Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

Graeme Cant wrote:
Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?

A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence (i.e.,
photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance legs. The
additional security required of approved flight recorders was a direct
response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera documentation
for world records (the result of a number of known cheating incidents).

Marc

I have never used a lead seal, I have used sticky paper
tape signed over the join. I would far rather use the
power of my computer over unlimited time than try and
unstick and restick in exactly the same place while
the baro is still in the glider. Remember the OO seals
the baro and witnesses it's placement in the glider
and it's removal. I am not saying it cannot be done,
what I am saying is that it cannot be done in the time
available. Security buys time, that is all it does.
Time, as far as a digital file is concerned, remember
that it is just a series of 0s and 1s, is unlimited.
As far as personally faking a file, I may not have
that skill, I know an 12 year old next door who does
though.

At 20:30 02 June 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger,
the
security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more
difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file.


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.
--


Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"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.

Recognition of this fact may have something to do with age, but the
real issues are recognizing what is to be measured, why it is being
measured, and then determining whether it is reasonable to change to
measuring something else.


Andy

Just one additional idea to this topic: why don't we create an open (OLC
like) web database from all badge logs. I think this could scare away
some potential cheater, if there is any. Additionally all these flight
logs could be used for further analysis.

/Janos

Hahaha... boy this is silly. The current system allows
the use of a baro with a certain amount of error. How
about allowing geometric altitude to be used "within an error
range of 100 feet, or 1000 feet, or whatever?"
Beyond this, why not let the
GPS geometric altitude be used to verify "continuity of flight?"

Sure I can understand why pressure altitude need be accurate for
someone trying to set an altitude record, but for continuity
of flight or altitude gain, pressure altitude was historically
used not because it was "best", but simply because it was
the best thing easily available.

Relief from the silly pressure altitude requirement
greatly reduces the calibration and expense for loggers.
This change is inevitable. When the various committees
eventually decide to abandon steam engines and the
use of the fine but outdated abacus, I'm sure there
will be much rejoicing...

Pure silliness...

As far as COTS GPS goes, not all GPS's are suited to
soaring flights. I'd guess if enough soaring pilots approached
GARMIN and asked for a fully plastic encased GPS
that couldn't upload anything but would download
..igc secure files, they'd doctor up one of their
El Cheapo devices and sell it to ya.

I doubt this will happen soon, however, since most of you
gadget hounds out there would never agree to a dumb, cheap logger.
Hell, most of you have watches that calculate cosines, right?
I use mine to tell the time... ;PPPPPP

So in the meantime, I'll continue to take my dumb, cheap
Volklogger and stick it in the back of the
glider in a box, quietly recording away, while I use
my COTS pilot III for navigation...

By the way, my VL is for sale, since I've done all the
flight recording I need

Michel Talon wrote:
Papa3 wrote:
Marc or others,

As I've dug deeper into this subject, the issue of geometric altitude
appears to be one of the true obstacles to the adoption of COTS units. Is

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Marc Ramsey wrote:

GPS altitude can not be corrected to pressure altitude with reasonable
error bounds, unless specific meteorological data is provided for the
time and place of the flight. Pressure altitude can not be corrected to
geometric altitude with reasonable error bounds, unless specific
meteorological data is provided for the time and place of the flight.
Without making these meteorological corrections, geometric and
calibrated pressure altitude can differ by as much as 1000 feet for a
Diamond altitude gain.

So what's so bad about 1000ft of error? That's 8% for a diamond gain.
If one uses a GPS, make 'em go 1000ft higher than the requirement...

4281 ft for silver, 10843 ft for gold, 17404 ft for
diamond... would that be enough to make up for any error?

Sounds good to me...still quite silly, since we are talking about
a gain when measured by the same device for badges (not a
comparison of pressure to geometric altitude).

Really accurate altitude and the distinction only has meaning
for situations where altitude, rather than gain or loss of
altitude, is a factor. Requiring pressure altitude for badges
makes no sense at all, IMHO, if fairly accurate GPS altitudes
are available...and I believe this is available and verifiable under
the current system (although the FAA has been slow allowing
GPS vertical guidance for approaches as a matter of caution
and safety, RAIM is available)...
altitude gain or loss
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

I've found it a little funny that there's all this fuss about
the measuring devices, yet I've read in several articles about
silver badge flights and radio chatter and finding
thermals despite:

SC 3, 2.1.1 a

"The Silver distance flight should be flown without navigational
or other assistance given over the radio (other than permission
to land on an airfield) or help or guidance from other aircraft."

This sport has elements of the honor system in it already, there
are already some who do cheat (most often inadvertently), but
I for one think that the sport is so small that the overemphasis
on security discourages participation to a much greater degree
than any cheating under a COTS gps approval for badges would
detract or discourage.

No one wants to cheat with them, it's just the way things going on
some (maybe most) places.

I've seen similar things. Given this, the obvious solution would be to
award badges using the honor system. If this is not acceptable, then
some level of procedural and/or technical security measures must be in
the rules (even if some do not follow them). How much security is enough?
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Todd Pattist wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

How much for your "cheap VL"?

Anyone interested please contact me privately...I know it seems
silly since I could put out all the info in the same time
it takes to type this, but I would just loathe myself if
I BLATANTLY used this NG purely for an ad...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

"Janos Bauer" wrote in message
...
Just one additional idea to this topic: why don't we create an open (OLC
like) web database from all badge logs. I think this could scare away
some potential cheater, if there is any. Additionally all these flight
logs could be used for further analysis.

/Janos

Very creative thought.

Bill Daniels

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. 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 we need to debate that proposition.

Bruce

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Graeme Cant wrote:

Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as
completely adequate security for all purposes, why do we need
heightened security for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?


A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence
(i.e., photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance
legs. The additional security required of approved flight recorders
was a direct response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera
documentation for world records (the result of a number of known
cheating incidents).

Marc