Slashdot Mirror

...the doubts on the reality of any kind of imagery cannot be overcome and we need to abandon the idea that images (moving or not) can be trusted as evidence ? Would the world stop spinning ? I highly doubt this.

Perhaps there can be an exception in cases where the entire chain of taking and handling an image can be verified in one way or another ?

Unalterable checksum produced by the camera perhaps ? I know that we can already do this with GPS flight logs (track/altitude) coming from certified flight recorders. (See http://www.fai.org/gnss-record... ) It would certainly require certification of the camera used for taking such an image.

You've just completely locked out all of the F3 gliding competitions, http://www.fai.org/ciam-our-sp...

If you do actually Google "where does space start" you'll get a popular definition of 100km, so yes, quite a bit short.

I'm also not sure yet about the claim that they had the previous record. If you visit http://www.fai.org/record-glid... you'll see that in 2006 the late great Steve Fossett has a claim to a little higher than the Perlan claim. The Perlan claim doesn't even show up on the site.

Considering that the FAI lists the world record for free distance for open-class GLIDERS at 2259km (1403 miles), then I'd have to agree with GPP that no, 515 miles for a POWERED airplane (even solar powered) isn't all that impressive.

Note: if you just click the FAI link, you won't see the results I'm referencing above. You have to select "DO - Open Class Gliders" in the "subclass" drop-down box, "Free Distance" in the "Type of Record" drop-down box and "World" in the "Record Zone" box. Sorry...I couldn't find a way to link to just the results I found.

So you are saying that the FAI is wrong? That the realm of Near Space doesn't officially lay between 75,000 feet (~23km) and and 62.5 miles (100km)?

Dangit...400,000 feet or 80 miles. Still, far short of the range skilled pilots can fly in a suitable glider.

Then I guess that the records recorded by Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, The World Air Sports Federation, are incorrect. http://records.fai.org/data?c=6

Just to amplify the point, in August 2003 the Trans-Atlantic Model (TAM) project, led by modeling legend Maynard Hill, sent a model airplane from Cape Spear, NF, Canada to Mannin Beach, Ireland, a flight of 3030 km lasting 38h 52 min 19 sec. The craft was radio-controlled during takeoff and landing, but used a GPS-based autopilot during the remainder of the flight. Surely, this is equivalent to launching and recovering the autonomous Scarlet Knight submarine manually at sea.

Just to amplify the point, in August 2003 the Trans-Atlantic Model (TAM) project, led by modeling legend Maynard Hill, sent a model airplane from Cape Spear, NF, Canada to Mannin Beach, Ireland, a flight of 3030 km lasting 38h 52 min 19 sec. The craft was radio-controlled during takeoff and landing, but used a GPS-based autopilot during the remainder of the flight. Surely, this is equivalent to launching and recovering the autonomous Scarlet Knight submarine manually at sea.

I looked at the checklist on the internation aeronautics federation web site, and it looks like QinetiQ could easily have complied with the rules, they just had to invite an official and agree on how to document the flight, which seems quite reasonable and obvious to me.

So I guess you're right: the folks at QinetiQ probably do not care about "official" world records. They just want publicity, and sell stuff.

Or maybe there are some unmentioned important details.

You might find this document interesting http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/tech_spec_gnss.pdf it is a spec for devices doing more or less what you want to do. And there are lots of applications to process the .igc files generated by these secure recorders.

Pretty standard stuf: See http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/ and http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/tech_spec_gnss.pdf

Pretty standard stuf: See http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/ and http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/tech_spec_gnss.pdf

In gliding contests we use IGC GPS loggers. The IGC logger logs a position and pressure altitude fix every second, and when the fligth has been completed a IGC file is generated and signed with the loggers private key. The file can then be validated on a PC at any time. In order to get the logger approved by IGC it has to be tamper proof, typical the private key is stored in battery backed SRAM and opening the sealed box makes it loose it's electronic seal. See http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/

If GPS logging is good enough for the World Air Sports Federation then it ought to be good enough to contest a speeding ticket.

The catch is that FAI-approved secure data loggers aren't cheap and don't have much in the way of fancy special features.

Under the FAI definitions paragliders and hang-gliders are both in the same category of foot-launced unpowered aircraft, they both have loosely similar flight-characteristsics, tend to share the same airspace and consequently in many countries they (now) share a regulatory body.

Thus it was I came to be on an instructors' course some years ago when the subject of accident prevention and reporting was being discussed and one thing I remember very distinctly about that was that the same mistakes tend to be made time & time again. I guess this applies to all fields, programming as well, but on this occasion it was pointed out how accident reports of 5 years before looked pretty much like the accident reports currently submitted to the association. I guess the statistics were probably lower than you might think and the majority of incidents involved sprained ankles and broken wrists but the causes were typically pilot error, over-confidence, carelessness &/or neglect - the same reasons hang-glider pilots had been having accidents for 20 years.

Likewise it took a few dead paraglider pilots before the introduction of a certification regimen under which manufacturers of gliders were required to submit new their models for testing - a regimen which 10 years ago had recently matured but which bore remarkable similarities to the certification schemes under which hang-gliders had been regulated since the 1970s. And of course the testing for hang-gliders had been introduced for the same reason - dead pilots, just in the early 1970s they were the result of simple Rogalio hang-gliders entering "luffing-dives" whereas in the early 1990s the cause was paragliders "collapsing" in turbulent air &/or finding themselves stable in flat-spins or spirals.

A previous poster wrote that "the freedom with which Nausicaa sails around the skies on a flying machine light enough to carry yet strong enough to carry out some hairy aerobatics has figured in many a daydream" but wings that achieve this goal, this dream, are already widely available. Just because they don't look quite like the one out of your favorite comic book, I don't think that's a great reason to learn aviation design the hard way.

Aviation design is a really complicated discipline with lots of pitfalls, and mistakes may not show up until a wing has been flown for a number of hours, which is kinda inconvenient if you're flying at a few hundred feet at the time. Tailless aircraft are particularly quirky, and last time I checked (a few years ago, admittedly) there weren't many designs available - a tail is just a really easy way to ensure pitch and yaw stability.

Don't get me wrong - this looks like a really great toy, I'd love to have a play with it and I wish these guys the best, but I hope for their sakes that they've done their homework. The veteran pilots I've known who have lost friends to the sport (and I guess that includes me) haven't really known what they were getting into.

Under the FAI definitions paragliders and hang-gliders are both in the same category of foot-launced unpowered aircraft, they both have loosely similar flight-characteristsics, tend to share the same airspace and consequently in many countries they (now) share a regulatory body.

Thus it was I came to be on an instructors' course some years ago when the subject of accident prevention and reporting was being discussed and one thing I remember very distinctly about that was that the same mistakes tend to be made time & time again. I guess this applies to all fields, programming as well, but on this occasion it was pointed out how accident reports of 5 years before looked pretty much like the accident reports currently submitted to the association. I guess the statistics were probably lower than you might think and the majority of incidents involved sprained ankles and broken wrists but the causes were typically pilot error, over-confidence, carelessness &/or neglect - the same reasons hang-glider pilots had been having accidents for 20 years.

Likewise it took a few dead paraglider pilots before the introduction of a certification regimen under which manufacturers of gliders were required to submit new their models for testing - a regimen which 10 years ago had recently matured but which bore remarkable similarities to the certification schemes under which hang-gliders had been regulated since the 1970s. And of course the testing for hang-gliders had been introduced for the same reason - dead pilots, just in the early 1970s they were the result of simple Rogalio hang-gliders entering "luffing-dives" whereas in the early 1990s the cause was paragliders "collapsing" in turbulent air &/or finding themselves stable in flat-spins or spirals.

A previous poster wrote that "the freedom with which Nausicaa sails around the skies on a flying machine light enough to carry yet strong enough to carry out some hairy aerobatics has figured in many a daydream" but wings that achieve this goal, this dream, are already widely available. Just because they don't look quite like the one out of your favorite comic book, I don't think that's a great reason to learn aviation design the hard way.

Aviation design is a really complicated discipline with lots of pitfalls, and mistakes may not show up until a wing has been flown for a number of hours, which is kinda inconvenient if you're flying at a few hundred feet at the time. Tailless aircraft are particularly quirky, and last time I checked (a few years ago, admittedly) there weren't many designs available - a tail is just a really easy way to ensure pitch and yaw stability.

Don't get me wrong - this looks like a really great toy, I'd love to have a play with it and I wish these guys the best, but I hope for their sakes that they've done their homework. The veteran pilots I've known who have lost friends to the sport (and I guess that includes me) haven't really known what they were getting into.

The FAI differentiates between atmospheric and space flight. Where does the atmosphere end? The FAI's definition is 62 miles ASL.

And no, the Guiness Book of World Records holds no authority in the aerospace community.

Who wins in skydiving? That's easy, anyone who walks away from a landing and is able to jump again.

You make a point to specify that recreational skydiving is not sport and I could do the same with almost any other activity. When I skydive, mountain bike, paddle or even shoot pool, I do not keep score. I enjoy those activities as recreation, yet there are countless others who do compete in each. My original post was mostly tongue-in-cheek humor, but there are many forms of competition in skydiving:

http://www.uspa.org/competition/
The USPA Constitution binds USPA "to sanction skydiving competitions, to document officially all national and world skydiving records set by citizens of the U.S., and to select and train the United States Parachute Team for world competition."

http://www.fai.org/ - (covers all forms of air sports. Who knew flying a plane could be a sport?) FAI is the world air sports federation, founded in 1905. It is a non-governmental and non-profit making international organisation with the basic aim of furthering aeronautical and astronautical activities worldwide.

http://www.fai.org/parachuting/
IPC, the International Parachuting Commission of FAI. FAI's parachuting activities, in particular World Records and International Competitions, are conducted under the direction of the IPC.

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/TNSarchives/Novembe r04/111604.htm
The U.S. Army Parachute Team, "Golden Knights," style-and-accuracy teams swept the 2004 National Skydiving Competition in Perris, Calif., last month, winning two team medals and 10 individual medals.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page .cgi?ID=58
Formation Skydiving has two different areas: recreational skydiving, also known as fun jumping, and the competitive arena.

http://www.skyleague.com/pages/images/nslTV/
Videos of formation skydiving competitions.

http://www.ground-rush.com/wind.htm
Partial global list of recreational wind tunnel locations - for those curious about what skydiving feels like, without the safety risks of jumping out of a plane and landing under parachute. The experience is in fact close to that of freefall but, the restrictive nature of a tunnel takes away the best part of skydiving - almost unrestricted flight. The visual experience of a tunnel sucks in comparison as well.

Who wins in skydiving? That's easy, anyone who walks away from a landing and is able to jump again.

You make a point to specify that recreational skydiving is not sport and I could do the same with almost any other activity. When I skydive, mountain bike, paddle or even shoot pool, I do not keep score. I enjoy those activities as recreation, yet there are countless others who do compete in each. My original post was mostly tongue-in-cheek humor, but there are many forms of competition in skydiving:

http://www.uspa.org/competition/
The USPA Constitution binds USPA "to sanction skydiving competitions, to document officially all national and world skydiving records set by citizens of the U.S., and to select and train the United States Parachute Team for world competition."

http://www.fai.org/ - (covers all forms of air sports. Who knew flying a plane could be a sport?) FAI is the world air sports federation, founded in 1905. It is a non-governmental and non-profit making international organisation with the basic aim of furthering aeronautical and astronautical activities worldwide.

http://www.fai.org/parachuting/
IPC, the International Parachuting Commission of FAI. FAI's parachuting activities, in particular World Records and International Competitions, are conducted under the direction of the IPC.

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/TNSarchives/Novembe r04/111604.htm
The U.S. Army Parachute Team, "Golden Knights," style-and-accuracy teams swept the 2004 National Skydiving Competition in Perris, Calif., last month, winning two team medals and 10 individual medals.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/safety/detail_page .cgi?ID=58
Formation Skydiving has two different areas: recreational skydiving, also known as fun jumping, and the competitive arena.

http://www.skyleague.com/pages/images/nslTV/
Videos of formation skydiving competitions.

http://www.ground-rush.com/wind.htm
Partial global list of recreational wind tunnel locations - for those curious about what skydiving feels like, without the safety risks of jumping out of a plane and landing under parachute. The experience is in fact close to that of freefall but, the restrictive nature of a tunnel takes away the best part of skydiving - almost unrestricted flight. The visual experience of a tunnel sucks in comparison as well.

Also see here

-- The same AC

100KM is roughly the altitude that for an airplane
to stay up it would need to achieve orbital velocity.

Because an airplane cannot fly higher and a spachip cannot fly lower 100KM was choosen as
the official boundary of space.

The explanation is much better on the FAI website.
http://www.fai.org/book/view/22

Perhaps it is an arbitrary number picked by astronauts that is too high for other jet pilots to attain in normal aircraft? Or maybe it is too high for a normal parachute bail-out if your craft has problems? Ahh here we go:this link tells us why.

Uh, the world manned balloon record altitude is 34,668 m, not ... record setters go up to (40+km)., and most circumavigation attempts are at MUCH lower altitudes, the first sucessfull one the Breitling Orbiter hit a max altitude of 11,737 m, or aprox half the altitude that Wild Fire is shooting for. Stats are here, and here. So yes, I do think that wind will be a significant impediment to the sucessfull launch, relaunch, and commercial success of the Wild Fire approach. As to the bomb thing, I was trying to put the danger of the ballooning in perspective for those who thought it was a big risk, it's not compared to strapping yourself to a rocket, just about any rocket.

Uh, the world manned balloon record altitude is 34,668 m, not ... record setters go up to (40+km)., and most circumavigation attempts are at MUCH lower altitudes, the first sucessfull one the Breitling Orbiter hit a max altitude of 11,737 m, or aprox half the altitude that Wild Fire is shooting for. Stats are here, and here. So yes, I do think that wind will be a significant impediment to the sucessfull launch, relaunch, and commercial success of the Wild Fire approach. As to the bomb thing, I was trying to put the danger of the ballooning in perspective for those who thought it was a big risk, it's not compared to strapping yourself to a rocket, just about any rocket.

I'm questioning their figures, and wondering if they have done any launches to see if 70000 feet is attainable, given the current airship altitude record: Airship World Records
I'm not a fan of blimps over rigids, both have their merits and uses.

link:

http://airsports.fai.org/jun98/jun9805.html

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...

Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2 :-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.

The relevant FAI is the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. The aeromodelling page is here; world records are available here.

The relevant FAI is the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. The aeromodelling page is here; world records are available here.

The relevant FAI is the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. The aeromodelling page is here; world records are available here.

I was reading some of their documents, and I did not find a specific definition of the rules for this type of aircraft.

There was a UAV which crossed the Atlantic years ago. It was designed and built by a collaborative effort betwen the Insitu Group, and the University of Washington's AA department (my alma matter).


I'm just wondering if there are additional restrictions under FAI rules for the vehicle.

You're absolutely right as long as you are in small airplanes. Big airplanes however don't do well in small fields. This reminds of something else interesting though speaking of Big Planes and Gliding.

Well, i guess the next OBVIOUS step is a plane that can cross the Atlantic on nothing but thermals and tailwinds!

I mean, when you can keep an unpowered plane aloft for 36 hours, why not? Well, so far the straight-line distance record is only 226km, but with a GPS autopilot, and a thermal detection unit (get the scientist working on the tube technology immediately!), who knows!

FAI RC Model Records for Gliders

Lift!

He was following the rules.

Official rules as to what constitutes a flight which is a real circumnavigation are on the site, it has to be between the two 30 degree meridiens basically

The rules (4.8.3) seem to be quite specific about just how far you need to be from a pole.

It appears that the rules for balloon flights are established by The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI):

http://www.fai.org/ballooning/rtw2-98.asp

There's lots of interesting info on their website at http://www.fai.org/

It's a good read, if for no other reason than gaining the ability to drop "homologation" into your next conversation.

It appears that the rules for balloon flights are established by The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI):

http://www.fai.org/ballooning/rtw2-98.asp

There's lots of interesting info on their website at http://www.fai.org/

It's a good read, if for no other reason than gaining the ability to drop "homologation" into your next conversation.

The U.S. awards astronaut status to anyone who flies above 50 miles. At 50 miles, atmospheric density is one-thousandth that at sea level. You'd die instantly if you stepped outside at that altitude.

At 100km, the atmospheric density is near-vacuum, and rudders and wings on an aircraft will not work - no aerodynamic control is possible. If you step outside your vehicle, you will explosively decompress.

There's an ad for suborbital space flights starting December 1, 2001. Price, $98,000. This has to be an old, bogus site; it's supposed to use the Vela "Space Cruiser", which was never built.

I fly hang gliders and have an FAI approved vario/barometer and haven't heard of such a restriction. I've checked the sporting code here sc3c.pdf and don't see such a restriction. The restrictions state that an official observer must use approved software to retrieve the data from a sealed unit, which is sensible. Please can you point me at the protocol disclosure restrictions?

Paul

i don't get it. how is the GPL limiting one's freedoms?

Practical example:

I have this logbook program which connects Ball GC varios with Macintoshes.

There's a number of pieces of GPL code it would be rather nifty to work into this program. But I can't, because the GC is officially certified as an Acceptable Recording Instrument for the purpose of proving FAI world record claims ... and to maintain that certification, the GC's control protocols may not be publicly disclosed. Which open sourcing the code in any fashion would do, in their opinion.

Yes, they're stupid. No, I cannot change the FAI's mind even if I was idiotic enough to try. So I can use BSD code, public domain code, whatever, and provide a free as in beer program like I am. It would be a better free as in beer program if I could use GPL code, but I can't because the FAI are morons.

Sooo ... the GPL here is limiting my freedom to make the best free as in beer program I can from publicly available source code, which means that the pilot community doesn't have as good a free resource as they would otherwise. Nobody at FAI gives a flying fuck about computers, never mind Open Source, there is no way that going to the trouble of changing this would ever get on the agenda in the foreseeable future.

And who exactly is benefiting? Nobody I can see.