Red V symbol (log file not valid) after OLC upload.

[Shane Neitzey]

I use a Cambridge 25. Also using the cai2igc4olcb zip exe files for
conversion.
The program appears to successfully convert stating Seal; intact, Date
integrity check PASS, Security check PASS
After upload to OLC, the notorious RED V symbol (log file not valid)
appears for the flight.

Using Windows XP 32 bit.
The DOS data-cam.exe does not exist in Carl Ekdahl's script.

Would appreciate any help for successful conversion and upload.

Regards,
Shane

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 22, 8:57*am, Shane Neitzey > wrote:
> I use a Cambridge 25. Also using the cai2igc4olcb zip exe files for
> conversion.
> The program appears to successfully convert stating Seal; intact, Date
> integrity check PASS, Security check PASS
> After upload to OLC, the notorious RED V symbol (log file not valid)
> appears for the flight.
>
> Using Windows XP 32 bit.
> The DOS data-cam.exe does not exist in Carl Ekdahl's script.
>
> Would appreciate any help for successful conversion and upload.
>
> Regards,
> Shane

I'm sure some others used to the Cambridge file conversion dance will
chime in with ideas. Best of luck Shane.

Oh and I'm surprised there hasn't been any chatter on RAS about this
tidbit of news on the OLC front page from a few weeks ago...

----
The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
31st
The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
the end of 2011.
----

It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
participation next year.
We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ...

[Mike Mike Ground]

On Nov 22, 7:14*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Nov 22, 8:57*am, Shane Neitzey > wrote:
>
> > I use a Cambridge 25. Also using the cai2igc4olcb zip exe files for
> > conversion.
> > The program appears to successfully convert stating Seal; intact, Date
> > integrity check PASS, Security check PASS
> > After upload to OLC, the notorious RED V symbol (log file not valid)
> > appears for the flight.
>
> > Using Windows XP 32 bit.
> > The DOS data-cam.exe does not exist in Carl Ekdahl's script.
>
> > Would appreciate any help for successful conversion and upload.
>
> > Regards,
> > Shane
>
> I'm sure some others used to the Cambridge file conversion dance will
> chime in with ideas. *Best of luck Shane.
>
> Oh and I'm surprised there hasn't been any chatter on RAS about this
> tidbit of news on the OLC front page from a few weeks ago...
>
> ----
> The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
> 31st
> The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
> since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
> efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
> we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
> the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
> the end of 2011.
> ----
>
> It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
> participation next year.
> We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ...

I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
saw the announcement. Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
Tony! Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
participation. I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
get flights validated often with no success. However, I do
understand OLC’s position on this. They are a volunteer organization
and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
out these problems. Furthermore there are now lots of flight
recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
OLC. Prices start at $140. Don’t forget other devices such as
PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
acceptable to OLC.
Michael Mitton

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

> > The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
> > 31st
> > The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
> > since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
> > efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
> > we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
> > the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
> > the end of 2011.
> > ----
>
> > It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
> > participation next year.
> > We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ...
>
> I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
> saw the announcement. * Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
> Tony! * Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
> participation. * I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
> older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
> get flights validated often with no success. * However, I do
> understand OLC’s position on this. * They are a volunteer organization
> and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
> out these problems. * Furthermore there are now lots of flight
> recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
> OLC. * Prices start at $140. * * Don’t forget other devices such as
> PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
> acceptable to OLC.
> Michael Mitton

How nice of them to decide not to support the logger that started it
all. Wonder if all this really means is their latest conversion
program was set up as a one year solution, and you will still be able
to upload (although sometimes it takes several tries) a converted file
that is properly named?

Feel like I have come up to the Blazing Saddles Toll booth. Anybody
got any dimes? I got me a whole ****-load of Cambridge Loggers, but I
ain't got no dimes!

Steve Leonard

[Westbender]

On Nov 22, 8:53*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> > > The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
> > > 31st
> > > The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
> > > since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
> > > efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
> > > we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
> > > the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
> > > the end of 2011.
> > > ----
>
> > > It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
> > > participation next year.
> > > We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding ....
>
> > I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
> > saw the announcement. * Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
> > Tony! * Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
> > participation. * I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
> > older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
> > get flights validated often with no success. * However, I do
> > understand OLC’s position on this. * They are a volunteer organization
> > and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
> > out these problems. * Furthermore there are now lots of flight
> > recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
> > OLC. * Prices start at $140. * * Don’t forget other devices such as
> > PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
> > acceptable to OLC.
> > Michael Mitton
>
> How nice of them to decide not to support the logger that started it
> all. *Wonder if all this really means is their latest conversion
> program was set up as a one year solution, and you will still be able
> to upload (although sometimes it takes several tries) a converted file
> that is properly named?
>
> Feel like I have come up to the Blazing Saddles Toll booth. *Anybody
> got any dimes? *I got me a whole ****-load of Cambridge Loggers, but I
> ain't got no dimes!
>
> Steve Leonard

They never really did support the 10/20/25 per IGC guidelines. They
created a work-around (wrapping the cai file within an igc file) to
keep those loggers involved. It's not like they didn't spend some
effort to include them. That work-around is a messy solution and
doesn't really support the spirit of secure igc logs.

I hate that they're dropping support of these loggers. I know there
are plenty still out there in use. At the same time, I also understand
why they don't want to continue supporting this work-around.

I believe the only way those loggers will be supported on the OLC
going forward is if someone comes up with a way to correctly convert
cai to official igc files. That's probably not likely for two reasons.
One, the manufacturer has abandoned them a long time ago. Two, that
would open a loophole for fudging the security of the log.

Too bad for those who own these loggers. They're still very functional
instruments.

[Wayne Paul]

Maybe the solution to this problem is simply to change PDA software.

Both XCSoar and LK8000 (there may be others) create files that the OLC
accepts. For the past couple years I haven't bothered to download files
from my flight recorder. Instead I post the file generated and stored on my
PDA. The PDA generated file are have a blue "V" (OLC-valid) instead of a
green "V" (IGC-valid).

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"Westbender" wrote in message
...

On Nov 22, 8:53 pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> > > The OLC's support to GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will cease on Dezember
> > > 31st
> > > The validation procedure of GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 is out of date
> > > since a long time and administring it further is not sustainable. In
> > > efforts to find a solution with representatives from the manufacturer
> > > we could not come to a feasible conclusion. Therefore participation at
> > > the OLC with GPS-Nav/Cambridge 10/20/25 will be only possible until
> > > the end of 2011.
> > > ----
>
> > > It will be interesting to see how much of a drop we'll see in US OLC
> > > participation next year.
> > > We appologize for any inconvenience and hope for your understanding
> > > ...
>
> > I think the reason there hasn’t been any chatter may be because nobody
> > saw the announcement. Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
> > Tony! Unfortunately, it probably will result in a small drop in OLC
> > participation. I say “small drop” because I know many pilots with
> > older Cambridge flight recorders have been struggling for some time to
> > get flights validated often with no success. However, I do
> > understand OLC’s position on this. They are a volunteer organization
> > and probably have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to sort
> > out these problems. Furthermore there are now lots of flight
> > recorders (I heard 50 altogether) whose igc files are accepted by
> > OLC. Prices start at $140. Don’t forget other devices such as
> > PowerFLARM, Oudie, even certain iPhones can produce flight records
> > acceptable to OLC.
> > Michael Mitton
>
> How nice of them to decide not to support the logger that started it
> all. Wonder if all this really means is their latest conversion
> program was set up as a one year solution, and you will still be able
> to upload (although sometimes it takes several tries) a converted file
> that is properly named?
>
> Feel like I have come up to the Blazing Saddles Toll booth. Anybody
> got any dimes? I got me a whole ****-load of Cambridge Loggers, but I
> ain't got no dimes!
>
> Steve Leonard

They never really did support the 10/20/25 per IGC guidelines. They
created a work-around (wrapping the cai file within an igc file) to
keep those loggers involved. It's not like they didn't spend some
effort to include them. That work-around is a messy solution and
doesn't really support the spirit of secure igc logs.

I hate that they're dropping support of these loggers. I know there
are plenty still out there in use. At the same time, I also understand
why they don't want to continue supporting this work-around.

I believe the only way those loggers will be supported on the OLC
going forward is if someone comes up with a way to correctly convert
cai to official igc files. That's probably not likely for two reasons.
One, the manufacturer has abandoned them a long time ago. Two, that
would open a loophole for fudging the security of the log.

Too bad for those who own these loggers. They're still very functional
instruments.

[Cliff Hilty[_2_]]

Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
all of this regulatory crap. After all, we are all in it for the money and
the girls right? If they want to cheat that bad let them. Its been my
experience that the cheaters are found out and rightly ostersized out of
the sport anyway. Just my .2 cents worth. And while Im at it that goes the
same for badge and record flights. AFAIC KISS principal applies. What are
we testing after all, how good am I at flying or following recording
procedures. Jumping off the soap box now and flame sheilds on!

CH

[Max Kellermann]

Cliff Hilty > wrote:
> Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
> Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
> more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
> all of this regulatory crap.

Exactly my thought. Requiring so-called "secure" files limits the
access to such a site artificially, and is no more than promoting the
commercial logger industry.

> After all, we are all in it for the money and the girls right? If
> they want to cheat that bad let them.

When manufacturers don't publish their cryptographic algorithms, it's
a sure sign that they were not designed properly ("Snake Oil"),
because good cryptography is one that withstands mathematical
analysis.

No IGC logger has a published verification procedure. The vendors
publish closed-source EXE files for validation, as a black-box that
magically tells you if a signature is correct.

If you want to cheat, just buy two loggers. Both will have the same
"private key" needed for signing. Open one (carefully, so it will not
trigger key deletion), extract the private key, and use that private
key to sign fake flights for the serial number of the second logger.

(And that's not even exploiting potential mathematical flaws in the
signature algorithm!)

This kind of security is an illusion, and not worth the hundreds of
dollars we spend on it.

Max

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

No practical cryptography is immune from mathematical analysis, ask the
NSA. It's just that the analysis may take a few hundred years at the
present state of computing (but Moore's law applies).

What makes you think that all flight recorders of one type have the same
private key?

Security is deemed to be sufficiently good to make it easier to break a
World Record than to break the security; that's all that is needed.

What the OLC requires is a matter for them, but since they are siiting in a
room maybe continents away from the location of the flight, I guess they
thing IGC file verification is necessary.

Flight recorders make the OLC possible - don't knock it.

At 07:36 24 November 2011, Max Kellermann wrote:
>Cliff Hilty wrote:
>> Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure"
!
>> Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
>> more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head
>with
>> all of this regulatory crap.
>
>Exactly my thought. Requiring so-called "secure" files limits the
>access to such a site artificially, and is no more than promoting the
>commercial logger industry.
>
>> After all, we are all in it for the money and the girls right? If
>> they want to cheat that bad let them.
>
>When manufacturers don't publish their cryptographic algorithms, it's
>a sure sign that they were not designed properly ("Snake Oil"),
>because good cryptography is one that withstands mathematical
>analysis.
>
>No IGC logger has a published verification procedure. The vendors
>publish closed-source EXE files for validation, as a black-box that
>magically tells you if a signature is correct.
>
>If you want to cheat, just buy two loggers. Both will have the same
>"private key" needed for signing. Open one (carefully, so it will not
>trigger key deletion), extract the private key, and use that private
>key to sign fake flights for the serial number of the second logger.
>
>(And that's not even exploiting potential mathematical flaws in the
>signature algorithm!)
>
>This kind of security is an illusion, and not worth the hundreds of
>dollars we spend on it.
>
>Max
>

[Max Kellermann]

Peter Purdie > wrote:
> No practical cryptography is immune from mathematical analysis, ask the
> NSA. It's just that the analysis may take a few hundred years at the
> present state of computing (but Moore's law applies).

Are you sure you mean cryptanalysis? What you say sounds more like
brute-forcing, and this is not what I mean.

> What makes you think that all flight recorders of one type have the same
> private key?

If they had a different private key, then VALI.exe would need to
include all public keys of all loggers sold. And you would have to
update the VALI.exe each time the vendor generates new keys for new
loggers he will sell, and each time somebody wants to have his logger
repaired. Then think about what happens when a pilot sends a logger
for repair, how will inserting a new key into the logger work? How
will the existing VALI.exe on the OLC server get to know about this?

While that would be technically possibly, and it would be possible to
pregenerate thousands of keys in advance, I do not think any logger
vendor has done this.

Do you think they did?

Max

[Marc]

On Nov 24, 3:00*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> If they had a different private key, then VALI.exe would need to
> include all public keys of all loggers sold. *And you would have to
> update the VALI.exe each time the vendor generates new keys for new
> loggers he will sell, and each time somebody wants to have his logger
> repaired. *Then think about what happens when a pilot sends a logger
> for repair, how will inserting a new key into the logger work? *How
> will the existing VALI.exe on the OLC server get to know about this?
>
> While that would be technically possibly, and it would be possible to
> pregenerate thousands of keys in advance, I do not think any logger
> vendor has done this.
>
> Do you think they did?

The vendors of IGC approved flight recorders are required to do this,
as spelled out in the specification, which can be obtained here
(unfortunately, the FAI web site is a bit wonky, right now):

http://www.fai.org/igc-documents

All flight recorders currently approved for "all flights" or "all
badges and diplomas" have unique public/private key pairs for each
unit. I, as a member of the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval
Committee, would like to see the algorithms standardized and the
public keys openly distributed, but life is always a bit more
complicated than it might seem...

Marc

[Max Kellermann]

Marc > wrote:
> All flight recorders currently approved for "all flights" or "all
> badges and diplomas" have unique public/private key pairs for each
> unit.

Thanks Marc, I must have missed that part of the spec when I last read
it. Interesting, I wonder how the public keys are distributed to the
VALI.exe files.

Whenever I see such "security by obscurity", I fear the worst.
Usually, this assumption is close to the truth.

> I, as a member of the IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee,
> would like to see the algorithms standardized and the public keys
> openly distributed, but life is always a bit more complicated than
> it might seem...

Too sad, that's a big chance that was missed. It's extremely
cumbersome or impossible to validate an IGC file on a machine other
than Windows-i386.

Max

[LOV2AV8]

On Nov 23, 10:02*am, Cliff Hilty
> wrote:
> Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
> Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
> more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
> all of this regulatory crap. After all, we are all in it for the money and
> the girls right? If they want to cheat that bad let them. Its been my
> experience that the cheaters are found out and rightly ostersized out of
> the sport anyway. Just my .2 cents worth. And while Im at it that goes the
> same for badge and record flights. AFAIC KISS principal applies. What are
> we testing after all, how good am I at flying or following recording
> procedures. Jumping off the soap box now and flame sheilds on!
>
> CH

I think OLC is losing their focus. They used to show one could use
almost any GPS to record a flight. I own 3 Cam Nav 20's. I use the
XC soar program to post with the blue "V" but found out the hard way
last year that this is not valid for the League. We lost a lot of
points due to this. I do have an SN10 so I guess I need to buy the
USB adapter to easily download from it. I have also just spent big
bucks on the PowerFlarm in order to be safer but also for the logger
which is now not certified yet. Any one know if the PowerFlarm log
will be useable by the time League starts for league scoring?

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

At 17:16 24 November 2011, LOV2AV8 wrote:
>On Nov 23, 10:02=A0am, Cliff Hilty
> wrote:
I have also just spent big
>bucks on the PowerFlarm in order to be safer but also for the logger
>which is now not certified yet. Any one know if the PowerFlarm log
>will be useable by the time League starts for league scoring?
>

Unlikely unless and until they apply for approval..........

[Ramy]

On Nov 23, 7:02*pm, Cliff Hilty
> wrote:
> Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
> Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
> more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
> all of this regulatory crap. After all, we are all in it for the money and
> the girls right? If they want to cheat that bad let them. Its been my
> experience that the cheaters are found out and rightly ostersized out of
> the sport anyway. Just my .2 cents worth. And while Im at it that goes the
> same for badge and record flights. AFAIC KISS principal applies. What are
> we testing after all, how good am I at flying or following recording
> procedures. Jumping off the soap box now and flame sheilds on!
>
> CH

Can't agree more. These requirements are nonsense. Logger security is
an illusion.. There are easier ways to fake a flight. You can just
take your secure logger in a power plane and claim a wave flight. Or
stay on tow for the whole flight and manipulate the start and end of
the flight in the claim form. I've seen many flights with land outs
and aero retrieve all included in the flight since the pilot did not
turn off the logger until after the aero retrieve. I believe it is
also possible to hook condor to a PDA and generate a valid IGC file.
Someone posted such a flight once as an experiment.
We need to put pressure on OLC to drop these requirements.

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).

At 06:24 25 November 2011, Ramy wrote:
I believe it is
>also possible to hook condor to a PDA and generate a valid IGC file.
>Someone posted such a flight once as an experiment.
>We need to put pressure on OLC to drop these requirements.
>
>

[Max Kellermann]

Peter Purdie > wrote:
> A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
> Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).

A PDA file is valid for OLC. OLC approved quite a few PDA
applications (including XCSoar and most/all commercial ones).

And it is trivial to fool any PDA software by sending fake NMEA data
into its serial port (Condor or fully synthesized). That NMEA stream
may include fake pressure data and even fake ENL data.

Max

[Peter Purdie[_3_]]

So OLC will accept a totally insecure PDA file but reject a Cambridge 20
one because it CAI verification is done on the raw data file? They must
have some logic to it ;-)

At 08:10 25 November 2011, Max Kellermann wrote:
>Peter Purdie wrote:
>> A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
>> Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).
>
>A PDA file is valid for OLC. OLC approved quite a few PDA
>applications (including XCSoar and most/all commercial ones).
>
>And it is trivial to fool any PDA software by sending fake NMEA data
>into its serial port (Condor or fully synthesized). That NMEA stream
>may include fake pressure data and even fake ENL data.
>
>Max
>

[Max Kellermann]

Peter Purdie > wrote:
> So OLC will accept a totally insecure PDA file but reject a Cambridge 20
> one because it CAI verification is done on the raw data file? They must
> have some logic to it ;-)

Easy to fix: feed your Cambridge 20 IGC file to a PDA, and let the PDA
sign it with its software key .. ;-)

Max

[Ramy]

On Nov 25, 3:04*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Peter Purdie > wrote:
> > So OLC will accept a totally insecure PDA file but reject a Cambridge 20
> > one because it CAI verification is done on the raw data file? *They must
> > have some logic to it ;-)
>
> Easy to fix: feed your Cambridge 20 IGC file to a PDA, and let the PDA
> sign it with its software key .. ;-)
>
> Max

This will work for those who fly pure gliders, but motorgliders can
not use PDA as loggers since they do not produce ENL record. As such,
the alternative is to to change to the non notorized version in the
OLC claim to be able to use PDA generated IGC files. A solution that
quiet a few motorglider pilots use. Another proof that OLC requirement
for secure files is nonesense.

Ramy

[LOV2AV8]

On Nov 25, 1:10*am, Max Kellermann > wrote:
> Peter Purdie > wrote:
> > A PDA file may have the .IGC suffix, but it isn't a valid file for any
> > Badge, Record or OLC claim (no pressure data).
>
> A PDA file is valid for OLC. *OLC approved quite a few PDA
> applications (including XCSoar and most/all commercial ones).

But you cannot use the XCsoar file for the league score. Is it so
high profile that persons would be more inclined to cheat? We have
many pilots at our field using XCsoar because we love the program and
for the ease of claiming a flight from the SD card. Last year I used
XCsoar for all flights except league weekends where I was forced to
use the Cam Nav20 and upload the igc file generated by SeeYou. Many
use XCsoar on the IPAQ310 and cannot compete in the league speed
scoring.

Randy "AV8"

[Ron Gleason]

On Nov 24, 11:24*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:02*pm, Cliff Hilty
>
> > wrote:
> > Im still trying to figure out why any of the files have to be "secure" !
> > Security is an illusion. I thought the intent of the OLC was to promote
> > more people flying and friendly competition. Still scratching my head with
> > all of this regulatory crap. After all, we are all in it for the money and
> > the girls right? If they want to cheat that bad let them. Its been my
> > experience that the cheaters are found out and rightly ostersized out of
> > the sport anyway. Just my .2 cents worth. And while Im at it that goes the
> > same for badge and record flights. AFAIC KISS principal applies. What are
> > we testing after all, how good am I at flying or following recording
> > procedures. Jumping off the soap box now and flame sheilds on!
>
> > CH
>
> Can't agree more. These requirements are nonsense. Logger security is
> an illusion.. There are easier ways to fake a flight. You can just
> take your secure logger in a power plane and claim a wave flight. Or
> stay on tow for the whole flight and manipulate the start and end of
> the flight in the claim form. I've seen many flights with land outs
> and aero retrieve all included in the flight since the pilot did not
> turn off the logger until after the aero retrieve. I believe it is
> also possible to hook condor to a PDA and generate a valid IGC file.
> Someone posted such a flight once as an experiment.
> We need to put pressure on OLC to drop these requirements.

Real shame that OLC is changing these requirements. I do not see the
benefit. Time to ask for a change

Ron Gleason

[Max Kellermann]

Ron Gleason > wrote:
> Real shame that OLC is changing these requirements. I do not see the
> benefit. Time to ask for a change

Time to ask for an OLC successor. The OLC has denied access to its
databases for scientific projects in the past, effectively hindering
scientific progress. And the OLC has tried to shut down free speech:
Reiner Rose (the CEO and owner of the company that runs the OLC) has
threatened to remove XCSoar from the list of approved software after I
criticized the OLC (I happen to be a XCSoar developer). Critical
pilot comments are being deleted from the web site.

Eventually, the XCSoar project and its volunteers will build a public
and truly free web site for live tracking and flight upload, fully
integrated into our software. There will be no limit on the number of
IGC files one may download.

Max

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Am sort of wondering if the most recent "support" that was done had
its own Y2K issue? Meaning that the conversion program to make a
valid file was only going to create one named correctly for that
year. My understanding was that Carl Ekdahl's program would work if
you went back and changed the name of the .igc file it created to
match the year convention that the OLC validation program was looking
for. In other words, Carl's program had its own "Y2K" sort of issue,
as well. All of which has me waiting until January 1 to make a log
file, convert it using the program that works right now, see the name
the program gives the file, alter it if necessary, and try to upload
it and see what comments I get back from them.

I hope that they simply took an easier way out when the latest
conversion program was made, and that the older Model 10/20/25 files
can still be uploaded for full OLC "Green" status by using the same
program we currently use and then jumping through yet one more hoop
before uploading and hoping it will "take" on the first attempt. I
certainly don't like all the extras those of us with Original GPS
Equipment have to go through. But, I am an insane child of the
Microsoft Generation. Keep doing the same thing over again long
enough, and it will work. If not, hit the start button to shut the
system down, and try again. Isn't it wonderful?

Anyone willing or able to ask the OLC folks if the above might be
true? I mean, if there is a program that can make an acceptable igc
file from a cai file now, what is changing in the igc file format
effective 1-1-12 that would make that same program no longer work?
Sounds like they don't want to spend time fixing a Y2K sort of issue
with a cai to igc conversion program.

Any better theories?

Steve Leonard
(still got a boat load of them Cambridge Loggers)

[Westbender]

> what is changing in the igc file format
> effective 1-1-12 that would make that same program no longer work?
> Sounds like they don't want to spend time fixing a Y2K sort of issue
> with a cai to igc conversion program.


It already doesn't work. You don't have to wait til 1/1/2012.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Nov 28, 6:03*pm, Westbender > wrote:
> > what is changing in the igc file format
> > effective 1-1-12 that would make that same program no longer work?
> > Sounds like they don't want to spend time fixing a Y2K sort of issue
> > with a cai to igc conversion program.
>
> It already doesn't work. You don't have to wait til 1/1/2012.

When did it stop? I have a flight from 23 October that uploaded just
fine. Cambridge Model 20. In the 2012 OLC Season. May not be
working for you, but the conversion program I found works for me.
Granted, it sometimes takes two or maybe three uploads for it to be
successful, but it does work and is all green Vs.

Steve

[Westbender]

> When did it stop? *I have a flight from 23 October that uploaded just
> fine. *Cambridge Model 20. *In the 2012 OLC Season. *May not be
> working for you, but the conversion program I found works for me.
> Granted, it sometimes takes two or maybe three uploads for it to be
> successful, but it does work and is all green Vs.
>
> Steve

I guess you missed my meaning. Lots of people have been having
problems all season long due to this igc conversion work-around.
Although it will cease working for everyone at the end of the year.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 10:51*am, Westbender > wrote:
>
> I guess you missed my meaning. Lots of people have been having
> problems all season long due to this igc conversion work-around.
> Although it will cease working for everyone at the end of the year.


Nope, I didn't miss your meaning. It was never exactly easy for me
all season long, either. Sometimes it would successfully upload on
the first try, other flights would take 4 or 5 attempts of uploading
the exact same file using the exact same approach. Have no idea why,
it just was that way. I have seen the threads, and been involved in
helping several get things working for them. "Working" meaning that
after enough tries of uploading the same file, they would get the
green V.

As stated previously, I am going to see if the "support" that goes
away on January 1 is just a wrong file name from the file conversion
program.

[Westbender]

On Dec 1, 9:45*am, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:51*am, Westbender > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I guess you missed my meaning. Lots of people have been having
> > problems all season long due to this igc conversion work-around.
> > Although it will cease working for everyone at the end of the year.
>
> Nope, I didn't miss your meaning. *It was never exactly easy for me
> all season long, either. *Sometimes it would successfully upload on
> the first try, other flights would take 4 or 5 attempts of uploading
> the exact same file using the exact same approach. *Have no idea why,
> it just was that way. *I have seen the threads, and been involved in
> helping several get things working for them. *"Working" meaning that
> after enough tries of uploading the same file, they would get the
> green V.
>
> As stated previously, I am going to see if the "support" that goes
> away on January 1 is just a wrong file name from the file conversion
> program.

Don't forget that they have a special process that deals with these
"hybrid" cai/igc files in a different way. They had to write special
code to validate them. These files are different from the "standard"
igc format. If they disable that special process, all bets are off.
Changing file names won't help in any way.

It sounds to me like they are going to retire that special validation
process for cai/igc hybrid files.