Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
om...
"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.

No I did not. You are correct, I have incorrectly used the word error if
one considers it's meaning in a relation to the output of the measuring
device, however that was not my intention.


Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the
real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,



Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand the preceding
discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because there were no other
viable options, not because it was a good measure of height above ground.



why it is being measured,



To either establish benchmark, or to fulfill some requirements. For each of
these I would rather know the actual distance above ground, not a measure
that depends on prevailing meteorological conditions. Unless, of course,
you consider Martin's observation, that the effort to climb to a particular
pressure altitude takes about the same effort regardless of the geometric
altitude and also assuming that it is the effort that is important, rather
then the actual height above ground.



and then determining whether it is reasonable to change to
measuring something else.





Thank you for your observation.



Paul

Have I got this right? We use barometric pressure to
measure altitude, difference in height, whatever. It
actually measures pressure which has to be converted
to height. We know that this 'measurement' will be
inaccurate dependent on temperature and the pressure
situation at the location, the amount of the accuracy
is completely unknown. Two height diamonds gained on
the same day at different locations will have to 'gain'
different amounts of height.
GPS measures the height above a known datum, with error
correction the height readouts are the same everywhere,
GPS measures the altitude in the units we use (Metres
or feet), there is no conversion required.
The question I am asking is why are we clinging on
to and outdated and inaccurate system when a much more
accurate system is available. We measure distance over
the globe in feet or metres and happily use GPS for
that, why do we not use it to measure the vertical
directly distance as well?

Perhaps we should revert to measuring in cubits

At 09:54 04 June 2004, Paul Bart wrote:

'Andy Durbin' wrote in message
. com...
'Paul Bart' wrote in message news:
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.

No I did not. You are correct, I have incorrectly
used the word error if
one considers it's meaning in a relation to the output
of the measuring
device, however that was not my intention.


Recognition of this fact may have something to do
with age, but the
real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,



Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand
the preceding
discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because
there were no other
viable options, not because it was a good measure of
height above ground.



why it is being measured,



To either establish benchmark, or to fulfill some requirements.
For each of
these I would rather know the actual distance above
ground, not a measure
that depends on prevailing meteorological conditions.
Unless, of course,
you consider Martin's observation, that the effort
to climb to a particular
pressure altitude takes about the same effort regardless
of the geometric
altitude and also assuming that it is the effort that
is important, rather
then the actual height above ground.



and then determining whether it is reasonable to change
to
measuring something else.





Thank you for your observation.



Paul

In article ,
says...
Eric Greenwell wrote:

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.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

Clearly, my post addressed the sealing only, and not the overall system.
I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth, since I am in favor
of the COTS idea, as I have stated before.


It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

I think this could be true, using the proper GPS and procedures. The
challenge, I think, is to choose GPS(s) that pilots want to use AND
allow simple procedures, so the OO is not burdened excessively.

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

I'm assuming you mean "badge flights". Correct?


(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

As another poster mentioned, World records require a secure recorder. I
don't know what is required in World comps, but I see no reason to not
to require secure recorders. The usual argument for COTS is to encourage
participation in badges by newer pilots, which certainly doesn't include
World comp capable pilots. I think sticking to the "early pilot" group
will make it easier to get COTS accepted, and attempting to extend to
World comps and records will make acceptance much less likely.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

I'm new on this forum, and this thread has captured my attention because
the theme is really popular in the gliding world. So I'll try to give
my opinion on a number of posts I read.

It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

And indeed, finding an OO is still often the hardest part of the
administrative burden. Luckily it's only necessary for badge flights,
if you are using an approved FR.

I don't now if you have decentralized contests in Oz, like the OLC in
Europe. For this kind of flights, who are certainly as interesting as
badge flights, the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
the badge system itself.

In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

In France, you can use some non-approved loggers in their NetCoupe, but
because of that, the system is much less automatic, and for
non-approved loggers you need indeed paperwork and an OO. I much prefer
the Flemish system, even if I was obliged to get an approved FR. All
clubs here have one or two FR's for rent to their members, some have
one per club glider.

I've read somewhere in this thread that because of different club
systems between Europe and Oz / USA, it would be impractical to have
the clubs buying FR's and renting them to their members. This seems
rubbish to me: if a club can buy and rent something as expensive as a
glider with radio, parachute, trailer etc., surely a FR can't make much
difference. And I suppose it has always been done with barographs, just
like here. Or does everybody have to buy his own to fly for badges?

I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it. Geeks they may be, I don't know them personally, but as so
often in gliding, they probably are the people who volunteered to do
the job. Having been rather active as volunteer for lots of little and
bigger jobs on club, regional and national level, it strikes me that
there are very few people who agree to spend much time in doing things
like studying lots of documents, participating in conferences,
workshops, meetings... instead of flying. But when decisions are made
by these few (always the same, hence the accusation of "oligarchy",
"self-appointed", etc.), lots of people start to question them. I don't
think that's fair.

I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

"Paul Bart" wrote in message ...
Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the
real issues are recognizing what is to be measured,



Height above ground I would have thought. If I understand the preceding
discussion correctly, pressure altitude was used because there were no other
viable options, not because it was a good measure of height above ground.



Without any effort I can identify 3 different measurements that are
curently derived from pressure based barographs and flight recorders.
They a

continuity of flight
altitude gained following a low point
absolute altitude achieved

Height above ground is not a parameter that is used for any badge,
award, or record as far as I know.

Please don't interpret my reply as being an objection to COTS GPS.

If ever there was an opportunity to change the world from pressure
altitude to GPS altitude it was when RVSM was introduced. But no,
many aircraft faced expensive air data system retrofits because the
system was too enrenched in barometric altimetry.

Andy

In article e0Rvc.625398$Pk3.282686@pd7tw1no,
says...
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.

To discover this "policy" for world records, all you had to do was read
the rules. It's been there for several years. Cameras and barographs
still suffice for badges - this "policy" is also in the rules.

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 I misunderstand you. Do you know the history of the flight
recorder, and how it was developed in response to a request from people
running an international competition in New Zealand? It was not a
solution that went looking for a problem.


Perhaps we need to debate that proposition.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

X-no-archive: yes
In article , stephanevdv
writes

I'm new on this forum, and this thread has captured my attention because
the theme is really popular in the gliding world. So I'll try to give
my opinion on a number of posts I read.

Welcome to the wonderful world of RAS!

It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

And indeed, finding an OO is still often the hardest part of the
administrative burden. Luckily it's only necessary for badge flights,
if you are using an approved FR.

I don't now if you have decentralized contests in Oz, like the OLC in
Europe. For this kind of flights, who are certainly as interesting as
badge flights, the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
the badge system itself.

In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

An interesting point. While there has been considerable discussion about
the use of Pressure Altitude Vs GPS Altitude, the vertical limits of
Airspace are expressed in terms of Pressure Altitude, which is unlikely
to change any time soon.

---snip--------------
I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
It may seem that way, but one objective is to avoid having the revise
the level on an annual basis, which could imply annual updates to
recorders at the owners expense. Better to set it higher and wait for
technology to catch up.

but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it. Geeks they may be, I don't know them personally, but as so
often in gliding, they probably are the people who volunteered to do
the job. Having been rather active as volunteer for lots of little and
bigger jobs on club, regional and national level, it strikes me that
there are very few people who agree to spend much time in doing things
like studying lots of documents, participating in conferences,
workshops, meetings... instead of flying. But when decisions are made
by these few (always the same, hence the accusation of "oligarchy",
"self-appointed", etc.), lots of people start to question them. I don't
think that's fair.

There is much truth on what you say.

I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

Considering the issue of COTS units, almost all of the invective has
been directed against the Flight Recorder Specification which currently
prohibits them.

However, I am of the opinion that changing the Specification is not the
correct route to take. The specification should remain 'as is' for
approved units above whatever level is deemed the appropriate ceiling
for COTS.

To change the specification to allow COTS also implies that each
Make/model has to be submitted for approval, which would be an
impossible task.

What needs to be changed is the wording in the Sporting Code to allow
COTS to be use up to a specific level (e.g. Gold C) and an approved
Flight Recorder thereafter.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!


Join the club!

Best regards,

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

A couple of thoughts:

"stephanevdv" wrote in
message ...


It always strikes me as odd that we fumbled with cameras and expensive
barographs, plus the problems of sealing them and finding an Official
Observer, for all these years without complaining, and that the whole
gliding world now seems to resent the approved loggers just for being
more costly than the typical off-the-shelf GPS. My barograph cost me
about half the price of my Volkslogger, but with the 20 years
difference in time, even with modest inflation rates, I think the price
is not that far off.

On the other hand, we now have the chance to use truly cheap units that cost
less than a quarter of your Volkslogger and which can be viewed, tried out,
etc. at your local camping supply store. I think that's what the real hue
and cry is about. Not only that, you can then take that same COTS unit and
use it to navigate to aunt Susie's house in your car or to go out and locate
your favorite fishing hole in your boat. Try that with your smoked foil
barograph.


In Flanders (Belgium) where I live, when I come home, I download my
flight from the logger, upload it to the Flemish contest website, the
program checks the validity and respect of airspace, calculates the
points and classifies it in the correct class. Done! I can check in
real time how I did in comparison with others today.

In New Jersey (USA) where I live, I can come home and dowload my GPS76 trace
and upload it to the Governor's Cup website. I don't need to validate
anything, because we use an honor system for the flight since there's really
not a whole lot at stake . . .


I agree that the "data security" aspect seems a bit overdone at IGC,
but that's no reason to be verbally aggressive against the people who
developed the norms: they are not "self-appointed geeks", as one writer
put it.

That's the risk we all face in taking on a job like the GFAC. I'm pretty
sure that Ian, Tim, and the rest don't lose tons of sleep over this forum. I
know I don't when folks object to things I do in the Governor's Cup or when
I was president of a local Soaring Club. On the other hand, I sure hope
that they, and the other IGC folks who lurk in the shadows can sense the
fact that this is a very hot topic. One positive thing that has happened
in this thread is that a number of issues have crystallized and been open to
view to the entire world. My biggest complaint with the GFAC (which I have
conveyed directly, privately to the GFAC members with whom I have
corresponded) is that there is no visibility to exactly HOW the committee
works and what the driving objectives are. The main answer I've received
to date is that the GFAC exists to serve the standards as currently written
( I don't mean it to sound sarcastic - it's not intended that way) E.G.
"Why do we have to use Pressure Altitude - because the standard says so? "
I think the GFAC and IGC would do themselves a great service if there were
minutes or at least position papers that explained the rationale BEHIND
various decisions. I for one intend to publish a position paper that
radically challenges the fundamental assumptions behind the current
standards and will request that the IGC and GFAC come back with a formal
response..


I sure as hell don't agree with everything IGC decides, but I write to
my delegate, assemble petitions, etc., if I think it's really worth it.
Just discussing it on a forum doesn't help. So if you want to get
cheaper GPS units to be used for badge flights, you'll have to do some
serious lobbying work. And prepare yourself to become OO, because
you'll find your club needs more of them. I don't now how it works in
other countries, but here it means passing an examination and following
an (almost) annual refresher course.

Bingo. I realilzed that about 2 weeks ago, and that's definitely where I'm
going. So far, I've lined up objective data by polling a large club
organization to find out exactly what GPS equipment already exists in the
hands of pilots (60% in this club actually own a COTS logger, somewhat
surprisingly), am in the process of polling the US State Governors and
Record Keepers to get inputs on direction (so far about 75% in favor of
actively pushing COTS for badges), and am putting together a formal position
paper (no not a proposal) which will state that we should aggressively
pursue unmodified COTS (thus adhering to the spirit of "OTS"). I would
love to enlist others in the US to sign up for pro-COTS organization to
work with all of the SSA directors to convince them to push our IGC
representative in that direction. I would love to see the same happen in
other countries. But yes, the only way to make things change is to work up
the chain of command. That is both a price and a protection of these types
of organizations, which I think is one of the biggest takeaways from this
whole thread.

I also would recommend that people who feel strongly enough about this make
it an issue for their local soaring organization representatives. I think
for example, if the folks in Sweden, Australia, and Poland (to pick three
places where I know that there are active COTS movements) made this the
primary issue for their directors and met with their IGC reps, I think
things would start to move much more rapidly.

So! Now you have another pianist to shoot at. Fire away!

Welcome to the club :-))

--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
fly -

Todd Pattist wrote:
stephanevdv
wrote:


[discussing OLC contests] the use of an approved FR allows one to be completely
free of paperwork and OO's. In most European countries, this freedom
has done much more for the generalization of cross-country flying than
the badge system itself.


I agree that OLC contests are a great motivator, but I don't
see why approved FR's need to be used there either.

Here are the requirements for different national OLCs (copy from the
info&rules page):

olc land validated igc-files required approved igc-FR required
olc-af Africa N N
olc-ar Argentina N N
olc-at Austria J J
olc-au Australia N N
olc-be Belgium N N
olc-br Brazil N N
olc-ca Canada N N
olc-ch Switzerland J J
olc-cz Czech-Rep./Slovakia N N
olc-d Germany J J
olc-dk Denmark J J
olc-es Spain J J
olc-fi Finland N N
olc-fr France N N
olc-gr Greece N N
olc-hu Hungary N N
olc-i International J J
olc-it Italy J J
olc-jp Japan N N
olc-lu Luxembourg J J
olc-mo Aeromodelling N N
olc-nl Netherlands N N
olc-no Norway N N
olc-nz New Zealand N N
olc-pl Poland N N
olc-pt Portugal N N
olc-se Sweden N N
olc-si Slovenia N N
olc-uk United Kingdom N N
olc-usa USA N N


olc continent validated igc-files required approved igc-FR required
olc-kaf Africa J J
olc-kaq Antarctika J J
olc-kar Arctika J J
olc-kas Asia (Near East, East, all Asia) J J
olc-kau Australia and Oceania J J
olc-keu Europe J J
olc-kna North America J J
olc-ksa South America (Latin America, Middle and Caribic) J J
olc-kw World (Panet Earth) J J

Shall we treat it as a votes for COTS?

/Janos

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:09:58 -0400, Todd Pattist
wrote:

Tim Newport-Peace ] wrote:

What needs to be changed is the wording in the Sporting Code to allow
COTS to be use up to a specific level (e.g. Gold C) and an approved
Flight Recorder thereafter.

Agreed. I'd let the O.O have the responsibility for
verifying compliance of the GPS with a bare minimum list of
required GPS features , and provide a list of COTS GPS
units known to meet those standards: as in "Capable of
recording time and position fixes according to WGS 84," etc.

It would be simpler for all concerned if the pilot is required to
demonstrate compliance with the (published) list of required features
to the OO. Benefits:

- the pilot has a checklist to use when buying the GPS
- the OO doesn't have to understand the GPS and its
documentation in the detail needed to verify compliance

A demerit that nobody has yet mentioned is that of the poor suffering
OO having to understand a multitude of GPS and download programs.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :