IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

Marc, although I decided to stay out of this discussion (and any other
discussions on RAS), and ignore any pathetic comment from Al, I see
the need to steer it to the right direction. I don't think it matters
what Strepla or SeeYou reports which may indeed not be accurate, what
matters is what you see when you plot the trace on a sectional. I am
not familier with Strepla, but SeeYou has the option to download
sectional maps, so you can clearly see if there is a violation. I would
expect the SSA will use the same method.

Ramy

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

I have to agree with Al on this one, I'm afraid. What is the SSA
"official" source of SUA data and "official" software that will be used
for detecting possible violations? Without that information, there is
no way for anyone to be certain that they have either the correct input
or output...

Marc

No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

wrote:
This boils down to software.

One shows violations the other doesn't.

You have Seeyou or Strepla?
If not don't comment!!


Mark Dickson wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, 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

Doug you are wrong here.

I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
errors.
I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.

The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.

Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
check the kerning on a Word document?

No you dont!!

Now what flight analysis software to you use?



Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

wrote:
This boils down to software.

One shows violations the other doesn't.

You have Seeyou or Strepla?
If not don't comment!!


Mark Dickson wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, 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

You need to stop tbis before you embarass yourself even more.

wrote:
Doug you are wrong here.

I use the software in good faith assuming there are no bugs or plotting
errors.
I use the "official files from the world wide turnpoint exchange.

The question here is where is the error in Strepla or Seeyou.

Do you manually check every spreadsheet you make in Excel or manually
check the kerning on a Word document?

No you dont!!

Now what flight analysis software to you use?



Doug Haluza wrote:
No, you can't blame the software. You are the operator, you control the
input and receive the output, and you have to check the results. This
goes for any software, whether its SeeYou, StrePla, Quicken, Excel,
Word, or whatever.

Hi,

I haven't followed this tread closely, but I think I need to point out that
both SeeYou and StrePla automatically offset the altitudes displayed to
account for pressure changes using the takeoff elevation. The feature can
be disabled, but you must know that it exists and know how to disable it. I
am a state soaring record keeper and I recently verified that the altitudes
in SeeYou were offset by using the takeoff elevation to "calibrate" the
pressure altitude data from the logger. I wanted to view the raw data so I
looked in the IGC file and I also was able to disable the calibration
feature in SeeYou and see the raw data in the SeeYou analysis. It works
great, but you have to know it exists.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

wrote in message
oups.com...
This boils down to software.

One shows violations the other doesn't.

You have Seeyou or Strepla?
If not don't comment!!


Mark Dickson wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this. This is one one
of the most embarrassing things I've read on a gliding
forum. Al, you're a disgrace.

At 17:42 10 September 2006, 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

I have not looked at the IGC file nor US airspace.
However I do use the UK AIP to produce airspace files for my LX5000 and
SeeYou for the UK.

In the UK airspace lateral boundaries are given, primarily in terms of
reference points and
Airway widths. I translate that information into boxes of airspace.

I am aware that in the UK there are at least four potential errors for
airspace boundaries:

1) Out out date airspace files
2) typographical errors
3) issues with converting from points and widths to boxes
4) issues with straight lines - rhumb lines v great circle routes

I don't know how you create your US airspace files.

I have identified a number of UK airspace boundaries where the
discrepancy on the straight edge of an airspace
Boundary with accurately plotted end points can be significant.

I have identified some errors of upto 400m on boundaries measuring only
100km or so.
If you are looking at boundaries with endpoints further apart then the
straight line errors will be larger.

So from what I read, you may wish to debate the niceties of what is a
straight line.

Or preferably, just applaud an excellent flight.

Rory


Subject: IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.
Author: Marc Ramsey
Date/Time: 18:20 10 September 2006

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.

I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that will cheerfully
exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about everybody else, of
course) during the drive to the gliderport will then pontificate about
minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace bounderies.

Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics! You are safer at
18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring at the
altimeter!

Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed, but what the
hell, it's monday and it's raining....

Kirk
66

At 13:24 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
I find it absolutely fascinating that pilots that will
cheerfully
exceed the posted speed limit (along with just about
everybody else, of
course) during the drive to the gliderport will then
pontificate about
minuscule infringements of vertical and lateral airspace
bounderies.

Uh, guys, these are regulations, not laws of physics!
You are safer at
18,300' looking out the window than at 17,700' staring
at the
altimeter!

Of course, I now fully expect to be viciously flamed,
but what the
hell, it's monday and it's raining....

Kirk
66

I have pondered over this in detail after having read
most of the threads in RAS and here. And I am still
undecided.

When OLC started it was purely fun and easy, now it
has become 'the' entity for showing not only the world
but even more importantly your local flying buddies
your acheivements. For years I flew in relative obscurity
with only a few people knowing what I did, where and
how fast I went. Now with posting to OLC everyone with
any interest in soaring knows.

The question for me now becomes; Do I have a responsibility
to my flying buddies to protect their right to fly
and not bring unwanted attention of allegded violations
of the FAR's to our club and local flying area. To
that question I have to say yes.

On the other hand it makes me angry that a once fun
and purely innocent OLC (after all we are in it for
the money and chics) has been takin over by the aviation's
version of the 'Moral Majority' and turned into the
McCarthyism of everybody looking suspicously at each
others flights and airing those suspiscions publicly
in the name of protecting their right to fly. It just
smacks of Orwell's 1984 'big brother is watching'.
Read Soarpoint's post on RAS.

Then again we don't have to post our flights that violate
the FAR's! So now you see why I am so undecided

This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

wrote:
This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

We spend all this time worrying about hypothetical situations where the
FAA uses our IGC files to rain on our parade, when all the time the
true enemy was ourselves.

Nicely put.

GC