Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight.
What would the point be?
Badge flights are about personal accomplishment. If there is an individual
in this sport so sad as to cheat on a badge flight, let him/her.
Record flights deserve the higher level of scrutiny because we are comparing
performances between individuals.

Brent


"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

303pilot wrote:
I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight.
What would the point be?
Badge flights are about personal accomplishment. If there is an individual
in this sport so sad as to cheat on a badge flight, let him/her.
Record flights deserve the higher level of scrutiny because we are comparing
performances between individuals.

So, you are an advocate of the "honor system". Nothing wrong with that,
but that is not the current intent of the FAI/IGC or its delegates...

Marc

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
om...
303pilot wrote:
I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge
flight.
What would the point be?
Badge flights are about personal accomplishment. If there is an
individual
in this sport so sad as to cheat on a badge flight, let him/her.
Record flights deserve the higher level of scrutiny because we are
comparing
performances between individuals.

So, you are an advocate of the "honor system". Nothing wrong with that,
but that is not the current intent of the FAI/IGC or its delegates...

Marc

No, I'm not in favor of the "honor system". I am in favor of pairing cheap
GPS's with declarations and OO's for badge flights.

What exactly is the "current intent of the FAI/IGC"?

What is the benefit to the sport of increasing the cost and complexity of
flight documentation for the purpose of reducing a problem (cheating) that,
so far as I'm aware, does not exist at any meaningful level? Does the
FAI/ICG believe that absent expensive secure loggers all/most/some/10% of
pilots would cheat? What is the problem that is being solved by the use of
these devices rather than simpler, cheaper devices?

Disclaimer - I own a secure flight recorder. My only interest is doing what
is most likely to enhance the sport through greater participation in XC
flight.

Dnia 5/25/04 4:48 PM, U¿ytkownik 303pilot napisa³:

Disclaimer - I own a secure flight recorder. My only interest is doing what
is most likely to enhance the sport through greater participation in XC
flight.
In my opinion, you really don't need FAI to popularise XC flights. Every
glider pilot needs 8 successful flights to reach 3 diamonds - and that's
all most pilots need certified logger for. You really don't have to own
one by yourself, few loggers bought by a club is enough for all it's
members.

Methods of flight recording in all competitions below continental level
are up to organisers. These are the people who should be convinced to
"COTS" solutions. Forget lobbing IGC, you don't need their help.

Case:
Since this year in Poland you can use almost any "GNNS flight evidence
device" in all competitions except Nationals. This also includes on-line
contests (here some limitations has been made to ensure basics of
security). All these new regulations were made on level of the national
Gliding Commision, without any consulations with IGC.


--
Wojtus'.net __|__
FidoNet: 2:484/47 `--------o--------'

I wish to set the record straight of where we are with respect to COTS

1) Height recordings....WAAS corrects barometric and satellite
readings with
an accuracy not found in barographs. I tested the position changes
and
recorded an hour with a stationary Garmin Etrex Vista (latest
software versi
version) Is 9 square meters accurate enough? I compared the
altitudes
recorded with the maximum altitude altimeter readings and, again,
spot on!
Don't forget that we know of at least one diamond climb approval on
the basis
of a photograph of the (certified)altimeter in the pilot's cockpit.

2) Garmin has been in touch with me ever since the IGC threw out the
Canadian
request for approval of certain COTS units. This company is ready
to send
any number of units for testing purposes by IGC subcommittee.
There appears to be an inordinate time taken by IGC/GFAC reps to
reply to
Garmin. Garmin has been extraordinarily gracefull to me going over
all the obstacles thrown at them by the IGC rep. even to the tune
of
going over the same ground over and over again. Don't forget; the
IGC wrote
the rules, including that only manufacturers can apply for approval
of a
unit.

3) There was mentioned "a reduced standard of security for FAI badge
applications" but Garmin is required to meet the existing stringent
standards.

4) Official Observers are being left out of the security process to
the degree
that they may as well not be there. For example; how many OO's
understand
the Sporting Code rules concerning the use of IGC approved FDR's??

5) I am very disappointed in those among us who think that we are
surrounded by
cheats and that we must AT ALL COSTS (C$1300 IGC FDR v.s C$450
COTS) prevent
these villains to get theirs!! I heard of two or three cases, so
what!!!!!

6) I come from an airforce background where it is important to be safe
(aircraft maintenance)but I also have received training to be
flexible enough
not to unneccessarily ground an aircraft when it can accomplish its
mission.
Are we not too presumptious as to be holier than thou and that the
IGC gospel
is the only true one? Come on guys, IT IS A SPORT and that is the
short of
it.

7) I receive the impression that at least one member of the gFAC
committee is
not being kept abreast of the Garmin correspondence with the
chairman GFAC.
If any of you wish to be kept informed of what Garmin is doing, I
will be
happy to copy you in.

I am very disappointed in the complex mountain built by IGC just to
curb a few bad eggs. In sports it does not matter, since there are
very few and it is no skin off my back. I will not loose my joy in
having accomplished a 450 k flight with my "illegal" Garmin Etrex
Vista recorder. I know I have done the flight and bugger the gospel
thumpers.

John Bisscheroux

The IGC/FAI are dragging their feet needlessly on COTS
approval.

There is no reason that the process of documenting basic
badge flights (through Gold) flight should be as difficult
or expensive as it currently is. (This proposal would not
apply to national or world records where we would certainly
want to comply with the more rigorous standards.)

Let's keep a bit of perspective. These badges are primarily
a record of personal achievement, very little more. No one
cares who has Silver badge # 5526 (me) or when I got it
(years ago), except me. When someone goes to great lengths
to cheat by faking a flight record, I view it as the
cheater's personal problem, not mine, and not the sports. It
certainly does not devalue my first 50k, the memories of
which I still warmly cherish.

I don't see the need to make the process of Silver and Gold
badge documentation as difficult as the flight itself. The
soaring community is faced with declining membership and
diminishing interest in cross country flight and this is an
unnecessary obstacle.

I also think that there is great additional value in
capturing more flight records for analysis. Having just
reviewed a flight record of a relatively new pilot, I was
able to discern where the pilot got a little too close to
the edge of the safety margin. Going over the flight with
the pilot was an eye-opener for him and he learned something
from the instant replay that he missed while he was in the
air. It was a good lesson, a lesson that would have been
just as valuable with a COTS unit as with an IGC approved unit

Any device other than a COTS recorder will never bring the
price down sufficiently to make these readily affordable for
most pilots because the size of the glider pilot market is
just too small to achieve the economies of scale for a
purpose built device, IGC approved device. More pilots
will more readily use cheaper units and I think that is
beneficial.

To the extent that others agree, we all need to put pressure
on our respective national organizations to get the FAI/IGC
to respond.


Pete Brown


--

Peter D. Brown
http://home.gci.net/~pdb/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akmtnsoaring/

I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge flight.
What would the point be?

I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge for
duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA Instructor
who awarded the badge said it was "close enough".

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

He knows, you know and the SSA instructor knows.
What value does the pilot get from that C badge?

"Jim Vincent" wrote in message
...
I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge
flight.
What would the point be?

I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge
for
duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA
Instructor
who awarded the badge said it was "close enough".

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

This is true, but anyone who sees the student wearing the badge would rightly
assume that the student actually earned it. Had I been that student, I would
have declined the badge until I rightfully earned it. Instructors like this
diminish the credibility of the SSA badge program. But this is just one data
point of many lies from that instructor.


He knows, you know and the SSA instructor knows.
What value does the pilot get from that C badge?

I don't think I've met anyone in soaring who would cheat on a badge
flight.
What would the point be?

I don't know about that. I know of one pilot who was earning the C badge
for
duration. He released about 500 feet higher than allowed. Then SSA
Instructor
who awarded the badge said it was "close enough".



Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

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