude figures: (1) displayed on screen and (2) recorded for later download. But with unknown algorithms applied before download, you do not know exactly what you are dealing with. This is not a problem in the recreational area, but may be in ours if accurate altitude is to be used in a performance claim or to defend a pilot against a possible airspace violation or other situation where a flight record wiuld be useful. Then there is the issue of the general reliability of pressure altitude compared to the sometimes erratic figures for GPS altitude recorded in a proportion of IGC flight data files ... Is this really a problem? In the old days we were happy to accept a paper baragraph trace without any attempt to "zero" the altitude. The procedure required the pilot to scribe a "base line" on the chart at the known local airfield altitude before start and the official observer measured all other significant altitudes (start height etc) relative to this this height. Of course for height gain tasks you only need to measure the difference between a "low point" and a "high point". So all we are left with is knowing whether the recorded altitude is from a GPS engine, a pressure sensor or a mangled proprietary combination of the two. Pressure altitude is obviously acceptable. I believe GPS altitude, without SA, is probably just as useful but it does not comply with the current rules. The combination is probably the most accurate, but as the algorithm is undefined and hence not reproducible, the data may not be acceptable. The are only two significant difference between these GPS units and an approved Flight Recorder: 1) The the mechanical tamper proof switch is missing. This the security of the "private key" required to encrypt the trace before it is downloaded is not protected. I am sure the only reason Garmin and others don't include encrypted downloads in their software is because we would not accept them without being assured of the security of their keys. 2) The price difference. Approved flight recorders being about 5x more costly. Regards Ian (another Ian, from the other side of the equator) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
IGC-approval issued for Aircotec GPS Flight Recorder | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 0 | May 30th 06 11:47 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? | Ric | Home Built | 2 | September 13th 05 09:39 PM |