GPS Hand Held for Badges

It boggles the mind how the beaurocratic mind works. I sent a long email to
one of the "powers that be" a while back (a name well known on this
Usegroup) who didn't even have the courtesy to respond. I suggested that
for all badge flights and for records below national or world level, a
commercial, off the shelf (aka COTS) solution be allowed. This would bring
the price of an acceptable GPS log down from nearly $1000 to something on
the order of a couple hundred bucks.

My argumaent basically goes like this. A COTS unit is certainly no less
secure than the existing alternative (ie. a camera and barograph). We have
documented evidence of world-caliber pilots trying to fudge barograph or
camera results from years past. Yet, we get up in arms that someone may try
to programmatically alter their flight log from a COTS unit. Hell, if we
simply adhered to the rules of the OO, the file would be taken over by the
OO immediately upon landing. If someone wants to go to the trouble of
building an application to fudge this data in-flight or during the initial
download just to prove they made their silver distance, I say "who really
cares."

I notice in the preliminary minutes from the 2004 IGC meeting that the
proposal to allows COTS units was again rejected. I'll be on a crusade to
find out exactly why...

"Wojciech Scigala" wrote in message
...
Dnia 5/23/04 1:17 AM, U¿ytkownik f.blair napisa³:

What is the least expensive hand held that can be used for certifying
badge
claims?
Only FAI-certified loggers can be used for badge flights, and countries'
regulations can't change that.

You can still use a barograph and a camera for documenting flight
progress.

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

X-no-archive: yes
In article .net,
Papa3 writes
It boggles the mind how the beaurocratic mind works.
---Rant Snipped--------------


Who are you? I think that it is most unlikely that you will provoke any
positive reaction while you hide behind an anonymous address.

Anyway, this whole business of COTS units was discussed at the Plenary
Meeting of IGC in February this year, as you can read in the minutes of
that meeting on the FAI web site.

Of the 31 delegates, only One voted in favour of COTS, so the motion was
defeated.

That is democracy at work. I am sorry if you don't like the results of
the vote, but the COTS issue has had a recent airing and democracy says
NO.

It could always be raised again at a future Plenary Meeting, but that is
something you need to take up with your NAC.

Very best regards,

Tim Newport-Peace

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

Of the 31 delegates, only One voted in favour of COTS, so the motion was
defeated.

It would be useful to know why... Maybe those who spent their free
time on this proposal, could improve it a bit and one day lot of glider
pilots could benefit from a positive decision.
As I see a GPS+barogpraph could be equal to photo+barograph, at least
for badges.

/Janos

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Janos Bauer
writes
Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

Of the 31 delegates, only One voted in favour of COTS, so the motion was
defeated.

It would be useful to know why... Maybe those who spent their free
time on this proposal, could improve it a bit and one day lot of glider
pilots could benefit from a positive decision.

Reading the IGC Minutes,
http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/...inutes2004.pdf
item 10.3.1, could provide some of the answers but not having been there
myself, I could not tell you.

As I see a GPS+barogpraph could be equal to photo+barograph, at least
for badges.

But I have read a suggestion that Photographic (and all other non-GPS
evidence) should be phased out, which would negate that argument.

Best regards,

Tim Newport-Peace

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

But I have read a suggestion that Photographic (and all other non-GPS
evidence) should be phased out, which would negate that argument.

It's right and totally acceptable. But I think it won't be phased out
and COTS will not be approved...

/Janos

Janos Bauer wrote:
Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

Of the 31 delegates, only One voted in favour of COTS, so the motion was
defeated.


It would be useful to know why... Maybe those who spent their free time
on this proposal, could improve it a bit and one day lot of glider
pilots could benefit from a positive decision.
As I see a GPS+barogpraph could be equal to photo+barograph, at least
for badges.

You should be able to contact your representative to the IGC and discuss
it with him. At the very least, he should be able to direct you to a
knowledgeable person that was there. A phone call often gets information
that doesn't make it into meeting minutes, or even an email exchange.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I have to admit that I often exchange mails with one of the guys who
initiated the mentioned proposal. I helped him to find&contact our
national representative, so I know about their discussion. Our
representative simple doesn't like this idea, that's all, there was no
explanation...
Sorry to say, but I often feel that most of the persons who were
involved in this decision are not really aware of the technical
background. They are often just afraid of cheating but has no any idea
how does an IGC logger works and what would be the difference if it's
just a black box GPS. They just trust on those professional boxes
created for world records...
90% of the OOs doesn't even know what should be checked on a logger
(pilot name, glider identifier&type). It was more than 10 years when I
saw the last sealed camera or barograph! I even did my approved diamond
distance with an unsealed camera&barograph... So what can we lose with
this modification?
More than a year ago Mark Hawkins (soaringpilot designer) asked for
any cheating solutions for his palm based logger, but there was no any
suggestion I'm aware of. For me it's hard to imagine to create any
system that could do that for the reasonable price (is it really worth
to create such a device or cheaper to rent a discus2 and run a 500k on
an average day?).
Just imagine that you should create an IGC file representing the same
data what the barograph logged and in the same time this should meet
with your take-off and landing time, round all the turnpoints, have the
same wind, present it to the OO at landing.

/Janos


Eric Greenwell wrote:

Janos Bauer wrote:

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

Of the 31 delegates, only One voted in favour of COTS, so the motion was
defeated.



It would be useful to know why... Maybe those who spent their free
time on this proposal, could improve it a bit and one day lot of
glider pilots could benefit from a positive decision.
As I see a GPS+barogpraph could be equal to photo+barograph, at least
for badges.


You should be able to contact your representative to the IGC and discuss
it with him. At the very least, he should be able to direct you to a
knowledgeable person that was there. A phone call often gets information
that doesn't make it into meeting minutes, or even an email exchange.

I do not recall that there is any "handheld" GPS that can be used for badge
flights.. only approved data loggers can...

This is not to be confused with the 1-26Assoc approval of small handhelds
for their competitions... they are not doing badge flights and it is a small
group.

BT

"f.blair" wrote in message
news:OYSrc.7849$af3.442133@attbi_s51...
What is the least expensive hand held that can be used for certifying
badge
claims?

Need to download traces, create waypoints, etc.

Thanks,
Fred

Sorry 'bout that - thought my legendary reputation as a top contest pilot
preceded me :-))

Name: Erik Mann. Flying experience: Some 1500 hours including racing,
record flying, and instructing. I also run a highly successful regional
competition here in the good ole US of A scored entirely on the basis of GPS
data, including non-approved loggers. All of which just proves that I have
a tremendous interest in this sport and nothing more. Beyond that, I'm a
senior executive in a major software engineering and consulting firm, with a
focus on technical strategy. One of my interests is process improvement ,
which is why this GPS approval "process" intrigues me so.

I think it's great that the process was followed, and it's a shame that what
I believe to be a rational proposal failed. So, I'll do what anyone in a
free society has a right to do - I'll agitate for change. It would be
helpful to find out who the members of the GFAC are, as I was not able to
find this easily on the FAI Web page. All I saw was a couple of group
mailing lists, but it would be nice to know the names/countries behind the
committe. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

As far as discussion is concerned, I did indeed attempt to "discuss" this
issue with one of the well known individuals from the GFAC or predecessor
thereto. Unfortunately, the only response I got was tantamount to "silly
bugger, you obviously wouldn't understand." At least on this side of the
pond, them's fightin' words.

P3

"Tim Newport-Peace" ] wrote in message
...
X-no-archive: yes
In article .net,
Papa3 writes
It boggles the mind how the beaurocratic mind works.
---Rant Snipped--------------


Who are you? I think that it is most unlikely that you will provoke any
positive reaction while you hide behind an anonymous address.

Anyway, this whole business of COTS units was discussed at the Plenary
Meeting of IGC in February this year, as you can read in the minutes of
that meeting on the FAI web site.

Of the 31 delegates, only One voted in favour of COTS, so the motion was
defeated.

That is democracy at work. I am sorry if you don't like the results of
the vote, but the COTS issue has had a recent airing and democracy says
NO.

It could always be raised again at a future Plenary Meeting, but that is
something you need to take up with your NAC.

Very best regards,

Tim Newport-Peace

Papa3 wrote:
I think it's great that the process was followed, and it's a shame that what
I believe to be a rational proposal failed. So, I'll do what anyone in a
free society has a right to do - I'll agitate for change. It would be
helpful to find out who the members of the GFAC are, as I was not able to
find this easily on the FAI Web page. All I saw was a couple of group
mailing lists, but it would be nice to know the names/countries behind the
committe. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

Well, I'm the GFAC member from the US, Ian Strachan is the GFAC Chairman
from the UK, Tim Newport-Peace is an adviser to GFAC, also from the UK,
there are other members who read this group and decloak on occasion...

As far as discussion is concerned, I did indeed attempt to "discuss" this
issue with one of the well known individuals from the GFAC or predecessor
thereto. Unfortunately, the only response I got was tantamount to "silly
bugger, you obviously wouldn't understand." At least on this side of the
pond, them's fightin' words.

It seems like you've gotten a fairly serious discussion this time
around, would you prefer a fight? 8^)

Marc