Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

I notice from the brief minutes of the FAI meeting in Lausanne that a
proposal to use Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) flight recorders was not
accepted. In other words, the widely available, cheap units are again
rejected in favor of expensive, proprietary units. I'd like to know the
following:

1. Specifically, what were the voting results on this? Exactly who (names
and countries please) voted for and against the proposal?

2. On what grounds was the proposal rejected?

3. What are the chances of this proposal being made acceptable?

I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this
"debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the level
of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer. Without
going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no less
secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). Since the
COTS units are becoming widely available and reliable, what possible reason
can there be to prohibit their use? I can certainly understand a higher
level of security for national or world records where there might be some
slim chance that these results could drive monetary gain (ie. the incentive
to cheat might be higher), but for a Silver Badge ... get real!

In the business world, we're (sometimes) smart enough to run cost/benefit
analyses on these sorts of things. This situation strikes me as very
similar to a consulting engagement we did with a very large insurance
company. The old guard insisted on a process of denying all claims in a
certain category due to a preconceived notion that it would prevent fraud
and abuse. Upon review, it was discovered that the cost of manually
reviewing and responding to the tens of thousands of complaints from policy
holders cost several hundred times the amount (in the order of tens of
millions of $$) above and beyond the few documented abuses. It still took a
lot of convincing and a couple of firings to get the policy changed.

Speaking of firing, I would recommend that others who feel this is
ridiculous bombard your national FAI representative with calls for change.
Specifically, I would suggest we try to recall those individuals (or at
least not renew their terms) who have been so obstinate in this regard.

Power to the people!



..

Papa3 wrote:
I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this
"debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the level
of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer. Without
going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no less
secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). Since the
COTS units are becoming widely available and reliable, what possible reason
can there be to prohibit their use? I can certainly understand a higher
level of security for national or world records where there might be some
slim chance that these results could drive monetary gain (ie. the incentive
to cheat might be higher), but for a Silver Badge ... get real!

The rules for US State and National records are set by the SSA (the
National Aeronautic Association may have some say over US National
records). So, there is no point to discussing those issues with the IGC.

As for badges, there are two primary objections. First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...

Marc

Papa3 wrote:
I notice from the brief minutes of the FAI meeting in Lausanne that a
proposal to use Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) flight recorders was not
accepted. In other words, the widely available, cheap units are again
rejected in favor of expensive, proprietary units. I'd like to know the
following:

1. Specifically, what were the voting results on this? Exactly who (names
and countries please) voted for and against the proposal?

2. On what grounds was the proposal rejected?

3. What are the chances of this proposal being made acceptable?

I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this
"debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the level
of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer.

Just in case you aren't aware of this, the requirements for national and
lower records are set by the country itself, not the IGC, which sets the
requirements for badges and world records. It just confuses the issues
to mix badges and country records together.

Without
going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no less
secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph).

WHile I like the idea of making badge documentation easier and cheaper
because it would encourage more attempts, I don't believe this is true.
I haven't tried it, but I think I could cheat much more easily with
COTS units than a camera and barograph, based on my experience with
cameras/barographs, approved recorders, handheld GPS units, both as a
pilot and official observer.

It would depend very much on the details of the selected units and the
procedures, and knowledge and care of the OO. A great advantage of the
approved units is it makes the OO's job easier than before, rather than
more complicated. Also, camera and barograph operation is more "visible"
to an OO than software and file systems, which is why I think it would
be easier for an OO to ensure their proper use than with a COTS gps unit.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Marc,

You wrote: "First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...


My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have you
ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude? Come
on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty calibration
chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
And what about cameras - don't even go there.

So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go out
and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is really
looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
stubborn bureaucracy). If I were to a person prone to conspiracy theory,
I'd want to take a close, hard look at what relationship these "technicians"
have to the companies that manufacture the supposedly secure recorders.
But, I'm not that sort of person, and it would be inappropriate for me to
even insinuate the same.






"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
Papa3 wrote:
I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this
"debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the
level
of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer.
Without
going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no
less
secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). Since the
COTS units are becoming widely available and reliable, what possible
reason
can there be to prohibit their use? I can certainly understand a higher
level of security for national or world records where there might be
some
slim chance that these results could drive monetary gain (ie. the
incentive
to cheat might be higher), but for a Silver Badge ... get real!

The rules for US State and National records are set by the SSA (the
National Aeronautic Association may have some say over US National
records). So, there is no point to discussing those issues with the IGC.

As for badges, there are two primary objections. First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...

Marc

In retrospect, I ought not to have written the last two sentences below -
I'm sure the folks working on this issue are hard working and well meaning.
But I've watched so many issues in the last 15 years get caught up in the
technical discussions while folks completely forget the "business" aspect.
The business of soaring badges is basically meaningless fun, and it
deserves security and bureaucracy commensurate with that. Big time records
may be a different story, but not silver and gold distance/climbs.

P3


"Papa3" wrote in message
link.net...
Marc,

You wrote: "First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...


My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have
you
ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude?
Come
on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty
calibration
chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
And what about cameras - don't even go there.

So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go
out
and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is
really
looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
stubborn bureaucracy). If I were to a person prone to conspiracy theory,
I'd want to take a close, hard look at what relationship these
"technicians"
have to the companies that manufacture the supposedly secure recorders.
But, I'm not that sort of person, and it would be inappropriate for me to
even insinuate the same.






"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
. com...
Papa3 wrote:
I had proposed at some length to one of the well known names in this
"debate" that the use of COTS units for badges and records below the
level
of national (e.g. State records here in the US) is a no-brainer.
Without
going into detail, the crux of my argument was that these units are no
less
secure than the existing alternative (camera and barograph). Since
the
COTS units are becoming widely available and reliable, what possible
reason
can there be to prohibit their use? I can certainly understand a
higher
level of security for national or world records where there might be
some
slim chance that these results could drive monetary gain (ie. the
incentive
to cheat might be higher), but for a Silver Badge ... get real!

The rules for US State and National records are set by the SSA (the
National Aeronautic Association may have some say over US National
records). So, there is no point to discussing those issues with the
IGC.

As for badges, there are two primary objections. First, how do you
prove that the flight actually took place, and wasn't simply uploaded
into the GPS at some point before, during, or after the flight? Second,
given that all badge altitude performances are currently documented
using calibrated pressure altitudes, can adequate altitude documentation
be provided by use of either GPS (geometric) altitude, or uncalibrated
pressure altitude (as would be the case with the pressure sensor
equipped COTS units which lack a fixed sensor calibration)? Until these
points are addressed in a fashion acceptable to a majority of delegates
to the IGC, the rules won't be changed...

Marc

Papa3 wrote:
My point is that this stuff is completely and absolutely irrelevant - it's
technicians looking for a problem where none exists. Here's why. Have you
ever documented a claim using a barograph on a Replogle paper trace? Tell
me , please that it is any any way more accurate than GPS altitude? Come
on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty calibration
chart on a zeroxed sheet. Second, can you tell me with absolute certainty
that every OO carefully reviews every paper trace before flight to make
absolutely sure that there isn't a pre-existing trace on the other side.
And what about cameras - don't even go there.

The difference between true geometric and calibrated pressure altitude,
for something like a Diamond altitude gain, can be well over 1000 feet.
Geometric and pressure altitude measure two different things. The
first thing that would have to happen is that the IGC would have to
decide to switch to using geometric altitude measurements, which they
have not done as of this moment.

So, the point is that the situation that would be introduced by allowing
COTS units would be at least no worse than the current situation involving
paper and film. So, instead of providing encouragement to folks to go out
and go after their badges or to feel like the FAI (and/or the SSA) is really
looking out for soaring, we continue to look like the DMV (Department of
Motor vehicles for those not from the US - imagine the worst, inefficient,
stubborn bureaucracy).

A fair number of people are concerned that using a COTS handheld GPS
unit for badge documentation its tantamount to awarding badges on the
"honor system". What it comes down to is someone is either going to
have to come up with a proposal which will address these concerns, or
convince everyone that the "honor system" is, in fact, adequate...

Marc

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
...

The difference between true geometric and calibrated pressure altitude,
for something like a Diamond altitude gain, can be well over 1000 feet.
Geometric and pressure altitude measure two different things. The
first thing that would have to happen is that the IGC would have to
decide to switch to using geometric altitude measurements, which they
have not done as of this moment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but regardless of whether pressure altitude and
Geometric (ie. GPS) altitude differ during a flight, if you use a constant
reference (ie. always use GPS), then the consistency is similar, at least
over the altitudes we typically use. I checked literally dozens of my logs
over the last two years, and although there is a difference of perhaps
100-200 feet between altitude measured by pressure and altitude measured by
GPS, the difference is consistent within that range throughout the flight.
So, I'm not sure why it would be such a quantum leap to make this decision
for badges, especially things like Silver or Gold. If there is a
mathematical reason why the degree of variation increases for say diamond
climbs, then they could be excluded.


A fair number of people are concerned that using a COTS handheld GPS
unit for badge documentation its tantamount to awarding badges on the
"honor system". What it comes down to is someone is either going to
have to come up with a proposal which will address these concerns, or
convince everyone that the "honor system" is, in fact, adequate...

Well, I think this is exactly the point. The OO system has ALWAYS been an
honor system. There are dozens of very significant records out there where
wives/husbands/best friends have handled this critical function. If that's
not truly an "honor system", I don't know what is. Unless the FAI is
willing to mandate that OO's be impartial third parties who are subject to
random lie detector tests (with violations punishible by having to sit in on
committee meetings to discuss COTS proposals), then I come back to my
primary point. There is effectively NO DIFFERENCE in the degree of
security between the two methods. There are differences in the type of
technical prowess required to defeat the system, but level of security is
effectively the same.

At the end of the day, what we've done is exactly the mistake I pointed out
in the beginning. We've allowed paranoia over a few folks who may want to
fudge their gold distance flight or silver climb lead to a situation that
literally requires people to stick with 1940's technology or fork over an
extra $500 for an "approved" logger. For this cost we get what exactly?
The satisfaction in knowing that, if a guy wants to fly his Silver Distance
in a Nimbus IV, at least he didn't cheat? Am I the only one who sees a
certain irony in this????


Marc

Papa3 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but regardless of whether pressure altitude and
Geometric (ie. GPS) altitude differ during a flight, if you use a constant
reference (ie. always use GPS), then the consistency is similar, at least
over the altitudes we typically use.

Yes, you are wrong. If you look at the equations for converting
pressure to altitude, you'll note that one factor is the average
temperature of the column of air between the reference altitude and the
altitude at which the pressure is being measured. Altimeters,
barographs, and flight recorders are calibrated to a specific sea level
temperature (15C) and a specific temperature lapse rate (0.002C/ft), as
determined by the International Standard Atmosphere. These conditions
almost never apply to real world soaring flights, as we generally fly on
warmer days with higher lapse rates. At 10000 feet above my home field
during the summer, my properly set altimeter typically reads 500 or 600
lower than my true altitude, which can easily be verified when flying
near peaks with known elevation. This can also be verified by looking
at IGC files from an approved flight recorder, the divergence between
GPS and pressure altitude (adjusted for the different baselines)
generally increases with altitude, and the amount of divergence will
vary on a day to day basis.

Well, I think this is exactly the point. The OO system has ALWAYS been an
honor system. There are dozens of very significant records out there where
wives/husbands/best friends have handled this critical function. If that's
not truly an "honor system", I don't know what is. Unless the FAI is
willing to mandate that OO's be impartial third parties who are subject to
random lie detector tests (with violations punishible by having to sit in on
committee meetings to discuss COTS proposals), then I come back to my
primary point. There is effectively NO DIFFERENCE in the degree of
security between the two methods. There are differences in the type of
technical prowess required to defeat the system, but level of security is
effectively the same.

Actually, the OO system was much stricter in the past than it is now.
It has relaxed over time due to changes in the nature of the sport, and
the circumstances under which we fly. One of the reasons for requiring
increased security for flight recorders (and the requirement that they
be used for world and national records), was to compensate for the fact
that it was no longer possible to demand or expect completely impartial
observers.

At the end of the day, what we've done is exactly the mistake I pointed out
in the beginning. We've allowed paranoia over a few folks who may want to
fudge their gold distance flight or silver climb lead to a situation that
literally requires people to stick with 1940's technology or fork over an
extra $500 for an "approved" logger. For this cost we get what exactly?
The satisfaction in knowing that, if a guy wants to fly his Silver Distance
in a Nimbus IV, at least he didn't cheat? Am I the only one who sees a
certain irony in this????

It has been pretty well established that a greater percentage of active
pilots own flight recorders now than owned barographs in the past. I
have loaned out personally owned flight recorders, and I know several
others who have also done so. Just about every club that I know if in
my area has flight recorders available to their members. Quite a few
commercial glider operation rent them for a small fee. And, of course,
one can still use a camera and barograph. I have a barograph in my
closet I haven't been able give away to anyone in the area.

But, you know what? I think the IGC *should* allow use COTS GPS units
for badges with some restrictions. The problem that you (and others who
have proposed this) are up against is that it will take a good deal of
work to convince those who really matter. Frankly, the proposals I've
seen so far have been rather poorly argued and incomplete. I don't
think anyone has yet bothered to do the homework necessary to come up
with a proposal that might be taken seriously.

Marc

on now - look me straight in the eyes - and tell me that the average OO is
able to come within +/- 100 feet using a metal rule and a ratty
calibration
chart on a zeroxed sheet.

Heh, heh. I think I was when I did Papa3's Silver claim in the 1980's. I
agree that OO's deserve a bit more more credit as stewards. ---JHC

In article , Marc Ramsey
wrote:

....
But, you know what? I think the IGC *should* allow use COTS GPS units
for badges with some restrictions. The problem that you (and others who
have proposed this) are up against is that it will take a good deal of
work to convince those who really matter. Frankly, the proposals I've
seen so far have been rather poorly argued and incomplete. I don't
think anyone has yet bothered to do the homework necessary to come up
with a proposal that might be taken seriously.

Oh yes, there is a GREAT deal of homework being done!

The drafters of the Canadian COTS proposal to the last IGC meeting and the
Canadian IGC delgate have been in constant contact recently with Garmin
and the IGC GFAC committee to resolve technical/rules mismatches. It
appears that these are being sorted out for a popular Garmin unit now that
the engineers and the GFAC committee learned to speak each other's
language. :-)

There is reason to be optomistic that a COTS GPS unit will be approved
within a bureaucratically short period of time.

--
Tony Burton