Revised IGC-approvals for some types of legacy recorder

[Ian Strachan]

This GFAC announcement has been prepared with the agreement of
the IGC GNSS Committee and the IGC Bureau.

It was put out a couple of days ago on the FAI IGC email mailing lists
and ). A question that has been
asked is where the current 24 types of IGC-approved recorder and their
10 manufacturers, are listed. This can be seen on:

http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/igc_approved_frs.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------

At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level
for
GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
"all
flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter
is
used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.

There are currently 24 models of IGC-approved GNSS recorder, from 10
different manufacturers. GFAC has completed a review of legacy
recorders, the IGC-approvals of which go back as far as 1996. The
following principles have been agreed for the future:

For world record flight claims, it is not considered suitable to have
recorders with one or more of the following characteristics:

1. No security microswitch or equivalent (this operates if the case is
opened).

2. Without electronic security giving the strength of systems such as
RSA
(public/private key systems) as assessed by GFAC and its experts in
electronic security.

3. No current manufacturer support (out of production and the original
manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing with them).

Negotiations with appropriate manufacturers have been going on for some
time, and revised IGC-approval documents have been circulated to them.
Types of recorders affected will have IGC-approvals for the new "all IGC
badge flights and distance diploma" level.


Types of recorders affected with the main reason:

Cambridge 10, 20 and 25 (not RSA or equivalent strength).

Filser LX20 first batch (not RSA or equivalent strength, no
microswitch).

Peschges VP8 (no microswitch, original manufacturer understood to be no
longer in the recorder business).

Print Technik GR1000 (not RSA or equivalent strength, original
manufacturer no longer in the recorder business).


Timescale

Filser LX20, Peschges VP8 and Print Technik GR1000
- all on 1 January 2004.

Cambridge 10, 20, 25 - the date of re-issue of IGC-approval documents as
part of present negotiations with the Horn Lake (MS) and Martinsville
(VA)
operations (this could be earlier than 1 January).


This announcement is made so that there will be no doubt of what is
happening, and why.

The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
flights, for which other types of IGC-approved flight recorder must be
used.

Any questions to the undersigned,

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman, GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
of the International Gliding Commission

Bentworth Hall West
Bentworth
Alton, Hampshire GU34 5LA
ENGLAND


Tel: +44 1420 564 195
Fax: +44 1420 563 140

[Paul Remde]

Hi Ian,

I am very suprised to learn about this development. So, if I undertand your
note correctly, you are saying that the CAI GPS-NAV units are suddenly not
considered secure? I think that is ridiculous. Please explain in detail
why you came to that conclusion.

Paul Remde

"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> This GFAC announcement has been prepared with the agreement of
> the IGC GNSS Committee and the IGC Bureau.
>
> It was put out a couple of days ago on the FAI IGC email mailing lists
> and ). A question that has been
> asked is where the current 24 types of IGC-approved recorder and their
> 10 manufacturers, are listed. This can be seen on:
>
> http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/igc_approved_frs.pdf
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level
> for
> GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
> distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
> "all
> flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter
> is
> used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
> but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.
>
> There are currently 24 models of IGC-approved GNSS recorder, from 10
> different manufacturers. GFAC has completed a review of legacy
> recorders, the IGC-approvals of which go back as far as 1996. The
> following principles have been agreed for the future:
>
> For world record flight claims, it is not considered suitable to have
> recorders with one or more of the following characteristics:
>
> 1. No security microswitch or equivalent (this operates if the case is
> opened).
>
> 2. Without electronic security giving the strength of systems such as
> RSA
> (public/private key systems) as assessed by GFAC and its experts in
> electronic security.
>
> 3. No current manufacturer support (out of production and the original
> manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing with them).
>
> Negotiations with appropriate manufacturers have been going on for some
> time, and revised IGC-approval documents have been circulated to them.
> Types of recorders affected will have IGC-approvals for the new "all IGC
> badge flights and distance diploma" level.
>
>
> Types of recorders affected with the main reason:
>
> Cambridge 10, 20 and 25 (not RSA or equivalent strength).
>
> Filser LX20 first batch (not RSA or equivalent strength, no
> microswitch).
>
> Peschges VP8 (no microswitch, original manufacturer understood to be no
> longer in the recorder business).
>
> Print Technik GR1000 (not RSA or equivalent strength, original
> manufacturer no longer in the recorder business).
>
>
> Timescale
>
> Filser LX20, Peschges VP8 and Print Technik GR1000
> - all on 1 January 2004.
>
> Cambridge 10, 20, 25 - the date of re-issue of IGC-approval documents as
> part of present negotiations with the Horn Lake (MS) and Martinsville
> (VA)
> operations (this could be earlier than 1 January).
>
>
> This announcement is made so that there will be no doubt of what is
> happening, and why.
>
> The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
> flights, for which other types of IGC-approved flight recorder must be
> used.
>
> Any questions to the undersigned,
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Chairman, GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
> of the International Gliding Commission
>
> Bentworth Hall West
> Bentworth
> Alton, Hampshire GU34 5LA
> ENGLAND
>
>
> Tel: +44 1420 564 195
> Fax: +44 1420 563 140
>
>
>
>

[tango4]

After going to all of the time designing the hardware security along came
the idea of public key cryptography so the IGC spec was 'upgraded' to
incorporate this additional security layer. The Cambridges and others got
caught between the two specs.

On the basis of openness and transparency shouldn't the IGC be disclosing
all known or suspected cases of 'trace fraud?' ( If there have been any )
then the general gliding community can get a grip on how the system is
working.

Ian Molesworth


"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:VA9ub.28061$Dw6.139143@attbi_s02...
> Hi Ian,
>
> I am very suprised to learn about this development. So, if I undertand
your
> note correctly, you are saying that the CAI GPS-NAV units are suddenly not
> considered secure? I think that is ridiculous. Please explain in detail
> why you came to that conclusion.
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This GFAC announcement has been prepared with the agreement of
> > the IGC GNSS Committee and the IGC Bureau.
> >
> > It was put out a couple of days ago on the FAI IGC email mailing lists
> > and ). A question that has been
> > asked is where the current 24 types of IGC-approved recorder and their
> > 10 manufacturers, are listed. This can be seen on:
> >
> > http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/igc_approved_frs.pdf
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level
> > for
> > GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
> > distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
> > "all
> > flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter
> > is
> > used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
> > but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.
> >
> > There are currently 24 models of IGC-approved GNSS recorder, from 10
> > different manufacturers. GFAC has completed a review of legacy
> > recorders, the IGC-approvals of which go back as far as 1996. The
> > following principles have been agreed for the future:
> >
> > For world record flight claims, it is not considered suitable to have
> > recorders with one or more of the following characteristics:
> >
> > 1. No security microswitch or equivalent (this operates if the case is
> > opened).
> >
> > 2. Without electronic security giving the strength of systems such as
> > RSA
> > (public/private key systems) as assessed by GFAC and its experts in
> > electronic security.
> >
> > 3. No current manufacturer support (out of production and the original
> > manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing with them).
> >
> > Negotiations with appropriate manufacturers have been going on for some
> > time, and revised IGC-approval documents have been circulated to them.
> > Types of recorders affected will have IGC-approvals for the new "all IGC
> > badge flights and distance diploma" level.
> >
> >
> > Types of recorders affected with the main reason:
> >
> > Cambridge 10, 20 and 25 (not RSA or equivalent strength).
> >
> > Filser LX20 first batch (not RSA or equivalent strength, no
> > microswitch).
> >
> > Peschges VP8 (no microswitch, original manufacturer understood to be no
> > longer in the recorder business).
> >
> > Print Technik GR1000 (not RSA or equivalent strength, original
> > manufacturer no longer in the recorder business).
> >
> >
> > Timescale
> >
> > Filser LX20, Peschges VP8 and Print Technik GR1000
> > - all on 1 January 2004.
> >
> > Cambridge 10, 20, 25 - the date of re-issue of IGC-approval documents as
> > part of present negotiations with the Horn Lake (MS) and Martinsville
> > (VA)
> > operations (this could be earlier than 1 January).
> >
> >
> > This announcement is made so that there will be no doubt of what is
> > happening, and why.
> >
> > The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
> > flights, for which other types of IGC-approved flight recorder must be
> > used.
> >
> > Any questions to the undersigned,
> >
> > --
> > Ian Strachan
> > Chairman, GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
> > of the International Gliding Commission
> >
> > Bentworth Hall West
> > Bentworth
> > Alton, Hampshire GU34 5LA
> > ENGLAND
> >
> >
> > Tel: +44 1420 564 195
> > Fax: +44 1420 563 140
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"tango4" > wrote:

> After going to all of the time designing the hardware security along came
> the idea of public key cryptography so the IGC spec was 'upgraded' to
> incorporate this additional security layer. The Cambridges and others got
> caught between the two specs.

Public key cryptography was well known in 1994 when the Cambridge 10's
were used at the NZ pre-worlds, and in fact I *told* them at the time
that they should be using something like RSA instead of something
home-grown.

Oh well.

-- Bruce

[Paul Remde]

Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work? It is my impression that it is
perfectly secure and has never been compromised. So why suddenly call it
"insecure".

What is the plan to get the approval back in place? What must CAI do to
make it meet your new requirements?

Paul Remde

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tango4" > wrote:
>
> > After going to all of the time designing the hardware security along
came
> > the idea of public key cryptography so the IGC spec was 'upgraded' to
> > incorporate this additional security layer. The Cambridges and others
got
> > caught between the two specs.
>
> Public key cryptography was well known in 1994 when the Cambridge 10's
> were used at the NZ pre-worlds, and in fact I *told* them at the time
> that they should be using something like RSA instead of something
> home-grown.
>
> Oh well.
>
> -- Bruce

[Marc Ramsey]

Paul Remde wrote:

> Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work? It is my impression that it is
> perfectly secure and has never been compromised. So why suddenly call it
> "insecure".

As of January 1st, the CAI Model 10/20/25 won't be considered
"insecure", they just won't be considered "secure enough" for world
records. You can still use it for badges, 1000K+ diplomas, contests,
etc., just not world records.

> What is the plan to get the approval back in place? What must CAI do to
> make it meet your new requirements?

Minimally, a firmware upgrade would be required, but it is not clear
that the microcontroller is fast enough to support the needed changes.
The manufacturer(s?) is the only one that can provide an answer...

Marc

[Paul Remde]

I just find this absurd. I'm very angry about the sudden change.

If I remember correctly, Steve Fossett is using a GPS-NAV (and a 302 I
believe) and currently setting world records in the southern hemisphere.

I'm still waiting for a good answer to the question why. Why is the GPS-NAV
suddenly not secure for world records?

This is not acceptable behavior by the IGC.

Paul Remde

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
om...
> Paul Remde wrote:
>
> > Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work? It is my impression that it is
> > perfectly secure and has never been compromised. So why suddenly call
it
> > "insecure".
>
> As of January 1st, the CAI Model 10/20/25 won't be considered
> "insecure", they just won't be considered "secure enough" for world
> records. You can still use it for badges, 1000K+ diplomas, contests,
> etc., just not world records.
>
> > What is the plan to get the approval back in place? What must CAI do to
> > make it meet your new requirements?
>
> Minimally, a firmware upgrade would be required, but it is not clear
> that the microcontroller is fast enough to support the needed changes.
> The manufacturer(s?) is the only one that can provide an answer...
>
> Marc

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <gJfub.230766$Fm2.231960@attbi_s04>,
"Paul Remde" > wrote:
> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Public key cryptography was well known in 1994 when the Cambridge 10's
> > were used at the NZ pre-worlds, and in fact I *told* them at the time
> > that they should be using something like RSA instead of something
> > home-grown.
>
> Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work?

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing, because the method used isn't
published. But essentially I believe it is a typical private key system
which relies on only trusted parties knowing the secret key. These
trusted parties include anyone writing software to upload flights (which
I suspect is the reason they would never give me the specs for writing
mac software), and authorized repair agents.


> It is my impression that it is perfectly secure and has never been
> compromised. So why suddenly call it "insecure".

Secure doesn't mean "hasn't (to our knowledge) been compromised". It
means "*can't* be compromised". If we didn't know how to do the latter
that would be a different matter, but we do.


And I'll ammend my earlier remarks. In 1994 when I was recommending RSA
to them I never imagined that they'd get to nearly 2004 before it became
an issue. So they may have made the correct commercial decision.

-- Bruce

[Marc Ramsey]

Paul Remde wrote:
> I just find this absurd. I'm very angry about the sudden change.
>
> If I remember correctly, Steve Fossett is using a GPS-NAV (and a 302 I
> believe) and currently setting world records in the southern hemisphere.

The 302 will continue to be approved for world records for the
forseeable future. Steve Fossett also owns at least two Volksloggers,
which will also continue to be approved for world records.

> I'm still waiting for a good answer to the question why. Why is the GPS-NAV
> suddenly not secure for world records?

According to the current flight recorder specifications, a new design
similar to the GPS-NAV could not be approved for world records. There
are other older flight recorder models for which there are known
security concerns. The only (more or less) fair way remove world
record approval from some models was to remove such approval from all
similar designs approved under the older specifications.

> This is not acceptable behavior by the IGC.

I can't think of any way this could have been done that everyone would
find acceptable...

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> And I'll ammend my earlier remarks. In 1994 when I was recommending RSA
> to them I never imagined that they'd get to nearly 2004 before it became
> an issue. So they may have made the correct commercial decision.

I'd make the simple point that if RSA was required when the first flight
recorder specification was issued in 1995, there were no existing flight
recorder designs which could have been approved. RSA (or equivalent
asymmetric algorithm) has been required for "all flights" approval since
1997, I believe...

Marc

[Mike Borgelt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:39:03 GMT, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

>Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> And I'll ammend my earlier remarks. In 1994 when I was recommending RSA
>> to them I never imagined that they'd get to nearly 2004 before it became
>> an issue. So they may have made the correct commercial decision.
>
>I'd make the simple point that if RSA was required when the first flight
>recorder specification was issued in 1995, there were no existing flight
>recorder designs which could have been approved.

So what? If RSA had been required at that time there soon would have
been.



> RSA (or equivalent
>asymmetric algorithm) has been required for "all flights" approval since
>1997, I believe...

So it has been perfectly acceptable to fly world records for the last
5 to 6 years without RSA security with loggers approved before 1997.

If lack of RSA security was an issue why weren't legacy loggers given
say 12 months to comply or lose "all flights" approval back in 1997?

Why the change now?

Would someone tell us why this is suddenly an issue?

Which world record flights are suspect?

Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that this action is being taken
right after CAI Model 20 and 25 loggers are no longer in production?

So a would a new design without RSA security would be acceptable for
all but World Records?

If not, why not?

Mike Borgelt
Borgelt Instruments

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Borgelt wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:39:03 GMT, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>>I'd make the simple point that if RSA was required when the first flight
>>recorder specification was issued in 1995, there were no existing flight
>>recorder designs which could have been approved.
>
>
> So what? If RSA had been required at that time there soon would have
> been.

I wasn't involved at the time, but the reason appears fairly obvious to
me, it's called "jump-starting a market" over here.

>> RSA (or equivalent
>>asymmetric algorithm) has been required for "all flights" approval since
>>1997, I believe...
>
> So it has been perfectly acceptable to fly world records for the last
> 5 to 6 years without RSA security with loggers approved before 1997.

Yes.

> If lack of RSA security was an issue why weren't legacy loggers given
> say 12 months to comply or lose "all flights" approval back in 1997?

The only alternative available at the time was the Diamond-level
approval. I can imagine the outrage of the early adopters when told
they would need to spend more money to upgrade their already expensive
boxes a couple of years after they bought them. Mike, you know as well
as I do that most of those early designs would need a board swap to be
able to adequately handle RSA and the like.

> Why the change now?
>
> Would someone tell us why this is suddenly an issue?

The gap between what is needed to be approved now, and what was needed
back then, is just too large. Among other things, it is unfair to those
who are trying to get new designs approved to have to compete against
'grandfathered' designs.

> Which world record flights are suspect?

None that I am aware of. Would you prefer to wait until there were some
before an effort is made to shift the flight recorder requirements
toward those currently required for approval?

> Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that this action is being taken
> right after CAI Model 20 and 25 loggers are no longer in production?

As far as I know, they are still considered to be "in production".

> So a would a new design without RSA security would be acceptable for
> all but World Records?
>
> If not, why not?

The whole point behind adding the all badges/diplomas approval was to
allow more sensible security requirements for flight recorders used to
document flights other than world records. If you have something
specific to propose, you are welcome to contact GFAC for a formal answer.

Marc

[Bruno Ramseyer]

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message news:<rQgub.32000$Dw6.156983@attbi_s02>...
> I just find this absurd. I'm very angry about the sudden change.
As Ian mentioned this decision was taken by the IGC Plenum at their
meeting
in March 2003 and was mentioned in the minutes of this meeting so no
question about sudden change.
>
> If I remember correctly, Steve Fossett is using a GPS-NAV (and a 302 I
> believe) and currently setting world records in the southern hemisphere.
I think Mr. Fossett is well capable to afford a flight recorder which
is suitable for World Records.
>
> I'm still waiting for a good answer to the question why. Why is the GPS-NAV
> suddenly not secure for world records?
Your anger must have blinded you, just read the points mentioned in
Ians mailing which is in perfect English.
>
> This is not acceptable behavior by the IGC.
What exactly do you not find acceptable? Progress? Computing power has
changed considerably since these initial specifications were
introduced. I think pilots going for world records will be happy in
the knowledge that their traces come from FR's with the highest
security available and nobody will be able to manufacture a record by
breaking the security of these older FR's.

Regards
Bruno
IGC-GNSS Committee
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Paul Remde wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work? It is my impression that it is
> > > perfectly secure and has never been compromised. So why suddenly call
> it
> > > "insecure".
> >
> > As of January 1st, the CAI Model 10/20/25 won't be considered
> > "insecure", they just won't be considered "secure enough" for world
> > records. You can still use it for badges, 1000K+ diplomas, contests,
> > etc., just not world records.
> >
> > > What is the plan to get the approval back in place? What must CAI do to
> > > make it meet your new requirements?
> >
> > Minimally, a firmware upgrade would be required, but it is not clear
> > that the microcontroller is fast enough to support the needed changes.
> > The manufacturer(s?) is the only one that can provide an answer...
> >
> > Marc

[Ian Strachan]

In article <gJfub.230766$Fm2.231960@attbi_s04>, Paul Remde
> writes

snip

>What is the plan to get the approval back in place?

That is up to the manufacturer, of course.

Cambridge already makes the 302 series that use the DSA public/private
key system that is assessed as equivalent in security strength to the
original Rivest, Shamir and Adleman (RSA) system. The 302 is therefore,
together with many other types of recorder, IGC-approved for "all
flights" including of course world records.

>What must CAI do to
>make it meet your new requirements?

If they think it worthwhile, offer an "RSA or equivalent" upgrade for
their legacy recorder designs. The requirements are not new but go back
to 1997, see below.

-------------------------------------

For new recorder designs, "RSA or equivalent" level of security has been
in the Technical Specification for IGC-approved GNSS Flight Recorders
for many years. Here is an extract from the first edition of the IGC
Specification, effective 1 October 1997: "FRs approved for world record
flights must have an asymmetric algorithm (such as RSA) or have a system
providing equivalent security".

What we are talking about here is an adjustment to the "Grandfather
rights" provisions for recorder designs that were IGC-approved a long
time ago and do not comply with the current IGC Specification.

Incidentally, you may recall that one of the non-RSA security systems
for a GNSS recorder was successfully hacked by the Wedekinds in Germany.
This was all in the public domain and was extensively publicised at the
time. This was done as an exercise rather than for malpractice, but
shows what can be done. The manufacturer concerned immediately changed
to an RSA-based system without any prompting from IGC. The non-RSA
recorder concerned is on the list recently announced, together with
recorders with similar types of security.

It was felt that we should be even-handed to all recorder designs rather
than just adjust the IGC-approval for the Wedekind-hacked design and
leave the rest. That is what has been done, perhaps a bit late, but
first we had to get the IGC Plenary to agree to the new "all IGC badges
and distance diploma" level first, to have somewhere to put legacy
recorders that had lower levels of security without affecting the vast
majority of owners and pilots. As it is, only world record aspirants
will be affected and there are plenty of other recorder designs that are
available for this type of flight.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[Robert Danewid]

I agree with Paul.

So, all the world records that have been set with a CAI mod 10/20/25 may
perhaps not be secure enough???? The reason for increasing the security
should, if you using rational arguments, be a result of attempts to
cheat. I wonder which records that can be....

Of course all this is pure nonsense. Is this the way IGC is using its
resources to increase world wide gliding membership?

Yes, the decision was taken at the IGC plenary meeting, but lots of
delegates did not understand what was really happening as the
presentation was, if I may you use the word, very clever. I did not
realize at the meeting that the result was to degrade existant recorders.



Robert



Paul Remde wrote:
> Yes, but doesn't the CAI system work? It is my impression that it is
> perfectly secure and has never been compromised. So why suddenly call it
> "insecure".
>
> What is the plan to get the approval back in place? What must CAI do to
> make it meet your new requirements?
>
> Paul Remde
>
> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>> "tango4" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>After going to all of the time designing the hardware security along
>
> came
>
>>>the idea of public key cryptography so the IGC spec was 'upgraded' to
>>>incorporate this additional security layer. The Cambridges and others
>
> got
>
>>>caught between the two specs.
>>
>>Public key cryptography was well known in 1994 when the Cambridge 10's
>>were used at the NZ pre-worlds, and in fact I *told* them at the time
>>that they should be using something like RSA instead of something
>>home-grown.
>>
>>Oh well.
>>
>>-- Bruce
>
>
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

I'm betting that more than 75% of the questions being asked on this
thread can be answered "Because of Moore's Law."

Of course, I'm not betting much... :)

Bob K.

[Denis Flament]

Ian Strachan wrote:

> At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level for
> GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
> distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
> "all
> flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter is
> used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
> but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.

Let's admit that this third level was necessary... Now the problem is
that most people refer to "IGC approved" loggers, not mentionning
whether it is for "all IGC badge and distance diploma flights" or
"all flights" or "badge flights up to and including Diamonds" ... in
fact most glider pilots ignore that there are different level of IGC
approval !

May I suggest that there be somewhat shorter names such as "approved
level 1, 2 or 3" or "class A, B or C" ? Things would be clearer this way.

Now, what about World Championships ??? Are they less important that
world records ??? I don't think so. One could say that it is more
difficult to cheat in a Championship than for records, that's right, but
it is not impossible (and it already happened !), and the stake is
higher too.

You (GFAC) didn't say anything about which approval level would be
appropriate for World Championships, did you ? If I read the rules for
these Championships, it says (Annex A 5.4.a) : "All GNSS FR’s approved
by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted."

Does it mean that all loggers SHALL be accepted, whatever their approval
level ???

Same question for national records or Championships, what type of
approved loggers would you recommand ? I understand that for these type
of performances NACs may have their own rules, and allow
non-IGC-approved loggers (which is not even permitted for a mere 50 km
silver D badge, but this is another debate...), but I think that IGC
should emit at least a recommendation.


--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Denis Flament <moncourrieles
> writes
>Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>> At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level for
>> GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
>> distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
>> "all
>> flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter is
>> used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
>> but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.
>
>Let's admit that this third level was necessary... Now the problem is
>that most people refer to "IGC approved" loggers, not mentionning
>whether it is for "all IGC badge and distance diploma flights" or
>"all flights" or "badge flights up to and including Diamonds" ... in
>fact most glider pilots ignore that there are different level of IGC
>approval !
>
>May I suggest that there be somewhat shorter names such as "approved
>level 1, 2 or 3" or "class A, B or C" ? Things would be clearer this way.

That may well happen, but the initial announcement need to be clear
about the intention.

It was suggested:

A: All Purposes including World Records.
B: Badges and Diplomas
D: Badges up to Diamond

Or did D stand for Diplomas?

>
>Now, what about World Championships ??? Are they less important that
>world records ??? I don't think so. One could say that it is more
>difficult to cheat in a Championship than for records, that's right, but
>it is not impossible (and it already happened !), and the stake is
>higher too.
>
>You (GFAC) didn't say anything about which approval level would be
>appropriate for World Championships, did you ? If I read the rules for
>these Championships, it says (Annex A 5.4.a) : "All GNSS FR’s approved
>by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted."
>
>Does it mean that all loggers SHALL be accepted, whatever their approval
>level ???

I don't think it is within GFAC's remit to say what should or should not
be used for World Championships. That is for the Annex A team to decide
upon.
>
>Same question for national records or Championships, what type of
>approved loggers would you recommand ? I understand that for these type
>of performances NACs may have their own rules, and allow
>non-IGC-approved loggers (which is not even permitted for a mere 50 km
>silver D badge, but this is another debate...), but I think that IGC
>should emit at least a recommendation.

Again, not within GFAC's remit to decide. It is up to the NAC and
Competition Organisers concerned. No doubt GFAC will advise when and if
requested, but to proffer a recommendation unasked might not be welcome.

On the necessity of the action of downgrading the approvals, waiting for
proof that the security has been broken is rather "Closing the Stable
Door after the Horse has Bolted". Prevention is better than cure.

In 1994 the security level of the time was judged to be sufficient,
bearing in mind the power of the PCs available at the time.

In 2004 ten years will have passed and the Power of PCs has made serious
advances, or if you prefer, the security of the early Recorders has been
seriously degraded.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Mike Borgelt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:38:21 GMT, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

>The gap between what is needed to be approved now, and what was needed
>back then, is just too large. Among other things, it is unfair to those
>who are trying to get new designs approved to have to compete against
>'grandfathered' designs.

And it has been since the RSA security requirements were introduced in
1997. Why is it suddenly so unfair now after 6 years ?


>The whole point behind adding the all badges/diplomas approval was to
>allow more sensible security requirements for flight recorders used to
>document flights other than world records. If you have something
>specific to propose, you are welcome to contact GFAC for a formal answer.
>
>Marc

I think you need to read the r.a.s. archives before making statements
like this. All of the above was done by myself and others when the F.R
proposals were first mooted but all were ignored
You are either ignorant of what really happened or being deliberately
obtuse. I suggest you do a google search for r.a.s. for IGC flight
recorders.

You had better privately ask Mr Strachan about the meeting at Lasham
at which reasons were invented not to approve loggers which met the
rules as written and approved by the IGC at the time. Ask him who most
of the participants had business associations with either before, at
the time or subsequently. Also ask where the principal of that
business was at the time.

The history of F.R.s on the FAI site is inaccurate as it omits these
details and others.

How about a straight answer in public to - is it the intention of GFAC
to approve new designs for "all but World records category"?

I'm sure GFAC have a policy, it may just not be the written down
official one based on past history.


p.s.

"jump starting the market" in that way as you put it would most
likely contravene the Trade Practices Act (1974) in Australia and land
you with a large fine. Ask the freight companies who were fined after
the ACCC(Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) used an
electronic barograph to prove that goods being sent by "airfreight"
were in fact going by truck between Brisbane- Sydney- Melbourne.

Mike Borgelt

Borgelt Instruments

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Borgelt wrote:
> And it has been since the RSA security requirements were introduced in
> 1997. Why is it suddenly so unfair now after 6 years ?

A) There is now a better (for the pilots) option than a downgrade to
Diamond-level approval, and B) the process was only approved by the IGC
this year.

> I think you need to read the r.a.s. archives before making statements
> like this. All of the above was done by myself and others when the F.R
> proposals were first mooted but all were ignored
> You are either ignorant of what really happened or being deliberately
> obtuse. I suggest you do a google search for r.a.s. for IGC flight
> recorders.

As you well know, I was not a member of GFAC at that time. Anything I
state about then (or now, for that matter) is simply my opinion. If you
want the official word, you know how to contact Ian.

> How about a straight answer in public to - is it the intention of GFAC
> to approve new designs for "all but World records category"?

Obviously yes, since there is a new design (THEMI) that is approved in
this category.

> I'm sure GFAC have a policy, it may just not be the written down
> official one based on past history.

There is no written policy at this moment, as the category is less than
a year old, and it's not clear whether any other manufacturers will make
use of it. The whole point is to keep it fairly flexible, so those who
can't or won't go for all flights approval have another category to work
with.

> "jump starting the market" in that way as you put it would most
> likely contravene the Trade Practices Act (1974) in Australia and land
> you with a large fine. Ask the freight companies who were fined after
> the ACCC(Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) used an
> electronic barograph to prove that goods being sent by "airfreight"
> were in fact going by truck between Brisbane- Sydney- Melbourne.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Marc

[Denis Flament]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> I don't think it is within GFAC's remit to say what should or should not
> be used for World Championships. That is for the Annex A team to decide
> upon.

Annex A is part of the Sporting Code as well as are world records or
badges ; Annex A group are the specialists for World Championships
within SC3, like there is a Sporting code specialist for records and
badges within main part of SC3.

I think GFAC should not decide which loggers should or should not be
used for badges and records neither... they should approve loggers
within a security classification (class A, B, C, etc.), and it should be
up to the sporting code specialist (for main SC3 and Annex A) to propose
to the IGC plenary which class of approval is required for badges,
records, Championships, etc.

As part of Annex A group I would recommand that only loggers approved
for world records be accepted for world championships. But it is not the
case today.


--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

[Paul Repacholi]

(Bruno Ramseyer) writes:

> What exactly do you not find acceptable? Progress? Computing power
> has changed considerably since these initial specifications were
> introduced. I think pilots going for world records will be happy in
> the knowledge that their traces come from FR's with the highest
> security available and nobody will be able to manufacture a record
> by breaking the security of these older FR's.

If anyone is going to fabricate records, then just feed the whole
system from a pseudolite set. No need to get inside the systems at
all.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Marc Ramsey]

Paul Repacholi wrote:
> If anyone is going to fabricate records, then just feed the whole
> system from a pseudolite set. No need to get inside the systems at
> all.

You'd need to properly synchonize the GPS and pressure altitude changes
to pull it off. Maybe it's easy for you, but not for me 8^)

Marc

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Denis Flament
> writes
>As part of Annex A group I would recommand that only loggers approved
>for world records be accepted for world championships. But it is not the
>case today.
>
I did not find anywhere in SC3A and mention of Recorder Categories, and
prior to this announcement, there were two categories one for 'Badges up
to Diamond' and another for full approval.

It would seem to me that as any recorder could be used up to now, Ian's
announcement does not effect SC3A, as it simply divided previously
accepted recorders into two subdivisions.

I think I must disagree with Denis about "only loggers approved for
world records be accepted for world championships".

In any competition it is far more difficult to falsify a recording
because:

1. The task is not known until a relatively short time before take-
off.

2. The Start-Line Open time will not be known in advance of take-
off

3. The recorder must be handed in within a relatively short time
from landing.

4. The falsified record would need show the correct time for
Takeoff, Finishing and Landing.

These checks, especially the combination of 3 and 4, will give an added
level of security, so that a lower level of FR security should be
accepted.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Marc Ramsey]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote:
> Tim Newport-Peace ]> wrote:
> >It was suggested:
> >
> >A: All Purposes including World Records.
> >B: Badges and Diplomas
> >D: Badges up to Diamond
>
> What is the rationale for distinguishing between levels B
> and D? If I understand correctly, D was initially separated
> from everything else because of concerns about cheating,
> then B was shown to be hackable (Wedekind). If that's
> correct, why wasn't B moved into group D? Or, more
> preferably, why isn't D given the same privileges as B?

The Diamond-level approval exists to allow for equipment with minimal
physical security. The only flight recorders in that category, at present,
are the EW models which connect to external GPS units.

> Instead of ratcheting up costs, why can't we just use our
> Official Observers to control cheating? We relied on them
> for decades before RSA/DSA and public/private key
> encryption.

Costs are ratcheting up only in the sense that some flight recorders that
could formerly be used for world records no longer can be. If the private
keys in the flight recorder are compromised, we can't depend upon Official
Observers to prevent cheating. There are a number of ways to cheat which
will not be visible to even the most diligent observer using present
procedures. The observer procedures could be altered to require more
intrusive inspection and monitoring of the flight (much like the
camera/barograph/chronometer days), but I think it a better compromise to
accept the fact that some older flight recorder designs just don't provide
the level of security assurance desirable for world records.

> If I hack an A level recorder (with a GPS
> transmitter simulator and a pressure chamber or by opening
> the case and inserting GPS code between the off-the-shelf
> GPS receiver and the custom circuitry), can we just agree
> that no security is perfect and group them all as imperfect,
> but usable for all levels with appropriate monitoring by an
> OO?


Of course the security of even "A" level flight recorders is imperfect.
There are no perfect security systems. We are just trying to find an
appropriate balance between the security requirements, and convenience for
pilots and observers. It's not quite as simple to find that balance as you
might think...

Marc

[Robert Ehrlich]

Paul Repacholi wrote:
> ...
> If anyone is going to fabricate records, then just feed the whole
> system from a pseudolite set. No need to get inside the systems at
> all.
> ...

This is just what the cryptograhic RSA signature makes impossible,
not to fake such records, but to put them in an IGC file that the
validation program accepts as a genuine file coming from the logger.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> Tim Newport-Peace ]> wrote:
>
> >It was suggested:
> >
> >A: All Purposes including World Records.
> >B: Badges and Diplomas
> >D: Badges up to Diamond
>
> What is the rationale for distinguishing between levels B
> and D? If I understand correctly, D was initially separated
> from everything else because of concerns about cheating,
> then B was shown to be hackable (Wedekind). If that's
> correct, why wasn't B moved into group D? Or, more
> preferably, why isn't D given the same privileges as B?
>
> Instead of ratcheting up costs, why can't we just use our
> Official Observers to control cheating? We relied on them
> for decades before RSA/DSA and public/private key
> encryption. If I hack an A level recorder (with a GPS
> transmitter simulator and a pressure chamber or by opening
> the case and inserting GPS code between the off-the-shelf
> GPS receiver and the custom circuitry), can we just agree
> that no security is perfect and group them all as imperfect,
> but usable for all levels with appropriate monitoring by an
> OO?
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

I think the kind of hacking addressed by the change is merely
post download hacking, i.e. patching the downloaded file
and making it valid either because it doesn't have a cryptogrhic
signature or because the method used to generate the signature
is to weak and so the signature can be hacked/faked.

[Mike Borgelt]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:24:46 GMT, Marc Ramsey > wrote:




>There is no written policy at this moment, as the category is less than
>a year old, and it's not clear whether any other manufacturers will make
>use of it. The whole point is to keep it fairly flexible, so those who
>can't or won't go for all flights approval have another category to work
>with.

Great. What you mean is that any manufacturer could be screwed around
by the GFAC as there is no publicly stated, openly available policy.
It has happened before.
>
>> "jump starting the market" in that way as you put it would most
>> likely contravene the Trade Practices Act (1974) in Australia and land
>> you with a large fine. Ask the freight companies who were fined after
>> the ACCC(Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) used an
>> electronic barograph to prove that goods being sent by "airfreight"
>> were in fact going by truck between Brisbane- Sydney- Melbourne.
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about.

Writing a specification around one manufacturer's product, approving
that product and others from the same manufacturer and then changing
the rules for new entrants into the market to make it more difficult
and expensive for them while still leaving the old rules for the
original manufacturer's products would be not only considered
unethical in Australia but most likely illegal. The ACCC does have
teeth and uses them regularly.


Mike Borgelt

[Erazem Polutnik]

Hi,
let me try to add my 2cents to this thread. We should not see proposed
modification as downgrade of approval level for particular flight recorder
but rather as an increase of security measure for particular type of flights
(e.g. world records). And some of approved flight recorders do not meet
these requirements.

Seeyou
Erazem

[Mike Borgelt]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:57:02 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>Tim Newport-Peace ]> wrote:
>
>
>>It was suggested:
>>
>>A: All Purposes including World Records.
>>B: Badges and Diplomas
>>D: Badges up to Diamond
>
>
>What is the rationale for distinguishing between levels B
>and D? If I understand correctly, D was initially separated
>from everything else because of concerns about cheating,
>then B was shown to be hackable (Wedekind). If that's
>correct, why wasn't B moved into group D? Or, more
>preferably, why isn't D given the same privileges as B?
>
>Instead of ratcheting up costs, why can't we just use our
>Official Observers to control cheating? We relied on them
>for decades before RSA/DSA and public/private key
>encryption. If I hack an A level recorder (with a GPS
>transmitter simulator and a pressure chamber or by opening
>the case and inserting GPS code between the off-the-shelf
>GPS receiver and the custom circuitry), can we just agree
>that no security is perfect and group them all as imperfect,
>but usable for all levels with appropriate monitoring by an
>OO?
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)


Far too sensible for GFAC , Todd and of course you, me and others like
Robert Danewid and Dave Starer pointed out all this in 1995-96.

Done a search for GPS simulators lately? Not only has PC technology
progressed in the last ten years but simulator technology has too. I
found several manufacturers quite easily in a few minutes.

Give the problem to a bunch of bright engineering students and I'll
bet in 12 months you not only have a nice GPS simulator that is driven
by a PDA but a nice commercial product too.

Knowing this I have doubts about many of the current crop of amazing
records which is a pity because they *might* even be real.

Engine noise level sensors are easy to fool. The technology is readily
available commercially from Headsets Inc.. Just organise your active
noise cancelling to put noise in during glides and noise cancelling
during climbs with engine running. I just put a kit in our headsets
for the BD4. Works great.

I heard a rumour yesterday that the IGC in fact have a motorglider
record they have doubts about because of vague engine noise levels.

The mickey mouse microswitch is also good for just the first time you
open a particular logger. I sell Volksloggers and have serviced two
and fooling the microswitch is truly child's play now. Any potential
World record or 1000 km diploma holders should contact me privately.
GFAC members need not apply.

I'm also told by some people who are actively seeking World Records
that some records have been set under some suspicious circumstances.
For records requiring declarations the trick is to carry multiple
loggers and choose the appropriate one after the fact with the
declaration for the flight you actually did. This is definitely
cheating so why should we be surprised at better efforts requiring
more organisation?

I believe that for World Records the following should apply:

At least 30 days notice to the IGC that records will be attempted.

Notice to include the serial numbers and type of logger being used
including spares and name of O.O being used and location.

No more than 2 loggers in the aircraft. Requires O.O. to be present
just before takeoff.

O.O to use his own PC to clear logger memory before takeoff then seal
the loggers in aircraft no more than 15 minutes before takeoff. O.O
notes takeoff and landing times.

O.O to take charge of loggers immediately after landing and download
them him or her self and send files to IGC. If landed at some other
place logger must stay sealed in aircraft until aircraft is brought to
O.O or O.O to aircraft. In this case any dataports must be sealed by
the O.O. and only unsealed by him.

IGC to reserve the right to substitute their own nominated O.O at any
time. Actually do this now and again.

Loggers used to be returned to manufacturer for examination as soon as
possible after record session ends before record is approved.

Yes it requires honest O.O's. If we don't have those then we don't
have anything do we?

Note none of the above requires any onerous electronic security on the
logger and the logger and GPS can be separate joined by a cable. As
Marc pointed out indirectly the RSA security drives the current
logger design.

We could also get real and eliminate the pressure sensor out of the
logger and start using geometric altitudes like the rest of aviation.
They are the same in an ISA standard atmosphere but near as I can tell
gliding assumes that pressure altitudes achieved were done in an ISA
atmosphere when this is most likely not the case. The differences are
quite serious for gold and diamond badges.

Mike Borgelt

[Marc Ramsey]

"Mike Borgelt" > wrote...
> Great. What you mean is that any manufacturer could be screwed around
> by the GFAC as there is no publicly stated, openly available policy.
> It has happened before.

Clearly, the requirements will be somewhere in the continuum between
Diamond-level and all flights approval. What isn't clear (in my opinion,
anyway) is exactly where those requirements should ultimately be positioned.
Discussions with those seeking to gain approval in this category is one way
this positioning could be determined.

> Writing a specification around one manufacturer's product, approving
> that product and others from the same manufacturer and then changing
> the rules for new entrants into the market to make it more difficult
> and expensive for them while still leaving the old rules for the
> original manufacturer's products would be not only considered
> unethical in Australia but most likely illegal. The ACCC does have
> teeth and uses them regularly.

I see flight recorders from 5 different manufacturers which received all
flights approval under the original specification. All of those recorders
will be reduced to badge/diploma approval as of 1 January 2004 (with one
possible exception, which is under review). All manufacturers who submitted
new models after the change were required to have them meet the new
requirements for full approval, including those who had older models
approved under the old requirements. The recorders approved since the
requirement change are, almost universally, lower in price than those that
were approved under the earlier requirements. I still fail to see your
point.

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

"Mike Borgelt" > wrote...
> We could also get real and eliminate the pressure sensor out of the
> logger and start using geometric altitudes like the rest of aviation.

Which would make it really easy to fake a flight using a GPS simulator. The
change to geometric altitude will happen soon, at least above the mean
altitude of the tropopause (32K feet or so). I personally believe the
pressure sensor requirement should be eliminated for badge/diploma level
approval.

Marc

[Denis Flament]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> I did not find anywhere in SC3A any mention of Recorder Categories,

you're right, there are none

> I think I must disagree with Denis about "only loggers approved for
> world records be accepted for world championships".
>
> In any competition it is far more difficult to falsify a recording

Not so much, you may use a simple software to modify slightly your
depature time without changing take-off, landing, etc.

When using photo-time cameras it was difficult too to cheat, but it has
been done (at least at WGC 93 in sweden)

And, apart from the technical considerations, there is so few pilots
attempting world records that no reasonable manufacturer will ever
present any new model in this category !!! It's not economically viable.

--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

[Adrian Jansen]

You miss the point entirely.

There is no signature on the GPS signals, therefore any system capable of
generating GPS signals can feed them to a flight recorder via the antenna,
exactly like the real satellite system. All the flight recorder can do is
take the data, and generate a signature proving that what *it received* has
not been tampered with.

Pseudolites ( GPS generators for test purposes ) are available, at least 5
manufacturers, by my very cursory search a while ago. They are still
relatively expensive, but not much in comparison to the cost of setting up
to do a world record.

Fooling the pressure transducer and engine noise detection systems on the
average flight recorder is a relatively trivial matter, for those who want
to cheat.

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen
J & K MicroSystems
Microcomputer solutions for industrial control
"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Repacholi wrote:
> > ...
> > If anyone is going to fabricate records, then just feed the whole
> > system from a pseudolite set. No need to get inside the systems at
> > all.
> > ...
>
> This is just what the cryptograhic RSA signature makes impossible,
> not to fake such records, but to put them in an IGC file that the
> validation program accepts as a genuine file coming from the logger.

[Denis Flament]

Mike Borgelt wrote:


> At least 30 days notice to the IGC that records will be attempted.

Either you are joking, either you have a very good weather forecaster...

--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

[Mark Hawkins]

Wow! If they do away with the pressure sensor requirement,
I can submit SoaringPilot for approval. If it only
gets the lowest level approval, I'd be happy. I'm
sure Jerry and Henryk would agree. However, I won't
get my hopes up. That way if it happens, it will be
a WONDERFUL surprise. :-) Later!-MarkAt 22:42 19 November 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:>I personally believe the>pressure sensor requirement should be eliminated for
>badge/diploma level>approval.>>Marc>>>

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark Hawkins wrote:

> Wow! If they do away with the pressure sensor requirement,
> I can submit SoaringPilot for approval. If it only
> gets the lowest level approval, I'd be happy. I'm
> sure Jerry and Henryk would agree. However, I won't
> get my hopes up. That way if it happens, it will be
> a WONDERFUL surprise. :-) Later!-Mark
>
> At 22:42 19 November 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>I personally believe the>pressure sensor requirement should be eliminated for
> badge/diploma level>approval.

The lack of a pressure sensor is not the only thing that prevents PDA
software from getting approval. But, keep trying, Mark 8^)

Marc

[Mike Borgelt]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:21:06 -0800, "Marc Ramsey" >
wrote:

>"Mike Borgelt" > wrote...
>> We could also get real and eliminate the pressure sensor out of the
>> logger and start using geometric altitudes like the rest of aviation.
>
>Which would make it really easy to fake a flight using a GPS simulator. The
>change to geometric altitude will happen soon, at least above the mean
>altitude of the tropopause (32K feet or so). I personally believe the
>pressure sensor requirement should be eliminated for badge/diploma level
>approval.
>
>Marc
>

So you feed a pressure sensor to the computer controlling the GPS
pseudolites and it roughly matches with GPS altitudes with appropriate
corrections for reasonable guesses as to the mean temperature in the
atmosphere. Dead easy! And a trivial enhancement to your pseudolite
system. Given that some IFR aviation GPS systems already use pressure
altitude for GPS aiding it would not surprise me if test equipment
that can do all this isn't available off the shelf.

Why limit the change to geometric altitude to above 32K feet? Most
loggers are on cockpit static (an original adamantly insisted on
requirement by GFAC now changed I believe - why?). That is good for 50
to 100 feet of error, you get sea level pressure changes and huge
errors due to temperature in the atmosphere, let alone running the
pressure sensors at maybe -20 C or colder. The fully approved
Volkslogger only claims +/- 2hPa over temperature which is another
+/-100 feet at around 20,000. You are already over any reasonable GPS
error budget.

Mike Borgelt

[Mike Borgelt]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:38:22 +0100, Denis Flament
> wrote:

>Mike Borgelt wrote:
>
>
>> At least 30 days notice to the IGC that records will be attempted.
>
>Either you are joking, either you have a very good weather forecaster...


Not at all. Are you seriously suggesting that you can break a World
Record at essentially no notice on Sunday afternoon at your local
gliding club? Lots of luck.

Take a look at the effort that Steve Fossett and others are going to.

Nowadays it takes much preparation and planning which will take you
much longer than 30 days. It isn't at all unreasonable to require
prior notice of intention.

It has nothing whatever to do with weather forecasters (and I am one
-or used to be).

Mike Borgelt

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Borgelt wrote:
> So you feed a pressure sensor to the computer controlling the GPS
> pseudolites and it roughly matches with GPS altitudes with appropriate
> corrections for reasonable guesses as to the mean temperature in the
> atmosphere. Dead easy! And a trivial enhancement to your pseudolite
> system. Given that some IFR aviation GPS systems already use pressure
> altitude for GPS aiding it would not surprise me if test equipment
> that can do all this isn't available off the shelf.

When is the demo going to be ready? 8^)

> Why limit the change to geometric altitude to above 32K feet? Most
> loggers are on cockpit static (an original adamantly insisted on
> requirement by GFAC now changed I believe - why?). That is good for 50
> to 100 feet of error, you get sea level pressure changes and huge
> errors due to temperature in the atmosphere, let alone running the
> pressure sensors at maybe -20 C or colder. The fully approved
> Volkslogger only claims +/- 2hPa over temperature which is another
> +/-100 feet at around 20,000. You are already over any reasonable GPS
> error budget.

The IGC works in mysterious ways. It seems eminently sensible to me to
switch completely over to GPS measured geometric altitude, but I don't
get to make the rules. In any case, a number of people with expertise
in the area have argued rather convincingly that the relationship
between pressure altitudes measured above 32,000 feet or so and actual
elevation above the ground is tenuous, at best.

The reason for the change allowing panel mounted flight recorders to use
aircraft static as an alternative to cockpit static is very simple. An
instrument manufacturer requested the change, and persuaded us that the
original reasoning behind the requirement for cockpit static was no
longer relevant.

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> In any case, a number of people with expertise
> in the area have argued rather convincingly that the relationship
> between pressure altitudes measured above 32,000 feet or so and actual
> elevation above the ground is tenuous, at best.

Of course, I meant "actual elevation above sea level"...

Marc

[Mike Borgelt]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:20:57 GMT, Marc Ramsey > wrote:

>Mike Borgelt wrote:
>> So you feed a pressure sensor to the computer controlling the GPS
>> pseudolites and it roughly matches with GPS altitudes with appropriate
>> corrections for reasonable guesses as to the mean temperature in the
>> atmosphere. Dead easy! And a trivial enhancement to your pseudolite
>> system. Given that some IFR aviation GPS systems already use pressure
>> altitude for GPS aiding it would not surprise me if test equipment
>> that can do all this isn't available off the shelf.
>
>When is the demo going to be ready? 8^)

Easier to just break in to the logger and install the switchable IR
link. Trivial. Mickey mouse microswitches just don't do it. The
professionals use thermite.

>
>> Why limit the change to geometric altitude to above 32K feet? Most
>> loggers are on cockpit static (an original adamantly insisted on
>> requirement by GFAC now changed I believe - why?). That is good for 50
>> to 100 feet of error, you get sea level pressure changes and huge
>> errors due to temperature in the atmosphere, let alone running the
>> pressure sensors at maybe -20 C or colder. The fully approved
>> Volkslogger only claims +/- 2hPa over temperature which is another
>> +/-100 feet at around 20,000. You are already over any reasonable GPS
>> error budget.
>
>The IGC works in mysterious ways. It seems eminently sensible to me to
>switch completely over to GPS measured geometric altitude, but I don't
>get to make the rules. In any case, a number of people with expertise
>in the area have argued rather convincingly that the relationship
>between pressure altitudes measured above 32,000 feet or so and actual
>elevation above the ground is tenuous, at best.

I believe that was calculated before SA was turned off. As I pointed
out above I doubt very much that any cockpit static can be better
than 50 to 100 feet.Static ports on gliders are sometimes pretty
terrible too so may not be any better. Try a good side slip and see
what happens also.
Add in the other error sources and you are worse than GPS altitude at
any altitude much above 1000 feet AGL.


ISA day sea level 1000 feet pressure altitude, geometric altitude 1000
feet
Try sea level 45 degrees C with DALR and a pressure altitude of 1000
feet. Mean temperature of layer is 43.5 geometric altitude 1102 feet

102 feet error! GPS is at least as good as this most of the time.


>The reason for the change allowing panel mounted flight recorders to use
>aircraft static as an alternative to cockpit static is very simple. An
>instrument manufacturer requested the change, and persuaded us that the
>original reasoning behind the requirement for cockpit static was no
>longer relevant.

Then again neither the original reasoning nor the persuasion seems to
have seen the light of day.

Do you realise that the original requirement drove some serious system
architecture considerations for manufacturers? As I said the GFAC were
originally adamant about no static connections - what changed their
minds?
How does anyone trust the rules when they may change next week?
Nothing I've seen written here convinces me that anyone on GFAC has a
clue.

Mike Borgelt

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Borgelt wrote:
> I believe that was calculated before SA was turned off. As I pointed
> out above I doubt very much that any cockpit static can be better
> than 50 to 100 feet.Static ports on gliders are sometimes pretty
> terrible too so may not be any better. Try a good side slip and see
> what happens also.
> Add in the other error sources and you are worse than GPS altitude at
> any altitude much above 1000 feet AGL.

It isn't a question of accuracy, it's a question of what is being
measured. Some believe we should continue to measure pressure altitude,
simply because that's what we've always done. I think it safe to say
that is now recognized by the IGC that once you get into the tropopause,
the magnitude of the error goes up rapidly. The current world altitude
records can't really be said to measure altitude, they simply measure
record low pressures.

> Then again neither the original reasoning nor the persuasion seems to
> have seen the light of day.

Frankly, GFAC is pretty much like every other committee I've been
involved with. Decisions aren't necessarily made by reason or
persuasion, they often are made by something approximating the consensus
when everyone gets tired of discussing it. After a few years, it's
often difficult to figure out exactly why a particular decision was made.

Keep in mind, there is no secretary, no meeting notes. Just a few
people spread out over a couple of time zones, many of whom have never
met any of the others face to face. 95% of the communication that goes
on is over email, and there's is no central archive. Perhaps if there
was a more sizable budget and actual salaries, we could communicate to
all with the level of detail and consistency you seem to be expecting.
But, for the moment you are stuck with a bunch of volunteers, some of
whom have been putting up with this sort of grief for 10 years now.

> Do you realise that the original requirement drove some serious system
> architecture considerations for manufacturers? As I said the GFAC were
> originally adamant about no static connections - what changed their
> minds?

Yes I do realize that. Just as I'm sure you realize that the concept of
flight recorders was very new in 1995, and that there has been a steep
learning curve for all involved. You also realize that the makeup of
GFAC now is quite different than it was in 1995. And, of course you are
fully aware that people can change their attitudes about issues over time.

> How does anyone trust the rules when they may change next week?

The rules don't change every week. Rule changes are proposed at the IGC
meeting each March. Those rule changes that are accepted at the meeting
go into effect the following October. The manufacturers of approved
flight recorders (and those who have notified us that they intend to
submit a recorder for approval) are nearly always given advanced
notification (nobody is perfect, except you apparently) of proposed
changes, and asked for their input.

> Nothing I've seen written here convinces me that anyone on GFAC has a
> clue.

Well, at least we don't sit around badmouthing you on r.a.s.

Marc

[Denis Flament]

Mike Borgelt wrote:

> Not at all. Are you seriously suggesting that you can break a World
> Record at essentially no notice on Sunday afternoon at your local
> gliding club? Lots of luck.

yes I do ! Look at this one :

FAI has received the following Class D (Gliders) record claim :
================================================== ==============
Claim number : 7983
Sub-class DO (Open Class Gliders)
General Category
Type of record : Speed over a triangular course of 100 km
Course/location : Fremont County Airport, Canon City, CO (USA)
Performance : 243.41 km/h
Pilot : Tom K. SERKOWSKI (USA)
Glider : Schleicher ASH 26E
Date: 09.11.2003
Current record : 234.95 km/h (07.05.2000 - James M. PAYNE, USA)
================================================== =============

Tom had been doing his annual inspection on Saturday, his rigged on
Sunday morning and took off for a check flight, which happenned to be a
world record !


> Nowadays it takes much preparation and planning which will take you
> much longer than 30 days. It isn't at all unreasonable to require
> prior notice of intention.

I don't say that he did not prepare this flight for a long time, but he
certainly could not have noticed FAI 30 days before than he would be
attempting a record that particular day. And I say again that you cannot
forcast a wave situation 30 days in advance.

I you just suggest that any pilot willing to attempt a record make a
notice without mentioning the exact date, it's like doing nothing... or
you can notice FAI each day for the following 30th day that you will
attempt a record, by some sort of automatic mailer, not to miss THE good
day, but I don't see any interest neither.


--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

[Andy Durbin]

Mike Borgelt > wrote in message >...

"O.O to use his own PC to clear logger memory before takeoff then seal
the loggers in aircraft no more than 15 minutes before takeoff. O.O
notes takeoff and landing times."

This proposal would eliminate the one remaining approved Cambridge
logger. To the best of my knowledge there is no means for an OO to
clear the memory of a 302.

Andy Durbin (GY)

[Tom Serkowski]

Um, I did just that last December 15, and again on the 9th of this
month. I flew a 100km triangle from one of my local fields without
much preparation to speak of:
Winds forecast looked favorable a couple days before and I was
scheduled to assemble the ship for the annual inspection. After the
inspection I declared 100k triangle for grins and flew it at 151.25
mph. (234.95 km/h)

On the Dec 15th flight, I was just going up for some local fun
soaring, but since wave was working, I declared 100k as a state record
attempt and it turned into a US record. It was faster thatn the world
record but not by the 2 km/h margin required for a claim.

There's still a few world records out there that could be done 'on a
whim' if one happens to be in the right place at the right time.

-Tom

Mike Borgelt > wrote in message >...

> Not at all. Are you seriously suggesting that you can break a World
> Record at essentially no notice on Sunday afternoon at your local
> gliding club? Lots of luck.
>
> Take a look at the effort that Steve Fossett and others are going to.
>
> Nowadays it takes much preparation and planning which will take you
> much longer than 30 days. It isn't at all unreasonable to require
> prior notice of intention.
>
> It has nothing whatever to do with weather forecasters (and I am one
> -or used to be).
>
> Mike Borgelt

[Mike Borgelt]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:00:38 GMT, Marc Ramsey > wrote:


>The rules don't change every week. Rule changes are proposed at the IGC
>meeting each March. Those rule changes that are accepted at the meeting
>go into effect the following October. The manufacturers of approved
>flight recorders (and those who have notified us that they intend to
>submit a recorder for approval) are nearly always given advanced
>notification (nobody is perfect, except you apparently) of proposed
>changes, and asked for their input.


Marc,

I suggest you seriously research the history of what happened in 1995
to 1997. The IGC had rules in place for loggers which GFAC blatently
defied when it came to approval. The rules were then changed quite
outside the system you talk about. It is a matter of public record. I
suggest you contact Robert Danewid and EW Avionics privately and
publish your apology here later.

Mike Borgelt

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike Borgelt wrote:
> I suggest you seriously research the history of what happened in 1995
> to 1997. The IGC had rules in place for loggers which GFAC blatently
> defied when it came to approval. The rules were then changed quite
> outside the system you talk about. It is a matter of public record. I
> suggest you contact Robert Danewid and EW Avionics privately and
> publish your apology here later.

Mike,

I am quite willing to discuss technical issues with respect to the
current flight recorder specifications. I am also willing to discuss
what might be done to improve the specifications in the future. All I
know of what went on in the '95 to '97 time frame is what was discussed
in r.a.s. at the time. I have no interest in rehashing it now.

Marc

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Mike Borgelt
> writes

snip

>I suggest you seriously research the history of what happened in 1995
>to 1997. The IGC had rules in place for loggers which GFAC blatently
>defied when it came to approval. The rules were then changed quite
>outside the system you talk about.

I do not wish to get into further argument with Mike Borgelt but I must
point out that the interpretation above is his own. It is certainly not
mine or that of GFAC or IGC since they oversee GFAC and review the GFAC
annual report to IGC at each plenary.

He refers, I think, to the process that resulted in the "IGC Badges up
to and including Diamonds" level that was applied to the EW series of
recorders that do not have their own GPS but must be connected by cable
to one of the Garmin range of GPS receivers. And would have probably
applied to the Borgelt Joey recorder had he submitted an IGC version for
IGC-approval.

Mike, I do not want to get involved in a slanging match or indeed to
reply further. But for those who are new to this, I really had to
comment on your statement above in case people thought that it was the
only interpretation of early events in the IGC-approval process. I do
not doubt that it is yours, but it may not be other's.

The dates of all IGC-approvals including historic ones is on the
gliding/gnss web site and the history up to the issue of the EW
IGC-approval is:

16 Jan 96 - Cambridge Models 10, 20 and 22, initial issue

31 May 96 - Peschges VP8, initial issue

12 Aug 96 - Filser LX20, initial issue

10 Nov 96 - Zander GP940, initial issue

20 Mar 97 - Print Technik GR1000, initial issue

25 Mar 97 - Filser LX20 Version 2 Approval, with the addition of motor
glider engine recording

19 Apr 97 - EW "EWFR A & B" for badge flights up to and including
Diamonds, when connected by cable to one of a list of approved GPS
units, listed in the IGC-approval document.

etc., for more details see:

http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/igc_approved_frs.pdf

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)



Bentworth Hall West
Bentworth
Alton, Hampshire GU34 5LA
ENGLAND

Tel: +44 1420 564 195
Fax: +44 1420 563 140