Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:19 +0100, Tim Newport-Peace
] wrote:

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Graeme Cant
writes
The trouble is that the GFAC is a committee of geeks and they take a
geek approach to security. Their paradigm is a geek paradigm. They
understand machines so they try to build smarter machines to defeat
cheats. Most security breaches in any system though are related to
people problems. Incompetence, corruption and ill-will are the main
problems.

If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention
to your ranting.

GOODBYE!

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."


Nice dummy spit!

Mike

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I like the COTS idea, but I don't think this is the way to do it. I
suspect most pilots would find it easier to buy, borrow, or rent an
approved logger than to find an "approved OO"! So, be careful what you
wish for, in case you get it.

For pilots that don't operate out of large club, the approved logger is
a god send, because getting an experienced OO when you need one can be
impossible. The approved logger makes the OO's task much easier,
especially if it's used sealed to the glider.

I take your point, Eric, and it's a valid one to some extent - more so
in your country than most others I'd guess. The approved logger system
is well established though and could continue in parallel with an
"approved OO" system. I think an alternative system for badges up to
Silver/Gold would certainly be helpful at Club level. In most
countries, willing, experienced OOs are more common than expensive loggers.

Actually, as Tim's post showed, the opposition to any alternative is so
violent and resistance to different ideas is so entrenched within the
IGC establishment that I don't expect any change. I wouldn't waste too
much of my life thinking about it if I were you. I didn't. I flew my
"new" Ka6 on Saturday and had a wave flight in a DG-500 today. Great
weekend! I hope yours was as good.

Graeme Cant

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
I wrote:
The trouble is that the GFAC is a committee of geeks and they take a
geek approach to security. Their paradigm is a geek paradigm. They
understand machines so they try to build smarter machines to defeat
cheats. Most security breaches in any system though are related to
people problems. Incompetence, corruption and ill-will are the main
problems.


If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention
to your ranting.

GOODBYE!

I'm not sure what the problem is, Tim. I understand a "geek" to be
someone with an interest and competence in technology, particularly
electronic technology. I didn't intend it to be insulting.

Are you upset to be told there may be other viewpoints?

My comments about weaknesses in security systems are the commonplace
stuff of basic courses in security to police and military people the
world over and it's the GFAC that thought gliding included untrustworthy
people, not me.

The GFAC have set an extraordinary level of security in approved
electronic loggers. Who are they guarding against? Who did they have
in mind when they specified a kill switch to destroy the records if the
box is opened? Why does the record have to be encrypted? To stop the
FBI reading our private files? No. To stop other people in the comp
knowing where we found the thermals? No. The GFAC thought some gliding
people - maybe all - pilots, OOs, EVERYBODY - MIGHT be corrupt,
incompetent or ill-intentioned.

So it's not my original thought, Tim. I'm just suggesting better ways
of solving the problems the GFAC told me existed. I didn't invent the
problem. YOU did. I'm just offering another solution. In fact, I'm
saying that there's much LESS of a problem than you imply and it could
be solved with much less effort.

The GFAC's specs imply widespread untrustworthiness. You'd have to have
a tin ear not to hear outrage at this implication in many of the GFAC's
opponent's emails.

Now, what about the substance of my post?

I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

Graeme Cant

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

Here's a different thought: Indecision is the key to killing yourself
in flying and is the bureaucrat's refuge in everything else. Good
flying, Tim.

Graeme Cant wrote:
I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
system, fine. But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Marc

What can anyone expect when they get a reply like the one from Tim that
says."

" If you think that about the people who give up their time to further the
sport, don't expect anyone to notice you are there, or pay any attention to
your ranting."

GOODBYE"

Spelling in all caps is 'yelling', how is anyone to expect to be heard when
you get that type of response?
I think the idea of 'furthering the sport' needs attention and making the
sport more complicated and expensive will certainly not make it grow.

Fred

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
news
Graeme Cant wrote:
I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
system, fine. But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

I seem to have scored a most unexpected bullseye.

No, all you've managed to do is demonstrate that you can't separate
advocacy from insult. If you want to engage in reasoned discourse on
technical and procedural alternatives to the existing flight recorder
system, fine.

I do, Marc. So let's hear your response to my original post. To my
mind it contained no insult or disparagement. I said that "technical
people" (if you take "geek" amiss, I don't, I'm one myself) tend to
think of technical solutions, not procedural. I advocated procedural
solutions as possibly being cost-effective and no less secure where it
mattered, gave some useful examples and made some tentative suggestions.
How about joining a discussion?

I also said that the GFAC/IGC seems to be actively antagonistic to
procedural solutions. That wasn't just a wild guess. I based this
assertion on four years (to my knowledge) of Ian Strachan's, Tim's,
yours and several other's posts. I can quote if you like. I can also
quote Robert Danewid who has direct, personal experience of the IGC's
institutional resistance to different ideas. I would call it evidence -
it's not intended as personal attack. I'm sorry you see it as that. I
understand why it's a problem because it is, after all, the voting
behaviour of GFAC and IGC members that we're discussing.

But, don't expect much of a response if you imply that
we're a bunch of "tin eared" blithering idiots who are incapable of
accepting your argument in all of its righteous glory. I have a 6 year
old to provide me with that sort of input 8^)

Well, Marc, mine are nearly 40 now but I always found it very useful to
listen to what 6 year olds were really trying to tell me. I said you
don't seem to hear the irritation from many members of the gliding
fraternity at the heavy-handed - "we can't trust any of you" - attitude
of the GFAC. If you hear that message, you need to show it. I've
seldom seen a group in a public service role so sensitive to criticism
as the GFAC cabal.

When neither you nor Tim even mentioned my roughly outlined proposal
it's hard to say I'm upset because you won't accept it and its
"righteous glory" (good phrase, Marc!). I have no idea what you think
about it. It would be nice to know that you even heard it.

Does the IGC have a panel similar to the GFAC whose role is to develop
cheap, secure PROCEDURAL solutions to any security problems in assessing
badge flights and scoring comps with non-approved FRs? Why does the
technical group - the GFAC - chosen only for their technical expertise -
see it as their role to comment on possible procedural alternatives?
Would it be a good idea if they sent a message to the IGC that the
existing approved FR system is both overly expensive and restrictive on
the expansion of the sport and that the IGC should also investigate
procedures to allow the use of cheaper, non-approved FRs? Or that their
discussions would be much more fruitful if some human factors people
were appointed to the GFAC in lieu of some of the electronic experts.
Positive support from the GFAC would be very helpful.

Best wishes,
Graeme Cant

Graeme Cant wrote:
I do, Marc. So let's hear your response to my original post. To my
mind it contained no insult or disparagement. I said that "technical
people" (if you take "geek" amiss, I don't, I'm one myself) tend to
think of technical solutions, not procedural. I advocated procedural
solutions as possibly being cost-effective and no less secure where it
mattered, gave some useful examples and made some tentative suggestions.
How about joining a discussion?

Both Tim and I had been discussing "procedural solutions" in this thread
for about a week before you piped up. We have also discussed them many
times over the years. Google is a very valuable resource for researching
topics like this, if you missed it.

When neither you nor Tim even mentioned my roughly outlined proposal
it's hard to say I'm upset because you won't accept it and its
"righteous glory" (good phrase, Marc!). I have no idea what you think
about it. It would be nice to know that you even heard it.

Frankly, I pretty much decided not to engage in discussion with you
after the first paragraph. The lunchbox idea has come up numerous times
over the years, but so far has gotten bogged down once the practical
issues are examined. If you can explain how you can meet the Sporting
Code requirements for use of calibrated pressure altitude for measuring
altitude performances (including loss of height for distance flights),
please do. Also, requiring that OOs meet "graded standards", may work
in certain high density gliding realms, but is essentially unworkable in
most of the world.

Does the IGC have a panel similar to the GFAC whose role is to develop
cheap, secure PROCEDURAL solutions to any security problems in assessing
badge flights and scoring comps with non-approved FRs?

Not that I know of. The rules for scoring of non-world level contests
are handled by the appropriate national organization. Most countries
permit use of non-approved flight recorders (including COTS GPS), as
there is a greater level of supervision than there is for the typical
badge or record flight.

Why does the technical group - the GFAC - chosen only for their
technical expertise - see it as their role to comment on possible
procedural alternatives?

For the same reason you see it as your role to comment on them. Comments
made here by GFAC members are simply comments, just like yours.

Would it be a good idea if they sent a message to the IGC that the
existing approved FR system is both overly expensive and restrictive on
the expansion of the sport and that the IGC should also investigate
procedures to allow the use of cheaper, non-approved FRs?

The IGC voted down a COTS GPS proposal at the last plenary session.
Obviously, they had concerns that were not addressed by that proposal.
If you think you can come up with a better proposal, submit it to the IGC.

Or that their discussions would be much more fruitful if some human
factors people were appointed to the GFAC in lieu of some of the
electronic experts. Positive support from the GFAC would be very
helpful.

The IGC appoints GFAC members for 3 year terms. If you want to propose
alternatives to the existing members (including yourself), your IGC
delegate is the person to talk to.

Marc

I remember a lot of the original threads on procedures vs technical
solutions.

One of the great advantages of the technical route is that one can now have
an OO seal a logger into a glider. You can then go on a two week gliding
holiday making electronic declarations each day and on return home get the
OO to observe the intact seals and download and verify the flights made
without the OO being present.

Ian

Marc,

I have no beef with you so I don't intend to answer all your points. I
did research Google a while ago when my curiosity was piqued by the way
this topic keeps coming up. It's a question that should also cause you
to do some wondering.

One thing that interested me was that a search on a couple of names (not
yours) produced very similar results to a search on loggers/GPS. I
think that some people may have been in this area for too long and it's
time for some new blood and new thinking.

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Frankly, I pretty much decided not to engage in discussion with you
after the first paragraph. The lunchbox idea has come up numerous times
over the years, but so far has gotten bogged down once the practical
issues are examined. If you can explain how you can meet the Sporting
Code requirements for use of calibrated pressure altitude for measuring
altitude performances (including loss of height for distance flights),
please do.

Only too willing, Marc. Change the Sporting Code. It's done regularly
for some triviality or other. How about it allows the use of GPS
altitude? How about the GFAC throw their weight behind such a change?
How about the appointees to the GFAC vote to _strongly recommend_ such a
change to the IGC? And then lobby for it.

A number of others have made the GPS altitude suggestion in the last
fortnight. Nobody gave us a reason why the Sporting Code _shouldn't_
change on this. Is there one?

Also, requiring that OOs meet "graded standards", may work
in certain high density gliding realms, but is essentially unworkable in
most of the world.

I think that's wrong, Marc and I don't believe your opinion is research
based. It would obviously depend on the standards set and at what
level. It seems a lot easier for "most of the world" to find willing,
club level OOs than to afford expensive loggers. But here's the real
problem - I don't detect any enthusiasm for a new system in your tone.

....snip, snip...

The IGC voted down a COTS GPS proposal at the last plenary session.
Obviously, they had concerns that were not addressed by that proposal.

That's a very disingenuous view of how the politics of international
organisations work and I'm sure you know it. If the GFAC threw STRONG
support behind researching such a proposal and lobbied hard for it, the
plenary would think very differently.

As you say, this discussion comes up again and again. I'd like to come
at it from a different angle which you might not have covered here
before. Tell us how the GFAC and the IGC works. Who runs the show?
Who are the dominant figures? Who's been there the longest? How long?
Does everybody get heard? Are there solid factions who always back
each other? Are you ever surprised when you read the final
recommendations? Is there a continuing staff member? Who writes the
minutes? Who wrote the original specs? I know all this stuff is
tedious but I'm certain it moves the IGC and its commissions just like
it moves your Congress.

I've heard no reason whatsoever why a GPS in a lunchbox is any different
from a sealed barograph. Of course it would be possible. So I'm
puzzled why it doesn't happen. My guess is it's as much to do with
WHO's telling me it can't be done as it is to WHY.

Best wishes,
Graeme

Graeme Cant wrote:
I've heard no reason whatsoever why a GPS in a lunchbox is any different
from a sealed barograph. Of course it would be possible. So I'm
puzzled why it doesn't happen. My guess is it's as much to do with
WHO's telling me it can't be done as it is to WHY.

You are focused on imagined draconian security requirements (which are
actually rather minimal for badge-only flight recorders), and glossing
over the major objection.

A sealed barograph records pressure altitude that can be corrected
according to a calibration chart. This is the standard by which glider
altitude performances have been measured from nearly the beginning. A
COTS in or out of a sealed lunchbox either measures GPS-derived
geometric altitude, or if it has a pressure sensor, a mode-dependent
form of altitude which can not be corrected to pressure altitude using
standard calibration techniques.

My is opinion is (and has been for years) that the IGC should switch
over to using geometric altitude, which would allow use of GPS-derived
altitude with appropriate error bars. But, my opinion is not that of
the majority of members of the IGC, or even GFAC, at this point.

Marc