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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Graeme Cant wrote:
Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security for GPS loggers used for those same purposes? A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence (i.e., photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance legs. The additional security required of approved flight recorders was a direct response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera documentation for world records (the result of a number of known cheating incidents). Marc |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
I have never used a lead seal, I have used sticky paper
tape signed over the join. I would far rather use the power of my computer over unlimited time than try and unstick and restick in exactly the same place while the baro is still in the glider. Remember the OO seals the baro and witnesses it's placement in the glider and it's removal. I am not saying it cannot be done, what I am saying is that it cannot be done in the time available. Security buys time, that is all it does. Time, as far as a digital file is concerned, remember that it is just a series of 0s and 1s, is unlimited. As far as personally faking a file, I may not have that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does though. At 20:30 02 June 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Don Johnstone wrote: A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger, the security algorithums of which are historically interesting, almost. The information contained in the GPS memory is raw source data, that produced by the logger is not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs, if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult than decoding and faking a computer file. Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that would pass the verification test. -- Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Bart" wrote in message news:x2Gvc.4102
however given that GPS can *potentially* reduce an error, by up to 1000 ft it should be seriously considered. I wonder if the resistance to change is mainly due to the high average age of the gliding fraternity? Paul You seem to have missed the frequently stated point that the difference is not an error. An error free measurement of pressure altitude will not be equal to an error free gps (geometric) altitude except under rare conditions. Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the real issues are recognizing what is to be measured, why it is being measured, and then determining whether it is reasonable to change to measuring something else. Andy |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Just one additional idea to this topic: why don't we create an open (OLC
like) web database from all badge logs. I think this could scare away some potential cheater, if there is any. Additionally all these flight logs could be used for further analysis. /Janos |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Hahaha... boy this is silly. The current system allows
the use of a baro with a certain amount of error. How about allowing geometric altitude to be used "within an error range of 100 feet, or 1000 feet, or whatever?" Beyond this, why not let the GPS geometric altitude be used to verify "continuity of flight?" Sure I can understand why pressure altitude need be accurate for someone trying to set an altitude record, but for continuity of flight or altitude gain, pressure altitude was historically used not because it was "best", but simply because it was the best thing easily available. Relief from the silly pressure altitude requirement greatly reduces the calibration and expense for loggers. This change is inevitable. When the various committees eventually decide to abandon steam engines and the use of the fine but outdated abacus, I'm sure there will be much rejoicing... Pure silliness... As far as COTS GPS goes, not all GPS's are suited to soaring flights. I'd guess if enough soaring pilots approached GARMIN and asked for a fully plastic encased GPS that couldn't upload anything but would download ..igc secure files, they'd doctor up one of their El Cheapo devices and sell it to ya. I doubt this will happen soon, however, since most of you gadget hounds out there would never agree to a dumb, cheap logger. Hell, most of you have watches that calculate cosines, right? I use mine to tell the time... ;PPPPPP So in the meantime, I'll continue to take my dumb, cheap Volklogger and stick it in the back of the glider in a box, quietly recording away, while I use my COTS pilot III for navigation... By the way, my VL is for sale, since I've done all the flight recording I need Michel Talon wrote: Papa3 wrote: Marc or others, As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Marc Ramsey wrote:
GPS altitude can not be corrected to pressure altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight. Pressure altitude can not be corrected to geometric altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight. Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a Diamond altitude gain. So what's so bad about 1000ft of error? That's 8% for a diamond gain. If one uses a GPS, make 'em go 1000ft higher than the requirement... 4281 ft for silver, 10843 ft for gold, 17404 ft for diamond... would that be enough to make up for any error? Sounds good to me...still quite silly, since we are talking about a gain when measured by the same device for badges (not a comparison of pressure to geometric altitude). Really accurate altitude and the distinction only has meaning for situations where altitude, rather than gain or loss of altitude, is a factor. Requiring pressure altitude for badges makes no sense at all, IMHO, if fairly accurate GPS altitudes are available...and I believe this is available and verifiable under the current system (although the FAA has been slow allowing GPS vertical guidance for approaches as a matter of caution and safety, RAIM is available)... altitude gain or loss -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
I've found it a little funny that there's all this fuss about
the measuring devices, yet I've read in several articles about silver badge flights and radio chatter and finding thermals despite: SC 3, 2.1.1 a "The Silver distance flight should be flown without navigational or other assistance given over the radio (other than permission to land on an airfield) or help or guidance from other aircraft." This sport has elements of the honor system in it already, there are already some who do cheat (most often inadvertently), but I for one think that the sport is so small that the overemphasis on security discourages participation to a much greater degree than any cheating under a COTS gps approval for badges would detract or discourage. No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on some (maybe most) places. I've seen similar things. Given this, the obvious solution would be to award badges using the honor system. If this is not acceptable, then some level of procedural and/or technical security measures must be in the rules (even if some do not follow them). How much security is enough? -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Todd Pattist wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote: How much for your "cheap VL"? Anyone interested please contact me privately...I know it seems silly since I could put out all the info in the same time it takes to type this, but I would just loathe myself if I BLATANTLY used this NG purely for an ad... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Janos Bauer" wrote in message ... Just one additional idea to this topic: why don't we create an open (OLC like) web database from all badge logs. I think this could scare away some potential cheater, if there is any. Additionally all these flight logs could be used for further analysis. /Janos Very creative thought. Bill Daniels |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Excellent! After hundreds of posts, a straight statement of policy (or
at least one well-connected individual's version of policy) - that a data recording device, sealed by and OO, placed in the glider and removed from the glider by an OO - whether that device is a camera, a barograph or a simple GPS engine - is not good enough. That implies the technical people working to support our sport seized on the new digital world as the opportunity to solve a problem, to deal with an unsatisfactory situation. Perhaps we need to debate that proposition. Bruce Marc Ramsey wrote: Graeme Cant wrote: Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security for GPS loggers used for those same purposes? A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence (i.e., photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance legs. The additional security required of approved flight recorders was a direct response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera documentation for world records (the result of a number of known cheating incidents). Marc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |