Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:53:33 GMT, "Papa3"
wrote:

We recently increased dues in our club some 30%-40% after a long period of
having them frozen. This was due to increasing insurance costs, tiedown
costs, maintenance costs, etc. The actual dollar amount was less than
$100 for the average member, but that was enough to lose several people who
are struggling with layoffs, kids going to college, etc.

I know people think that way. The trouble is that too many people
can't distinguish between one-off and continuing costs. They should
learn to do so and to spread one-off costs over the likely life of the
item. That would make them far happier because they would then realise
they could do more fun stuff with their money.

In this case the proper comparison between a $600 FR + GPS is that it
will last at least 10 years and so the cost is only $60 a year.
However, thanks to inflation that effectively reduces as time goes by,
while your dues increase is more like $1000 over a decade, but as it
will continue to rise with inflation the effective cost will, of
course be more than that.


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

There is no government support to soaring in Germany, and there is very
little in Switzerland. Try to find another excuse for your rattled gliders
:-)

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Papa3" a écrit dans le message de
k.net...
Uhh, last time I checked, Sweden is in Europe and Australia is a continent
of its own (lucky *******). Both of these countries have significant COTS
movements. I also seem to recall folks from Poland weighing in...

The reason you may find that the US and possibly Canada are different is
that there is absolutely NO government support or subsidy of soaring.
Every
time I read an article about some soaring camp in the Alps with full-time
instructors and government buildings or how the local group of RAF Cadets
did xyz, I just have to laugh. Over here, we have many bare-bones
operations with a couple of ratty gliders, a part-time tow pilot, and a
few
folks that show up on weekends to take tows if the weather is good. I am
personally aware of 3 clubs in my immediate area that are struggling to
stay
ahead of bills. Their entire capital improvement budget for the year is
$1,000, so a flight recorder is out of the question. On the other hand,
many of these folks already own a handheld which they can take from their
car to the glider for zero incremental cost. See the point?


"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:22:00 +0200, Janos Bauer
wrote:


Seriously, all the agitation seems to be coming from North American
shores, home of the cheapest electronic kit and some of the more
expensive glider flying in the world. My comments about the relative
costs of FRs vs. gliding were addressed entirely to them.


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

I'm not saying that COTS equates to self certifying,
I was trying (badly) to make the point that you have
more reason to believe something when a higher standard
of proof is required. And that anything where there
could be a perception of lowering the bar for cheaters
should be approached with extreme care....

If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
unit. As for procedures, the potential problem is
that, with a COTS logger (say for example an iPaq with
winpilot or some other hypothetical approved software),
who is to say the person flying hasn't downloaded to
their iPaq a little utility (no doubt disguised as
a calculator ;-) ) to emulate the serial port and
feed in a rubbish NMEA feed? The OO would need to have
seen the iPaq being hard resest and all new software
installed to be able to guarentee no additional software
is installed... Not an easy task.

These are things it's far harder to do with volkslogger
and other specially designed loggers because they were
not designed to allow easy access (although I realise
an EW takes an NMEA feed, but even there, pressure
altitude is hard to fake, without a pressure chamber).


This is not a case of 'innocent until proven guilty',
it's about requiring a standard of proof high enough
to keep insurance types satisfied and not lowering
any bars. Fail to keep them happy with your qualifications,
your premiums go up... not good.

And as for OO's being complicit with a cheater, that
could happen anyway, whether or not we have COTS units,
who's to say your driving examiner wasn't bribed? Insurance
companies have to accept a small potential rate of
false declarations by people, otherwise they would
never manage to insure anyone (no insurance = no money
for them), all their risks are factored into the premiums.
There will always be some degree of cheating, that's
just human nature, all we can do is throw as many roadblocks
at them as we can.

Anything we can do to make soaring cheaper is good,
but if we are not careful we just drive up costs in
other areas....


J

At 13:48 09 June 2004, Papa3 wrote:
Jamie,

Prove your statement? Assume, for a moment, that a
document exists which
gives specific (simple) pre/post flight requirements
to the OO for dealing
with a couple of approved COTS units (same as we have
today for photographic
and barogroph validation). For instance:

1. Validate that track logs are cleared prior to flight.
This is done
by... Or, identify existing track logs prior to
flight. This is done
by...

2. Observe dowload of track log post flight. This
is done by...






I have it on pretty good authority from folks that
have actually spent a lot
of time working with COTS units that this perceived
decrease in security is
a complete, total farce. Since I'm in the US, I'll
use the standard of
innocent until proven guilty - in other words, COTS
is no less secure if OO
procedures are followed.

I think this idea that we're going from some iron-clad
proof of validity to
basically self-certifying is a joke.
How did your insurance companies know
that the OO was not in complicity with a pilot when,
for example, certifying
that the barograph was sealed or a fresh roll of film
was inserted under
his/her observation. Etc.




'Jamie Denton' wrote in
message ...


If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge
etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...

Jamie,

I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here. For the near term, I
think most folks are focused on self-contained GPS units, e.g. the Garmin76.
In this case, the navigation and logging functions are co-located. I've
personally sat on the deck after flying and paged through someone's Garmin
trace (Garmin 12, I think) to validate to my satisfaction that the person
did what they said they did. So, imagine the following (simple)
instruction sheet for OO validation:

1. Review any existing track logs prior to takeoff noting date/time stamps
(simple to do - OO doesn't need to know how to navigate the functions; owner
of the unit shows him/her). This is to show tht there is nothing "fishy"
prior to takeoff, eg. a post-stamped track log created at home (though I
believe that the Garmin upload interface automatically wipes out timestamps,
but anyway).

2. Immediately upon landing, OO reviews log file using UI of GPS unit to
validate timestamps, basic continuity, turnpoints, etc. The OO doesn't need
to know how do navigate the features; the pilot simply walks him/her through
it. Again, the units themselves facilitate this, so it is still
self-contained. You can zoom in on turnpoints, check altitude profile,
etc. RIGHT FROM THE COTS UNIT. As far as I am concerned this is an INCREASE
in security over my existing "secure" Cambridge unit. In other words, you
can validate prior to connecting any external computer that the file is
intact.

3. Download the file. Best case, the OO observes the dowload of trace
same day right on the airfield while keeping the COTS unit in his posession.
Second best is that the pilot hands over the unit to the OO who downloads
the trace later that night or next day. Third best is that the OO takes a
few key data points from the UI and notes them down, then allows the pilot
to take control of the unit and dowload from home. For almost all badges,
the main issues a a) When/how high did the pilot release from tow b) how
low/high did he get (for altitude gains, airspace incursion) c) did he land
along the way and d) did he accomplish the claimed turnpoint(s). All of
these require only a few points to be validated.

If we ever trusted the OO to do his or her job in the past, then we need to
hold that assumption constant. Given that, only the truly talented and
somewhat deranged individual would be able to pass the above tests. Forget
about the technical complexity of accomplishing an upload in flight. The
trick would be to create a file a day or two in advance that accurately
mirrors the actual conditions on the day of the flight. If we truly
believed an individual was cheating, comparison to other local flights or
even something as simple as reviewing estimated wind drift versus
observations would tip the OO off. Again, that's certainly an option to be
written into the rules.

Regards,
Erik Mann

p.s. A slightly used Garmin76 listed on eBay right now for $150. Checked
for Volkslogger and Cambridge, didn't find any :-))



"Jamie Denton" wrote in
message ...

If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
unit. As for procedures, the potential problem is
that, with a COTS logger (say for example an iPaq with
winpilot or some other hypothetical approved software),
who is to say the person flying hasn't downloaded to
their iPaq a little utility (no doubt disguised as
a calculator ;-) ) to emulate the serial port and
feed in a rubbish NMEA feed? The OO would need to have
seen the iPaq being hard resest and all new software
installed to be able to guarentee no additional software
is installed... Not an easy task.

And I can do the same by opening an approved FR and
fiddling
with the GPS streams from the engine, and I can do
that at
home without an OO watching and get a world record.



agreed, but hacking a box you potentially know nothing
about by opening it up is a far less tempting possibility
than fiddling with the internal workings of an OTS
device via a direct connection from the comfort of
your pc. The idea of breaking a logger with a screwdriver
doesn't appeal to many people ;-)

Who is to say the OO isn't in cahoots with the pilot
and
supplied fake photos and baro trace? My wife was OO
for all
my badges up to the 1000K. Come on! These are badges,
not
records. If you really care, require the OO to supply
the
download computer, not the pilot, but I think it would
be a
needless waste (as opposed to needed waste?).

To be honest, I personally don't really give a monkeys
if someone fakes a badge claim, it's rather sad. But
at many clubs Silver and other badges are actual flying
requirements, the higher the flying requirements, the
lower the insurance.


They have a simple internal switch, and an OTS GPS
engine
supplying data to the processor.

which is sealed into some package that makes it more
secure than a simple OTS system. Not perfect mind
you, but better.


I just don't believe insurance premiums are based on
the
security level of our FAI badge system. Sorry. Even
if it
was, I don't think COTS proposals lower it in any way.

What matters is the confidence these people have in
the system. If we are seen to lower the standard of
proof, most insurance people are not glider pilots,
and will likely assume some drop in standards (a blatantly
false assumption, but it wouldn't be illogical for
them to assume...). To some non gliding insurance
monkey, a little sealed box going blip (technical term...honest
;-) ), is far more reasuring than some gps you could
buy in some outdoor store.


So, IMHO, having an OO watch each flight and d/l a
COTS
trace is more secure than having a pilot magically
produce
his trace from a FR that he's had in his possession
and
control for the last 6 months.

in that particular case yes, but thats an OO procedural
matter, not anything to do with the logging method
used. I really have no issues with the OO system (my
reference to it was soley in reply to what whoever
has the handle 'Papa3'). Just download at the end
of the flight... simple (I hope!).

OTS loggers are a great idea for most people, cheap,
'reasonably' secure, most people are honest and unless
it's a world record or a comp I couldn't give a rats
ass if traces are faked. All I'm concerned about is
how this appears to insurance people... Imagine you
are a non gliderpilot insurance bod, how to you rate
a pilot you've never met or flown with? By hours, badges
and ratings (e.g. instructor ratings), do anything
that undermines their confidence in any element of
that set and you are liable to shoot yourself in the
foot...

Anyways, enough ramblings, go fly! :-P

cheers

Jamie

Don Johnstone wrote:
...
As far as personally faking a file, I may not have
that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does
though.

If he is able to fake a digital signature, he is an
advanced researcher in cryptography ...

Janos Bauer wrote:

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

Just a little precision concerning France. Our "NetCoupe" makes a
difference between pre-declared XC flights and free ones (coefficient
0.8 for free, 1. for pre-declared). Last year, an approved igc-FR was
required for pre-declared flights, this year COTS GPS (even without
altitude recording) are allowed.

Papa3 wrote:
...
Every time I read an article about some soaring camp in the Alps with full-time
instructors and government buildings [...] I just have to laugh.
...

I think the above is an allusion to our national center in St Auban (France),
the CNVV (Centre National de Vol a Voile), where it is true that we have full-
time instructors, and the buildings were certainly at least for some extent
payed by the governement. It is also true that in the past ther was a lot
of government support for soaring, but this time is over, it was already
over whe I started gliding 9 years ago. The full-time instructors at CNVV
are payed by the pilot's fees. I had 3 recent stays there, 2 weeks for a
prepartory course for an intructor rating, 3 weeks for the proper instructor
course, and 2 other weeks for the prepartory course for the 2nd level
intructor course (I botched the last one, so I have to do it again or
find an alternative). Each of these weeks costed 850 euros. I got a total
of 900 euros as help from our regional commitee for soaring. Even if this
commitee receives some government subside, a lot of its resources come
from the fees all glider pilots pay to our national organization. However
the old time of government support has still some effect on the present
costs. A general consensus on the fact that gliding should remain as
cheap as possible remains and most people are working for that, e.g. most
instructors (including myself) are volunteers. Also some glider fields
are always owned by the french State and let for free to the clubs
(including mine).

Robert Ehrlich writes:

Don Johnstone wrote:

As far as personally faking a file, I may not have that skill, I
know an 12 year old next door who does though.

If he is able to fake a digital signature, he is an advanced
researcher in cryptography ...

But you don't have to fake the file, just fake the signals into the
FAI logger and use a pressure chamber.

Some one should submit a `suitable' claim file, flown at 100K' with
all the security intact.

Logging raw satelite data and carrier phase would be a bit more
secure, it could be post proscessed when the prescision ephemeris data
is available a few days later. It would be REALLY hard to predict that!

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[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.

Many thanks for the above.

In the formulation of rules and procedures for IGC-approved GNSS Flight
Recorders, that is exactly what we have tried to achieve since the IGC
GFA Committee (GFAC) was set up in March 1995.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee