The latest SSA Newsletter says:

"OLC entrants in the USA will hopefully at least double in size again
this year - with more and more pilots going
out away from the home airport. OLC has grown significantly over the
past three years, with participation
coming from many different groups. We are looking at posting scores and
rankings by Region, or by
State. And, as this year at Arlington, awards will be presented at
Memphis Convention next year."

More participation is good, but for that to happen OLC will have to be
attractive to pilots. I looked at all US flights starting on Saturday,
March 11. During that time, 262 flights were made with a score over
the 50 point minimum, and 70 of those flights had the "red mark." I
think it probably is safe to say that not one of those 70 red marks was
due to a pilot who was cheating.

When over a quarter of pilots get no score for their flights, a lot of
pilots will decide not to continue to participate (and the above
statistics probably are skewed due to pilots who already have dropped out).

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
news:HreWf.911$I%6.121@fed1read12...
> The latest SSA Newsletter says:
>
> "OLC entrants in the USA will hopefully at least double in size again this
> year - with more and more pilots going
> out away from the home airport. OLC has grown significantly over the past
> three years, with participation
> coming from many different groups. We are looking at posting scores and
> rankings by Region, or by
> State. And, as this year at Arlington, awards will be presented at Memphis
> Convention next year."
>
> More participation is good, but for that to happen OLC will have to be
> attractive to pilots. I looked at all US flights starting on Saturday,
> March 11. During that time, 262 flights were made with a score over the
> 50 point minimum, and 70 of those flights had the "red mark." I think it
> probably is safe to say that not one of those 70 red marks was due to a
> pilot who was cheating.
>
> When over a quarter of pilots get no score for their flights, a lot of
> pilots will decide not to continue to participate (and the above
> statistics probably are skewed due to pilots who already have dropped
> out).
>

I noticed last season 'first timers' were sometimes 'red-marked' but pilots
quickly learned how to upload flights. I suspect this year will be the
same. Listening to conversations around the airfield, it seems that most of
the problem were with files from older Cambridge loggers that didn't produce
a file with all the needed parameters. Perhaps someone can post the
proceedure to get a good file.

My Volksloggers always produced good OLC files.

Bill Daniels

Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
as well.

http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68

The older Cambridges are covered in the other threads and pilots need
to familiarize themselves with the procedures. The OLC remains a
shifting paradigm, but it's pretty cool.

At the SSA Governors and Record Keepers breakfast at the convention, we
discussed the pros and cons and wants. The regional filters were set
up without discussion or purpose. To me, as an SSA state governor,
regional filters are pretty useless. There also are no plans for
regional awards, so I see little point in regional filters. State
filters I would find useful and would enough granularity in searches to
query for flights originating in this state, terminating in this state,
and both originating and terminating in this state. However, there are
'borderline' soaring sites that actually fly their flights in adjacent
states and regions, just to complicate things. It may be for some of
us that raw data file access would be the best alternative in the near
term.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> The older Cambridges are covered in the other threads and pilots need
> to familiarize themselves with the procedures. The OLC remains a
> shifting paradigm, but it's pretty cool.
>
> At the SSA Governors and Record Keepers breakfast at the convention, we
> discussed the pros and cons and wants. The regional filters were set
> up without discussion or purpose. To me, as an SSA state governor,
> regional filters are pretty useless. There also are no plans for
> regional awards, so I see little point in regional filters. State
> filters I would find useful and would enough granularity in searches to
> query for flights originating in this state, terminating in this state,
> and both originating and terminating in this state. However, there are
> 'borderline' soaring sites that actually fly their flights in adjacent
> states and regions, just to complicate things. It may be for some of
> us that raw data file access would be the best alternative in the near
> term.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

A regional filter is useful for Region 12 (Southern California), as
California essentially is two separate soaring areas.

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
> with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
> the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
> as well.
>
> http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68

Good directions, but I think he is wrong that you have to change the
file name if you need to do the process a second time. It is true that
OLC wants to use the old uploaded file the second time, but you can
force it to use the new file by clicking on the button that allows you
to upload a new file.

I don't presently have a flight on OLC that I can open, so I can't say
just how you do this, but I have done it several times without any problem.

Last Saturday it was 14 of 33 flights (42 percent) which were red
marked, and I know many of those are experienced OLCers who have been
succesfully submitting flights for years.
Yes, most had Cambridge loggers. Things have definitely gone downhill
for this substantial subset of pilots.

Even if you have a valid CAI file and follow the whole CAI2IGC song
and dance to the letter, there is a substantial probability you will
not get scored because the OLC software doesn't know how to handle
certain glitches that sometimes appear in the Cambridge logs, even
though SeeYou handles them just fine.

But hey, in this post 9-11 world we just can't take the risk of a fake
IGC file appearing on the web.

Greg Arnold wrote:
> Stewart Kissel wrote:
> > Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
> > with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
> > the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
> > as well.
> >
> > http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68
>
> Good directions, but I think he is wrong that you have to change the
> file name if you need to do the process a second time. It is true that
> OLC wants to use the old uploaded file the second time, but you can
> force it to use the new file by clicking on the button that allows you
> to upload a new file.
>
> I don't presently have a flight on OLC that I can open, so I can't say
> just how you do this, but I have done it several times without any problem.

To Greg's point, the failure rate is still unacceptably high, even when
following the directions. I know - I've tried to help out several
people in my club with Cambridge loggers, and the success rate is only
about 50%. The folks in my club (currently in first place in the US
right now, I might add) , have actually begun to revolt. They've
basically decided that the OLC is "unstable" and are not willing to
invest more computer time trying to get scored. Though that might not
be a fair statement, it is an understandable perception. Given that,
we can expect participation to drop off.

Whether or not we want to blame Cambridge, the OLC, SeeYou, or anyone
else, the problem with the validation of G Records for Cambridge
loggers is a real issue that isn't going away right now. I think we
ought to reconsider whether this Validation is worth the price (ie.
turning off prospective participants). My suggestion is that we ask
OLC to disable Validation until someone comes up with a script that
successfully handles all of the steps required to create an acceptable
output from a Cambridge Logger using a user-friendly interface.
Asking the average glider pilot to manipulate files using a DOS command
prompt is a recipe for failure (or at least good for a laugh or two).


Erik Mann (P3)

p.s. If anyone want an example of the situation, take a look at the
file from Ron Schwartz on 3/27 in the US. The source .CAI file
passes Vali-Cam just fine. Ran CAI2IGC just fine. Output .IGC file
shows the binary .CAI file appended to the IGC file. File still shows
up on OLC as invalid, not to mention that the scoring distance is also
wrong. Would appreciate anyone who can download the file and see if
anything jumps out at you.

Have any of the Cambridge 10/20/25 users contacted
the OLC Group and asked for help? I don't have one
of these Cambridge FR's, but I have e-mailed OLC a
couple of times and they always helped me with 'user
headspace' problems.

I see a lot of notes here on RAS about the problem
and one of our club members has the same issue with
his older Cambridge. Just seems like the comments
should go to OLC directly.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 16:30 29 March 2006, Papa3 wrote:
>
>Greg Arnold wrote:
>> Stewart Kissel wrote:
>> > Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
>> > with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
>> > the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
>> > as well.
>> >
>> > http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68
>>
>> Good directions, but I think he is wrong that you
>>have to change the
>> file name if you need to do the process a second time.
>> It is true that
>> OLC wants to use the old uploaded file the second
>>time, but you can
>> force it to use the new file by clicking on the button
>>that allows you
>> to upload a new file.
>>
>> I don't presently have a flight on OLC that I can
>>open, so I can't say
>> just how you do this, but I have done it several times
>>without any problem.
>
>To Greg's point, the failure rate is still unacceptably
>high, even when
>following the directions. I know - I've tried to help
>out several
>people in my club with Cambridge loggers, and the success
>rate is only
>about 50%. The folks in my club (currently in first
>place in the US
>right now, I might add) , have actually begun to revolt.
> They've
>basically decided that the OLC is 'unstable' and are
>not willing to
>invest more computer time trying to get scored. Though
>that might not
>be a fair statement, it is an understandable perception.
> Given that,
>we can expect participation to drop off.
>
> Whether or not we want to blame Cambridge, the OLC,
>SeeYou, or anyone
>else, the problem with the validation of G Records
> for Cambridge
>loggers is a real issue that isn't going away right
>now. I think we
>ought to reconsider whether this Validation is worth
>the price (ie.
>turning off prospective participants). My suggestion
>is that we ask
>OLC to disable Validation until someone comes up with
>a script that
>successfully handles all of the steps required to create
>an acceptable
>output from a Cambridge Logger using a user-friendly
>interface.
>Asking the average glider pilot to manipulate files
>using a DOS command
>prompt is a recipe for failure (or at least good for
>a laugh or two).
>
>
>Erik Mann (P3)
>
>p.s. If anyone want an example of the situation, take
>a look at the
>file from Ron Schwartz on 3/27 in the US. The source
>.CAI file
>passes Vali-Cam just fine. Ran CAI2IGC just fine.
> Output .IGC file
>shows the binary .CAI file appended to the IGC file.
> File still shows
>up on OLC as invalid, not to mention that the scoring
>distance is also
>wrong. Would appreciate anyone who can download the
>file and see if
>anything jumps out at you.
>
>

> Erik Mann (P3)
>
> p.s. If anyone want an example of the situation, take a look at the
> file from Ron Schwartz on 3/27 in the US. The source .CAI file
> passes Vali-Cam just fine. Ran CAI2IGC just fine. Output .IGC file
> shows the binary .CAI file appended to the IGC file. File still shows
> up on OLC as invalid, not to mention that the scoring distance is also
> wrong. Would appreciate anyone who can download the file and see if
> anything jumps out at you.
>

I think two things are going on with this file. First, the optimization
software thought he landed near the beginning of the flight, so most of
the distance was not counted. He needs to manually enter the time he
landed, and that should solve this problem. Why did the optimization
software think he landed at the top of a thermal? Who knows. Open the
flight in SeeYou, and the flight is optimized just fine, so it appears
the flight was not uploaded with SeeYou. I think the OLC is using
Strepla as its optimization software for flights that are not already
optimized when uploaded. But SeeYou gets it wrong at times, too.

The other problem is the message " Sorry, Validation Service is current
not running. OLC Team is working on that issue." Apparently some or
all of the earlier Cambridge files are getting the red mark because OLC
can't run its validation software. This has been going on for 3 weeks
now, and certainly would cause unhappiness for a pilot who just made a
tremendous flight. Especially since after going through the CAI 20/25
song-and-dance, you don't know if you did it right until you see the
approved flight on the website.

My personal feeling is that the OLC is a great idea that has been
implemented very poorly:
1. The web interface is very poor, both for those uploading flights,
and those wanting to look at recent flights.
2. It has all the noted problems with older Cambridge loggers,
including rejection of flights that have a single bogus line in the IGC
file.
3. It requires a level of security that is way beyond what is needed
for this type of contest.
4. It requires you to submit a Monday flight by the evening of the next
day (so the flight in question is already beyond the submission date,
and now there probably is no possibility of correcting the distance).
5. The maps on the OLC site are very poor.
6. You must enter a code to view any IGC files (is there really a
problem with automated software downloading hundreds of flights, and if
so isn't there a better way to handle this?).

The founders of the OLC did a fine job implementing a great idea. What
is needed now is to transfer the entire OLC project to new people who
can take it to a higher level.

Don't worry, the OLC people have been contacted directly on this issue.

Having a really kick-ass OLC interface would serve the soaring
community much better than having yet another PDA gizmo or 3d flight
viewer. Too bad there isn't some sort of national organization for
soaring pilots that could channel money towards that end.

The cambridge logs that are not passing the OLC security check all have
a line at the top of the L record section of the file like

LCAMN CAI Utility DLL Vers: 1, 0, 1, 4

or

LCAMN CAI SeeYou conversion

The ones that pass straight away have the line

LCAMNCONV-CAM Version 2.0.2 IGC File Creation

SeeYou currently, and last years version, put an L record like the first
one in the .igc file. The old DOS utility puts the L record in there
that the OLC likes.

It looks like the OLC security check for 2006 expanded the portion of
the .igc file they are comparing to the binary .cai file (actually to
the binary file reconverted to an .igc file on the server using the
CONV-CAM utility) and are now kicking out files submitted with the wrong
L record describing how the .igc file was generated from the .cai file.
They appear to have been manually accepting files they notice have been
incorrectly kicked.

An easy fix until the OLC automated processing is corrected, that I
haven't tried yet, would be to use SeeYou to generate your .igc file
which will append the .cai binary file on the end, then go in with a
text editor and replace the

LCAMN CAI Utility DLL Vers: 1, 0, 1, 4

line with

LCAMNCONV-CAM Version 2.0.2 IGC File Creation

I'm sure someone could script this making it much simpler, but its still
easier than using the DOS command line.

Its genrally a no-no to edit your .igc file, but I think this will work.
Any other tampering with the .igc file will probably cause the file not
to pass the security check.

Ron's flight also appears to have the wrong end of flight time which
made the optimizer not work correctly. That can usually be edited
through the OLC web interface.

-Dave Leonard

Papa3 wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>>Stewart Kissel wrote:
>>
>>>Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
>>>with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
>>>the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
>>>as well.
>>>
>>>http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68
>>
>>Good directions, but I think he is wrong that you have to change the
>>file name if you need to do the process a second time. It is true that
>>OLC wants to use the old uploaded file the second time, but you can
>>force it to use the new file by clicking on the button that allows you
>>to upload a new file.
>>
>>I don't presently have a flight on OLC that I can open, so I can't say
>>just how you do this, but I have done it several times without any problem.
>
>
> To Greg's point, the failure rate is still unacceptably high, even when
> following the directions. I know - I've tried to help out several
> people in my club with Cambridge loggers, and the success rate is only
> about 50%. The folks in my club (currently in first place in the US
> right now, I might add) , have actually begun to revolt. They've
> basically decided that the OLC is "unstable" and are not willing to
> invest more computer time trying to get scored. Though that might not
> be a fair statement, it is an understandable perception. Given that,
> we can expect participation to drop off.
>
> Whether or not we want to blame Cambridge, the OLC, SeeYou, or anyone
> else, the problem with the validation of G Records for Cambridge
> loggers is a real issue that isn't going away right now. I think we
> ought to reconsider whether this Validation is worth the price (ie.
> turning off prospective participants). My suggestion is that we ask
> OLC to disable Validation until someone comes up with a script that
> successfully handles all of the steps required to create an acceptable
> output from a Cambridge Logger using a user-friendly interface.
> Asking the average glider pilot to manipulate files using a DOS command
> prompt is a recipe for failure (or at least good for a laugh or two).
>
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
>
> p.s. If anyone want an example of the situation, take a look at the
> file from Ron Schwartz on 3/27 in the US. The source .CAI file
> passes Vali-Cam just fine. Ran CAI2IGC just fine. Output .IGC file
> shows the binary .CAI file appended to the IGC file. File still shows
> up on OLC as invalid, not to mention that the scoring distance is also
> wrong. Would appreciate anyone who can download the file and see if
> anything jumps out at you.
>

Dave,

Looks like you're on to something. Couple of points:

- I started with a "raw" .CAI file and tested two conversion cycles;
one using Conv-cam and one using he utility that comes from Cambridge.
- The files produced are different over and above just the LRecord you
describe. The CAI utility produces a record that's about 1kb larger
and it's clear that the L-Record format is different.
- When you run the CAI2IGC conversion the output is different as well.

- Just modifying the LRecord (comment record) probably isn't the
answer, even though it shouldn't corrupt the hashed GRecord validation
step.

Looking back at the instructions from the OLC, it seems pretty clear
that it's critical to follow the conversion sequence exactly as
described; ie. start with the raw CAI file only - run the Conv-cam
utility - then use the .IGC file output from that step as the input to
the CAI2IGC step. Where I think people are getting tripped up is that
they get both the .CAI file and the .IGC file when downloading using
GlideNavigtor/PocketNav. They use the .IGC file from this step as the
input to the CAI2IGC conversion.

There are now dozens of files out there on the OLC that are red
flagged, and I haven't yet heard back from the OLC guys after emailing
them; I'm sure they're reasonably busy right now!

Out of curiosity, I sampled the daily scores from Germany
for February and March, and no flight had this problem.
So do the Germans not use Cambridge loggers ? Or
are they all meticulous in following an acceptable
procedure ? Or is there something different between
the US and German OLC validation processes ?

Ian





At 15:12 30 March 2006, Papa3 wrote:
>Dave,
>
>Looks like you're on to something. Couple of points:
>
>- I started with a 'raw' .CAI file and tested two
>conversion cycles;
>one using Conv-cam and one using he utility that comes
>from Cambridge.
>- The files produced are different over and above
>just the LRecord you
>describe. The CAI utility produces a record that's
>about 1kb larger
>and it's clear that the L-Record format is different.
>- When you run the CAI2IGC conversion the output is
>different as well.
>
>- Just modifying the LRecord (comment record) probably
>isn't the
>answer, even though it shouldn't corrupt the hashed
>GRecord validation
>step.
>
>Looking back at the instructions from the OLC, it seems
>pretty clear
>that it's critical to follow the conversion sequence
>exactly as
>described; ie. start with the raw CAI file only - run
>the Conv-cam
>utility - then use the .IGC file output from that step
>as the input to
>the CAI2IGC step. Where I think people are getting
>tripped up is that
>they get both the .CAI file and the .IGC file when
>downloading using
>GlideNavigtor/PocketNav. They use the .IGC file from
>this step as the
>input to the CAI2IGC conversion.
>
>There are now dozens of files out there on the OLC
>that are red
>flagged, and I haven't yet heard back from the OLC
>guys after emailing
>them; I'm sure they're reasonably busy right now!
>
>

wrote:
> Don't worry, the OLC people have been contacted directly on this issue.

The OLC folks say that StrePla is working properly for OLC claims with
Cambridge 10/25 loggers. I use niether, so I cannot confirm this. Can
folks who use both let us know your experiences?

BTW, they have a 30 day free trial, so you can test it out yourself:

http://www.strepla.de/StrePla4/english/download/index.htm

Apparently SeeYou has the same workaround implemented. You need to
download a xip file with the patches and replace the files in your
SeeYou directory:

http://www.naviter.si/dload/seeyou-cai-dos.zip

1. Extract both files from the ZIP to your SeeYou folder
2. Replace your existing SeeYou.exe

You should be able to claim flights normally once the patches are
applied.

Hopefully this will clear up the problems with the Cambridge 10/20/25
loggers and OLC. Please post your experiences with either program and
the older Cambridge loggers.

Apparently SeeYou has the same workaround implemented. You need to
download a xip file with the patches and replace the files in your
SeeYou directory:

http://www.naviter.si/dload/seeyou-cai-dos.zip

1. Extract both files from the ZIP to your SeeYou folder
2. Replace your existing SeeYou.exe

You should be able to claim flights normally once the patches are
applied.

Hopefully this will clear up the problems with the Cambridge 10/20/25
loggers and OLC. Please post your experiences with either program and
the older Cambridge loggers.

Well, I don't see any postings from this weekend. Is no news good news?

As info, the SeeYou patch above had problems with long file names (it's
a DOS thing). They have a new patch up on their web site:

http://www.seeyou.si/news/2006/04/gps-nav-patch.html

Doug Haluza wrote:

> Well, I don't see any postings from this weekend. Is no news good news?

I see 63 postings with over 50 points, and 20 of them have the red mark.

>
> As info, the SeeYou patch above had problems with long file names (it's
> a DOS thing). They have a new patch up on their web site:
>
> http://www.seeyou.si/news/2006/04/gps-nav-patch.html


If you use this patch, do you still get the OLC message "Sorry,
Validation Service is current not running.
OLC Team is working on that issue," or has SeeYou figured a way around
that message?

QT reported success with the SeeYou patch on Cambridge files from KS,
X, QV and SM on 4/4. All were uploaded and validated without problems.

The only red marks in the SSA-OLC in the last few days are from people
using GPSlog (not sure why that did not work) or test download on the
Volkslogger.

BTW, SeeYou found another issue with long directory names, and have
reposted a patch yesterday April 6 to correct this:

http://www.seeyou.si/news/2006/04/gps-nav-patch.html

OLC also has more Cambridge info on their Info page:

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/olc-i.php?olc=olc-i

Doug, do you know the exact time of the Tuesday upload cutoff? Your
presentation says 0000 zulu, but it appears that one usually can upload
after that time. The OLC website is unclear.


Doug Haluza wrote:
> QT reported success with the SeeYou patch on Cambridge files from KS,
> X, QV and SM on 4/4. All were uploaded and validated without problems.
>
> The only red marks in the SSA-OLC in the last few days are from people
> using GPSlog (not sure why that did not work) or test download on the
> Volkslogger.
>
> BTW, SeeYou found another issue with long directory names, and have
> reposted a patch yesterday April 6 to correct this:
>
> http://www.seeyou.si/news/2006/04/gps-nav-patch.html
>
> OLC also has more Cambridge info on their Info page:
>
> http://www.onlinecontest.org/olcphp/olc-i.php?olc=olc-i
>

It should have said 2400z Tuesday, or 0000z Wednesday.

Doug Haluza wrote:
> It should have said 2400z Tuesday, or 0000z Wednesday.
>

But is that the actual cutoff, or are they giving until midnight USA time?

There is also a freeware utility for Cambridge GPS-NAV flight claiming
to OLC written by Carl Ekdahl available on the ASC website:

http://www.abqsoaring.org/misc_files/CAI_fix.htm

So now, there should be no more red marks for Cambridge!

If you got a red mark yesterday (or know someone who did) please try
reclaiming the flight with one of these programs.

Doug Haluza wrote:
> There is also a freeware utility for Cambridge GPS-NAV flight claiming
> to OLC written by Carl Ekdahl available on the ASC website:
>
> http://www.abqsoaring.org/misc_files/CAI_fix.htm
>
> So now, there should be no more red marks for Cambridge!

Uh, I'm guessing there are quite a few pilots world-wide who
done read the Albuquerque site, who don't read RAS, and in general
get very frustrated with anything to do with computers. The
problem's not going away anytime soon.

The See-You patch is likely only valid for 3.X versions, something
that's been left off the See-You and OLC sites.

Doug Haluza wrote:
> An update on the OLC Red Marks. StrePla, the latest SeeYou 3.5a Patch,
> and the Carl Ekdahl freeware have been working well in getting
> Cambridge Model 10/20/25 GPS-NAV *.cai files to pass the OLC security
> checks. Accordingly, the number of red marks on Cambridge files is much
> lower now. If you know someone with a GPS-NAV who is still having
> problems, or just gave up, let them know about these programs.

Doug, do you know why OLC doesn't just let people upload their CAI file,
with OLC doing the conversion to IGC format? Seems like it would avoid
all the problems we have seen.

I think the problem is that OLC has not been able to get any support
from Cambridge to help set this up. They are still looking at doing it
in the future, but it won't happen any time soon. So for the forseeable
future, we have to use the DOS program work-around. Fortunately,
Cambridge users now have several software tools to do this (see links
in earlier postings in this thread).

Hi,

Doug Haluza asked me to post tips on how to avoid validation issues with
Cambridge 302 products. This applies to OLC validation and validation for
any badge or record flight.

I have never had a problem with a file downloaded from a 302 using the
Cambridge 300 Utility on a Pocket PC or PC. However, I have heard 2nd hand
reports of 302 files that seem to download OK, but then fail the security
checks on the OLC web site. The same files would also fail any security
check for a badge or record flight. If the security seal is in fact valid
on the 302, then I've heard that re-downloading the flight log may solve the
problem. That implies that the problem is a download issue. That will only
work if the security seal is OK of course.

To summarize, the flight log validation failures with 302 and 302A units
(which I have not seen first hand) are probably caused by 1 of 2 things.

1. The 302 or 302A is not sealed. On very rare occasions I have heard of
302 units that lost their security seals. I can't explain why that
happened. The solution to this issue is to have the unit re-sealed and the
factory or a Cambridge authorized repair center.
2 . The flight log download process had a "hiccough" and the downloaded
file was not secure. The solution to this problem is to simply re-download
the flight log again. It is possible to check the validity of the file
immediately after downloading it (see below).

To check the security Seal on a 302 (without a 303 display attached).
From the home screen
- Press the knob/button on the front of the 302 9 times (slowly) to get to
screen 10 (displays as a zero on the right side of the screen). "IAS" is
displayed on the bottom of the screen.
- Rotate the knob until you see either "Good Seal" or "Bad Seal". That is
the status of the security seal.

If you have a Cambridge 303 LCD Navigation Display attached to the 302 then
the status of the security seal is displayed at power-up.

To download a flight log and check its security using the Cambridge 300
Utility on a PC or Pocket PC.
- Be sure you are using the latest version of the Cambridge 300 Utility
(currently 2.57). It is available here:
http://www.cambridge-aero.com/300series.htm at the bottom of the page.
- Run the 300 Utility
- Press the "Transfer Flight Logs" button
- A list of flight logs will be displayed, select the desired flight log
from the list.
- Press the "Transfer" button
- When done a status window is displayed. It is probably accurate, but be
sure to check the security of the file as described below. Press OK to
close the download status window.
- Always, Always, Always verify that the flight log is secure by pressing
the "Verify Files" button and selecting the desired file. Tip - If you tap
the "Date" column the files will be sorted by their creation date. Tap it
again to reverse the order. A window will appear and verify the security of
the file. You should see "Log Data Integrity OK, Signature Data Integrity
OK, Security OK". If any of those does not show "OK" then try
re-downloading the file again and re-verifying the file.

Please let me know if you have any tips or feedback.

Good Soaring,
Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
Now serving the soaring community full time.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com


"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> An update on the OLC Red Marks. StrePla, the latest SeeYou 3.5a Patch,
> and the Carl Ekdahl freeware have been working well in getting
> Cambridge Model 10/20/25 GPS-NAV *.cai files to pass the OLC security
> checks. Accordingly, the number of red marks on Cambridge files is much
> lower now. If you know someone with a GPS-NAV who is still having
> problems, or just gave up, let them know about these programs.
>
> We do see red marks for other reasons as well. One of the most common
> problems is Volkslogger users downloading their logs in test mode.
> Volkslogger users must use the secure download mode, which takes a
> little longer to calculate the key. Check your software instructions
> for how to select secure download mode.
>
> Another common problem is files that do not pass the key check because
> they were modified or corrupted during download. If you get a red mark
> on your claim with an error message for an invalid key, you can confirm
> this by running the IGC validation program from your logger
> manufacturer. This is the same check you would make if you were an
> official observer for an FAI badge or record claim. Try downloading the
> file again to see if you can get a good transfer that will pass the
> validation check. You may need to try a different computer. There have
> been known problems with some types of USB serial adapters for laptops
> without serial ports. Do not erase the logger memory until you verifiy
> that your flight log file has passed the validation.
>
> Another problem we have seen is loggers that have a bad security seal.
> All FAI approved loggers must have an electronic security check that
> detects attempts to open the case, etc. Sometimes the seal can be
> broken by a power surge, or a misaligned connector, or some other
> non-intentional event that triggers the tampering detector.
> Unfortunately the only way to fix this is to send the logger back to
> the manufacturer, or their designated representative to "repair" the
> security seal.
>
> We have also seen problems with PDA logs from SeeYou Mobile and
> WinPilot. We have not been able to identify any patterns in these logs
> to indicate why these logs do not pass validation. If you have problems
> with your PDA software logs, you should send the bad log files to your
> software vendor for tech support.
>
> The good news is that most people are able to get their flight logs
> validated most of the time. Some people have no problems at all, others
> have had to work at it for a while to come up with a reliable process.
> The best thing to do is to reach out and help others who may be having
> problems, and encourage them to work through to a solution.
>

Hi,

I have made a document entitled "How to Avoid Flight Log Download Validation
Issues with a Cambridge 302 or 302A available on my OLC Overview and Tips
page here:
http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/olc.htm The file is found at the bottom of
the page.

Let me know if you have any suggestions or feedback on it.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:DIe3g.119367$oL.59961@attbi_s71...
> Hi,
>
> Doug Haluza asked me to post tips on how to avoid validation issues with
> Cambridge 302 products. This applies to OLC validation and validation for
> any badge or record flight.
>
> I have never had a problem with a file downloaded from a 302 using the
> Cambridge 300 Utility on a Pocket PC or PC. However, I have heard 2nd
> hand reports of 302 files that seem to download OK, but then fail the
> security checks on the OLC web site. The same files would also fail any
> security check for a badge or record flight. If the security seal is in
> fact valid on the 302, then I've heard that re-downloading the flight log
> may solve the problem. That implies that the problem is a download issue.
> That will only work if the security seal is OK of course.
>
> To summarize, the flight log validation failures with 302 and 302A units
> (which I have not seen first hand) are probably caused by 1 of 2 things.
>
> 1. The 302 or 302A is not sealed. On very rare occasions I have heard of
> 302 units that lost their security seals. I can't explain why that
> happened. The solution to this issue is to have the unit re-sealed and
> the factory or a Cambridge authorized repair center.
> 2 . The flight log download process had a "hiccough" and the downloaded
> file was not secure. The solution to this problem is to simply
> re-download the flight log again. It is possible to check the validity of
> the file immediately after downloading it (see below).
>
> To check the security Seal on a 302 (without a 303 display attached).
> From the home screen
> - Press the knob/button on the front of the 302 9 times (slowly) to get to
> screen 10 (displays as a zero on the right side of the screen). "IAS" is
> displayed on the bottom of the screen.
> - Rotate the knob until you see either "Good Seal" or "Bad Seal". That is
> the status of the security seal.
>
> If you have a Cambridge 303 LCD Navigation Display attached to the 302
> then the status of the security seal is displayed at power-up.
>
> To download a flight log and check its security using the Cambridge 300
> Utility on a PC or Pocket PC.
> - Be sure you are using the latest version of the Cambridge 300 Utility
> (currently 2.57). It is available here:
> http://www.cambridge-aero.com/300series.htm at the bottom of the page.
> - Run the 300 Utility
> - Press the "Transfer Flight Logs" button
> - A list of flight logs will be displayed, select the desired flight log
> from the list.
> - Press the "Transfer" button
> - When done a status window is displayed. It is probably accurate, but
> be sure to check the security of the file as described below. Press OK to
> close the download status window.
> - Always, Always, Always verify that the flight log is secure by pressing
> the "Verify Files" button and selecting the desired file. Tip - If you
> tap the "Date" column the files will be sorted by their creation date.
> Tap it again to reverse the order. A window will appear and verify the
> security of the file. You should see "Log Data Integrity OK, Signature
> Data Integrity OK, Security OK". If any of those does not show "OK" then
> try re-downloading the file again and re-verifying the file.
>
> Please let me know if you have any tips or feedback.
>
> Good Soaring,
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
> Now serving the soaring community full time.
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com
>
>
> "Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> An update on the OLC Red Marks. StrePla, the latest SeeYou 3.5a Patch,
>> and the Carl Ekdahl freeware have been working well in getting
>> Cambridge Model 10/20/25 GPS-NAV *.cai files to pass the OLC security
>> checks. Accordingly, the number of red marks on Cambridge files is much
>> lower now. If you know someone with a GPS-NAV who is still having
>> problems, or just gave up, let them know about these programs.
>>
>> We do see red marks for other reasons as well. One of the most common
>> problems is Volkslogger users downloading their logs in test mode.
>> Volkslogger users must use the secure download mode, which takes a
>> little longer to calculate the key. Check your software instructions
>> for how to select secure download mode.
>>
>> Another common problem is files that do not pass the key check because
>> they were modified or corrupted during download. If you get a red mark
>> on your claim with an error message for an invalid key, you can confirm
>> this by running the IGC validation program from your logger
>> manufacturer. This is the same check you would make if you were an
>> official observer for an FAI badge or record claim. Try downloading the
>> file again to see if you can get a good transfer that will pass the
>> validation check. You may need to try a different computer. There have
>> been known problems with some types of USB serial adapters for laptops
>> without serial ports. Do not erase the logger memory until you verifiy
>> that your flight log file has passed the validation.
>>
>> Another problem we have seen is loggers that have a bad security seal.
>> All FAI approved loggers must have an electronic security check that
>> detects attempts to open the case, etc. Sometimes the seal can be
>> broken by a power surge, or a misaligned connector, or some other
>> non-intentional event that triggers the tampering detector.
>> Unfortunately the only way to fix this is to send the logger back to
>> the manufacturer, or their designated representative to "repair" the
>> security seal.
>>
>> We have also seen problems with PDA logs from SeeYou Mobile and
>> WinPilot. We have not been able to identify any patterns in these logs
>> to indicate why these logs do not pass validation. If you have problems
>> with your PDA software logs, you should send the bad log files to your
>> software vendor for tech support.
>>
>> The good news is that most people are able to get their flight logs
>> validated most of the time. Some people have no problems at all, others
>> have had to work at it for a while to come up with a reliable process.
>> The best thing to do is to reach out and help others who may be having
>> problems, and encourage them to work through to a solution.
>>
>
>