Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder

[Ian Strachan]

From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.

An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
excludes evidence for world record flights.

Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.

There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.

Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
date at the end:

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 immediate 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).
Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
list this will be announced as soon as it is made.

Timescale
The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
will take effect on 1 April 2004.

The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[Andy Durbin]

Ian Strachan > wrote in message >...
> From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
>
> Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
> conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.

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

Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
flight log.

The original appoval specifies the conditions for use of a recorder
and the demise of its manufacturer should be of no consequence.


Andy (GY)

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Andy
Durbin > writes
>Ian Strachan > wrote in message
>...
>> From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
>>
>> Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
>> conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
>
>> 3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
>> original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
>> with them).
>
>Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
>bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
>flight log.

In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past in
explaining to the validating authority what is likely to have happened.

Several world records have been saved as a result of manufacturer advice
and tests where otherwise they would have been lost.

Sometimes the recorder has been returned to the manufacturer for tests
so that the anomaly can be explained. In at least one case, after
manufacturer tests indicated a line of investigation, further flight
tests were carried out by GFAC with that recorder and resulted in
several World Records being validated. Without this process it would
not have been.

You can argue that this should equally apply to badge flights, but world
records are particularly important and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[CH]

And why Ian is it, that suddenly the Cambridge 25
Model should not be save enough anymore.
Was the safety standard proposed by the IGC not
good enough - too lax?
Is there a real reason behind this decision or is it just
a temporary mental slip if the IGC?

Chris Hostettler


"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
>
> Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
> conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
>
> An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
> of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
> to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
> excludes evidence for world record flights.
>
> Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
> After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
> received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
> by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.
>
> There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
> pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
> recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
> ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
> gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
> obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
> the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.
>
> Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
> date at the end:
>
> 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 immediate 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).
> Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
> decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
> list this will be announced as soon as it is made.
>
> Timescale
> The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
> will take effect on 1 April 2004.
>
> The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
> flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
> recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Chairman IGC GFA Committee
>
>
>

[Andy Durbin]

Ian Strachan > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Andy
> Durbin > writes
> >Ian Strachan > wrote in message
> >...
> >> From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
> >>
> >> Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
> >> conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
>
> >> 3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
> >> original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
> >> with them).
> >
> >Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
> >bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
> >flight log.
>
> In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
> from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past in
> explaining to the validating authority what is likely to have happened.
>
> Several world records have been saved as a result of manufacturer advice
> and tests where otherwise they would have been lost.
>
> Sometimes the recorder has been returned to the manufacturer for tests
> so that the anomaly can be explained. In at least one case, after
> manufacturer tests indicated a line of investigation, further flight
> tests were carried out by GFAC with that recorder and resulted in
> several World Records being validated. Without this process it would
> not have been.
>
> You can argue that this should equally apply to badge flights, but world
> records are particularly important and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Ian,

Thanks for the reply.

I can certainly understand that using a recorder with no manufacturer
support would put the record claim at risk if an anomaly is
experienced.

I cannot understand that use of an unsupported, but previously
approved, recorder should be disallowed. The circumstance in which an
unexplained anomaly is observed in the log could be covered in the
rules. No explanation then no record.

(I am not actively seeking world records but my CAI model 25 is now
disallowed and I don't have great confidence that my 302 will survive
under this rule)


Andy (GY)

[Pat Russell]

>In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
>from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past...

And this is justification for disallowing "unsupported" FRs from
being used for world records? The logic of this escapes me.

Obviously, a pilot seeking a world record is motivated to carry
the best possible recording equipment -- the FR least likely to
produce homologation headaches after the flight.

However, the pilot should be free to choose any approved FR, at
his own risk. The issue is cheat-proof, not hassle-proof.

If the pilot's claim is made more difficult by the
unavailability of the FR manufacturer, then so be it. A glitch
in the flight log should be treated the same as a barograph
failure: rejection of claim. If the glitch can be circumvented
by a manufacturer still in business, then the pilot is fortunate
(the particular circumvention would still have to be approved by
the homologating body).

Here's an analogy:

The pilot is the plaintiff. It is the his responsibility to
make his best case for a world record. The FR manufacturer (if
any) is an expert witness hired by the plaintiff.

The IGC is the court. They judge the evidence and make a
ruling. GFAC is a technical advisor to the court.

It is wrong for the court to insist on the makeup of the
plaintiff's team.

-Pat

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, CH
> writes
>And why Ian is it, that suddenly the Cambridge 25
>Model should not be save enough anymore.
>Was the safety standard proposed by the IGC not
>good enough - too lax?
>Is there a real reason behind this decision or is it just
>a temporary mental slip if the IGC?
>
>Chris Hostettler
>
It was safe enough ten years ago, but now the power of PCs has increase
by a degree of magnitude and more is known about decryption software, so
it can no longer be considered 'safe'. It's called 'progress'.

In a similar way, visual observation of TPs is no longer used although
it used to be; and there is a proposal to disallow this and also the use
of Cameras, for Badge Evidence in addition to World Records.

It's called 'progress'.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Robert Danewid]

Is this an April 1st joke????

On Nov 18 Marc Ramsey, GFAC member, wrote here:

"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."

Now, the implementation date has been put forward to April 1st in order
to let record breakers in the southern hemisphere use their old,
obviousy insecure and cheating friendly, systems for the rest of the season.

Where is the logic???? If cheating is a real problem then certainly IGC
should stop allt those cheaters out there NOW and not let them set more
records!!!

I repeat what I wrote in a thread earlier, this is all pure nonsense!!!

The Swedish Soaring Federation are thinking of writing a formal
complaint to the IGC about this.

Robert Danewid




Ian Strachan wrote:
> From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
>
> Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
> conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
>
> An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
> of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
> to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
> excludes evidence for world record flights.
>
> Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
> After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
> received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
> by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.
>
> There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
> pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
> recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
> ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
> gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
> obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
> the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.
>
> Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
> date at the end:
>
> 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 immediate 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).
> Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
> decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
> list this will be announced as soon as it is made.
>
> Timescale
> The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
> will take effect on 1 April 2004.
>
> The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
> flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
> recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Strachan wrote:

>> Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
>> bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
>> flight log.
>
>
> In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
> from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past in
> explaining to the validating authority what is likely to have happened.
>
> Several world records have been saved as a result of manufacturer advice
> and tests where otherwise they would have been lost.
>
> Sometimes the recorder has been returned to the manufacturer for tests
> so that the anomaly can be explained. In at least one case, after
> manufacturer tests indicated a line of investigation, further flight
> tests were carried out by GFAC with that recorder and resulted in
> several World Records being validated. Without this process it would
> not have been.

I thought a primary reason for having a manufacturer around was for
examining the flight recorder when cheating was suspected. They should
be the best authority on whether the instrument or it's code has been
modified.

--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruno Ramseyer]

Robert Danewid > wrote in message >...
> Is this an April 1st joke????
>
> On Nov 18 Marc Ramsey, GFAC member, wrote here:
>
> "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."
>
> Now, the implementation date has been put forward to April 1st in order
> to let record breakers in the southern hemisphere use their old,
> obviousy insecure and cheating friendly, systems for the rest of the season.
>
> Where is the logic???? If cheating is a real problem then certainly IGC
> should stop allt those cheaters out there NOW and not let them set more
> records!!!
>
> I repeat what I wrote in a thread earlier, this is all pure nonsense!!!
>
> The Swedish Soaring Federation are thinking of writing a formal
> complaint to the IGC about this.
>
> Robert Danewid

Hi Robert,

I find your comments rather strange as I am under the impression that
you were at the last IGC Meeting in Prague when this resolution was
passed. Do you remember which way your country voted? The only
objection to this at the time
was by France as far as I can recall.

But just to put everything into prospective we are not really talking
about insecure or cheating, we are talking about a possible breach of
the older type Public/Private security code with pure computer
power.For example 10 years ago maybe 1000 computers @ a 1000 days.
Today 100 computers @ 10 days (still a formidable task).

Regards

Bruno


>
>
>
>
> Ian Strachan wrote:
> > From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
> >
> > Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
> > conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
> >
> > An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
> > of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
> > to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
> > excludes evidence for world record flights.
> >
> > Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
> > After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
> > received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
> > by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.
> >
> > There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
> > pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
> > recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
> > ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
> > gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
> > obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
> > the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.
> >
> > Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
> > date at the end:
> >
> > 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 immediate 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).
> > Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
> > decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
> > list this will be announced as soon as it is made.
> >
> > Timescale
> > The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
> > will take effect on 1 April 2004.
> >
> > The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
> > flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
> > recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.
> >

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Eric Greenwell
> writes
>Ian Strachan wrote:

snip

>>In at least one case, after manufacturer tests indicated a line of
>>investigation, further flight tests were carried out by GFAC with
>>that recorder and resulted in several World Records being validated.
>>Without this process it would not have been.
>
>I thought a primary reason for having a manufacturer around was for
>examining the flight recorder when cheating was suspected. They should
>be the best authority on whether the instrument or it's code has been
>modified.

Eric, the case referred to was not a security problem but a mis-set
Engine Noise Level (ENL) system in the recorder concerned. This
rendered the proof of engine-running (or rather of not-running!) in this
motor glider problematical. As several world records hung on this
recorder (it is always better to carry more than one for such important
flights!), FAI consulted GFAC on the matter, which is normal procedure
and applies to NACs as well (such as the SSA's badgelady who has also
been known to contact us for opinions on anomalies found in recorder
evidence).

First we asked that the manufacturer to look at the recorder concerned
and to maintain its original state (that is, not to open it up and
re-set it). The mis-setting was confirmed and apologies were made. All
ENLs were very low and it was difficult to see where the engine had been
run and where it had not. Of course the pilot should have picked this
up before going for the records, but we know that pilots are more
interested in flying than instrumentation! Because the manufacturer
did not have access to the type of motor glider that had been used for
the world record claims I asked for it to be sent to me for flight
tests.

As you know, I fly from Lasham in the UK where we have some 200 gliders
on site. I was able to find an example of the same motor glider that
was used with this recorder in several world record flights. The
suspect recorder was flown in the MG concerned together with a "control"
recorder. This confirmed the ENL levels found in the world record
flights. Comparing them with the "control" data enabled us to confirm
which of the (low) ENL levels were engine running and which were
background cockpit noise and other short-term "clunks and clicks" that
sometimes occur.

In addition, the record flights were still in the memory and the
recorder's VALI program check worked, thus proving that it had not been
re-set or altered since the world record flights. A combination of this
evidence enabled a statement to be made to FAI that the engine had not
been run between the start and finish of the glide performances
concerned.

Sorry that this explanation is not short, but it does illustrate a
number of things that are worth noting.

I am very pleased when records and other flight performances can be
"saved" when otherwise they might have been lost due to anomalies in the
evidence. We should be rigorous on standards of evidence, but sometimes
independent after-flight checks and tests can maintain standards despite
certain anomalies.

The above is not a unique case, there have been many others that are
referred to GFAC for an opinion. We are always willing to look at IGC
flight data files from anyone where it is thought that a strange reading
or other anomaly exists.

So it's not only security issues, which is where we came in at the
beginning!

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee

Bentworth Hall West
Bentworth
Alton, Hampshire GU34 5LA
ENGLAND


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

[Pat Russell]

Ian, it's a nice story, and I am also glad that the pilot in the
story got credit for his performance.

However, the story does not support the new requirement for
manufacturers to stay in business. In fact, you describe how
the manufacturer hindered the process of homologation, leading
the reader to believe that the world record would have been
approved more quickly if the manufacturer had been unavailable.

Here is my understanding of how homologation is structured:

1. The pilot is free to provide any evidence at all to support
his claim.

2. The homologating body evaluates the claim, perhaps
requesting further information from any source, and then makes a
judgement.

Please tell me if I've got it wrong.

Both the pilot and the homologating body are free to consult
with anybody, including the manufacturer, former employees,
other experts, GFAC, the next-door-neighbor, anybody.

Signed statements by any of these people will be evaluated by
the homologating body in the processing of the claim.

The availability of any particular person to give assistance or
to make a statement is completely unpredictable, completely
irrelevant, and should not be part of the regulations regarding
approval of Flight Recorders.

-Pat

[Robert Danewid]

Yes I was there, but as you may remember this topic was handled very
briefly. For the first time (as I recall) the proposal was not read out,
but delegates were reffered to the written report from GFAC. I
personally had the impression that we were taking a decision that would
apply to new recorders not old ones. Maybe this is because of the finer
meanings of the English language, which is not my native language, that
I did not understand this. Neither did my colleauges.

In my opinion this decision was a masterpiece on how to foul people to
vote in your favour.

But still, if the argument is what Marc wrote, then why postpone the
implementation?

And if some of the comments that suggest that only the highest level
shall be used in international comps, should result in this, it is
really bad. Lots of people have to buy new recorders, because that will
certainly influence organizers at lower levels. Are you aware of that in
most European countries you also have to buy a transponder Mode S in the
near future????

I really do not understand the way GAFC thinks. "my" international
organization,IGC, which I thought was obliges to make life easy for me,
is putting a lot of effort and resources in to prevent cheating.

To that I shall add that I am one of the guys who really have caught a
cheater (at WGC in 1993 where I was Deputy Director), how many has GFAC
caught????

Robert

Bruno Ramseyer wrote:
> Robert Danewid > wrote in message >...
>
>>Is this an April 1st joke????
>>
>>On Nov 18 Marc Ramsey, GFAC member, wrote here:
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>Now, the implementation date has been put forward to April 1st in order
>>to let record breakers in the southern hemisphere use their old,
>>obviousy insecure and cheating friendly, systems for the rest of the season.
>>
>>Where is the logic???? If cheating is a real problem then certainly IGC
>>should stop allt those cheaters out there NOW and not let them set more
>>records!!!
>>
>>I repeat what I wrote in a thread earlier, this is all pure nonsense!!!
>>
>>The Swedish Soaring Federation are thinking of writing a formal
>>complaint to the IGC about this.
>>
>>Robert Danewid
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I find your comments rather strange as I am under the impression that
> you were at the last IGC Meeting in Prague when this resolution was
> passed. Do you remember which way your country voted? The only
> objection to this at the time
> was by France as far as I can recall.
>
> But just to put everything into prospective we are not really talking
> about insecure or cheating, we are talking about a possible breach of
> the older type Public/Private security code with pure computer
> power.For example 10 years ago maybe 1000 computers @ a 1000 days.
> Today 100 computers @ 10 days (still a formidable task).
>
> Regards
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Ian Strachan wrote:
>>
>>>From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
>>>
>>>Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
>>>conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
>>>
>>>An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
>>>of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
>>>to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
>>>excludes evidence for world record flights.
>>>
>>>Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
>>>After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
>>>received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
>>>by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.
>>>
>>>There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
>>>pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
>>>recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
>>>ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
>>>gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
>>>obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
>>>the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.
>>>
>>>Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
>>>date at the end:
>>>
>>>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 immediate 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).
>>>Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
>>>decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
>>>list this will be announced as soon as it is made.
>>>
>>>Timescale
>>>The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
>>>will take effect on 1 April 2004.
>>>
>>>The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
>>>flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
>>>recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.
>>>

[John Ferguson]

HELP

I find the IGC site terrible to navigate - Where do
I find a simple explanation/list of recorders and their
classification into suitable for World records, etc.

I think I read it but I'm not sure as the document
is less than clear.

John

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Robert Danewid
> writes

>Yes I was there, but as you may remember this topic was handled very
>briefly.

Robert, this may be because it was put the previous year and this was
the final year of the IGC "two years before a decision" policy.

>For the first time (as I recall) the proposal was not read out, but
>delegates were reffered to the written report from GFAC.

Which was part of the formal agenda which was published for anyone to
read and certainly available to IGC delegates like yourself. Not the
doing of me or GFAC but that of IGC procedures which expect delegates to
know the agenda and its annexes.

>I personally had the impression that we were taking a decision that
>would apply to new recorders not old ones.

The GFAC paper published in the agenda nearly 2 months before the
meeting indicated that it was to apply to existing recorder approvals in
two different ways:

1. To uplift recorders that were then at the "up to Diamonds" level but
deserved higher. Such as the Scheffel Themi. Bernd Scheffel and owners
of Themis would be most grateful, I think.

2. To apply the new "all IGC badge flights" level to existing recorders
that did not meet current security levels by a large margin. That is,
they did not even meet the 1997 IGC Specification on these matters. A
particular problem was the type of recorder whose symmetric checksum
system of electronic security was cracked by the Wedekinds several years
ago and also had no security microswitch. Would you support such a
recorder being used for World records beyond April 2004, the present
cut-off ? Some types of recorders with similar levels of weak security
followed, which seems to be what you are objecting to.

>Maybe this is because of the finer meanings of the English language,
>which is not my native language, that I did not understand this.
>Neither did my colleauges.
>
>In my opinion this decision was a masterpiece on how to foul people to
>vote in your favour.

Thank you for the inadvertent compliment on my Machiavellian procedures
but what you suggest was not intended. A lot of warning was given in
the IGC agenda papers circulated both in January 2002 and January 2003.

>But still, if the argument is what Marc wrote, then why postpone the
>implementation?

First to negotiate with the several manufacturers concerned. As you can
imagine, this involved many exchanges including arguments and
disagreements. Then, on the detail that had emerged, to get the support
of the IGC GFA committee, the IGC GNSS committee, and finally the IGC
Bureau. This rightly takes time!

>And if some of the comments that suggest that only the highest level
>shall be used in international comps, should result in this, it is
>really bad.

Annex A to the Code says at the moment "all GNSS FR's approved by the
IGC" without specifying one of the three levels of approval that exist.

This includes the EW series of recorders have been at the lower "badge
flight up to Diamonds" level since 1997. These are the ones that do not
have their own GPS and need a cable connection to a separate Garmin
receiver. They are indeed "IGC-approved" but at the "Diamonds" level.

Under the same argument, the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma"
level of recorders will comply as well. Unless Annex A is changed, of
course, for which the IGC Plenary meeting must consent at their meeting
in Feb 2004 and the change must be in the agenda beforehand.

As you well know, Bob Henderson (IGC First VP and New Zealand delegate)
is the Chairman of the IGC Annex A revision committee, and he can be
contacted at any time (see via the IGC web site). He is the authority
on what is intended for the future in comps that have to comply with
Annex A to the code.

Annex A extract:

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

5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS flight
recorders (FR).

a. All GNSS FR's approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the
Opening Day shall be accepted.

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

snip

>putting a lot of effort and resources in to prevent cheating.

A bad thing, then?

Finally, I depart on business to the USA in a couple of days and I will
be "email incommunicado" for two weeks, back to the internet fray on 11
December .......

--
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

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, John Ferguson
o.uk> writes
>HELP
>
>I find the IGC site terrible to navigate -

Complain to the webmaster. I also do not find a lot of web sites easy
to navigate.

>Where do
>I find a simple explanation/list of recorders and their
>classification into suitable for World records, etc.

The qualifications in any IGC-approval are in the approval document
itself, all of which documents are at the end of:

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

It is true that there is not yet a list of recorders at the three
approval levels. There probably will be in the future, IGC officials are
working in their own time and these things take time, I am afraid. The
current situation is:

All 24 IGC-approved recorders are at the "all flights" level except:

1. Badge flights up to and including Diamonds level: the EW series.

2. All IGC badge and distance diploma flights:

2.1 Now: Scheffel Themi

2.2 From 1 April 2004:
Cambridge 10, 20 and 25
Filser LX20 first batch (no RSA, no micro)
Peschges VP8
Print Technik GR1000
possibly the Zander GP940 (under consideration at the moment)

I hope this helps.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[Robert Danewid]

Sorry Ian

You and I are at different ends in the gliding world. You and your
colleagues obviously want to regulate gliding, I fight like hell to
deregulate it. The world is full of people who want to regulate our
sport(the youngest threat here in Europe is EASA).

Ever read Philip Wills?

To me a gliding sport without massive actions to avoid cheating is more
clean than all this security nonsense.

What about doping? The new world records with flights of more than 2000
km and 15-16 hour long flights are physically demanding. Yes, I know
that this is not the task of GFAC.

Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:
> In article >, Robert Danewid
> > writes
>
>> Yes I was there, but as you may remember this topic was handled very
>> briefly.
>
>
> Robert, this may be because it was put the previous year and this was
> the final year of the IGC "two years before a decision" policy.
>
>> For the first time (as I recall) the proposal was not read out, but
>> delegates were reffered to the written report from GFAC.
>
>
> Which was part of the formal agenda which was published for anyone to
> read and certainly available to IGC delegates like yourself. Not the
> doing of me or GFAC but that of IGC procedures which expect delegates to
> know the agenda and its annexes.
>
>> I personally had the impression that we were taking a decision that
>> would apply to new recorders not old ones.
>
>
> The GFAC paper published in the agenda nearly 2 months before the
> meeting indicated that it was to apply to existing recorder approvals in
> two different ways:
>
> 1. To uplift recorders that were then at the "up to Diamonds" level but
> deserved higher. Such as the Scheffel Themi. Bernd Scheffel and owners
> of Themis would be most grateful, I think.
>
> 2. To apply the new "all IGC badge flights" level to existing recorders
> that did not meet current security levels by a large margin. That is,
> they did not even meet the 1997 IGC Specification on these matters. A
> particular problem was the type of recorder whose symmetric checksum
> system of electronic security was cracked by the Wedekinds several years
> ago and also had no security microswitch. Would you support such a
> recorder being used for World records beyond April 2004, the present
> cut-off ? Some types of recorders with similar levels of weak security
> followed, which seems to be what you are objecting to.
>
>> Maybe this is because of the finer meanings of the English language,
>> which is not my native language, that I did not understand this.
>> Neither did my colleauges.
>>
>> In my opinion this decision was a masterpiece on how to foul people to
>> vote in your favour.
>
>
> Thank you for the inadvertent compliment on my Machiavellian procedures
> but what you suggest was not intended. A lot of warning was given in
> the IGC agenda papers circulated both in January 2002 and January 2003.
>
>> But still, if the argument is what Marc wrote, then why postpone the
>> implementation?
>
>
> First to negotiate with the several manufacturers concerned. As you can
> imagine, this involved many exchanges including arguments and
> disagreements. Then, on the detail that had emerged, to get the support
> of the IGC GFA committee, the IGC GNSS committee, and finally the IGC
> Bureau. This rightly takes time!
>
>> And if some of the comments that suggest that only the highest level
>> shall be used in international comps, should result in this, it is
>> really bad.
>
>
> Annex A to the Code says at the moment "all GNSS FR's approved by the
> IGC" without specifying one of the three levels of approval that exist.
>
> This includes the EW series of recorders have been at the lower "badge
> flight up to Diamonds" level since 1997. These are the ones that do not
> have their own GPS and need a cable connection to a separate Garmin
> receiver. They are indeed "IGC-approved" but at the "Diamonds" level.
>
> Under the same argument, the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma"
> level of recorders will comply as well. Unless Annex A is changed, of
> course, for which the IGC Plenary meeting must consent at their meeting
> in Feb 2004 and the change must be in the agenda beforehand.
>
> As you well know, Bob Henderson (IGC First VP and New Zealand delegate)
> is the Chairman of the IGC Annex A revision committee, and he can be
> contacted at any time (see via the IGC web site). He is the authority
> on what is intended for the future in comps that have to comply with
> Annex A to the code.
>
> Annex A extract:
>
> -------------------------
>
> 5.4 CONTROL PROCEDURES Flights shall be controlled by GNSS flight
> recorders (FR).
>
> a. All GNSS FR's approved by the IGC up to two months prior to the
> Opening Day shall be accepted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> snip
>
>> putting a lot of effort and resources in to prevent cheating.
>
>
> A bad thing, then?
>
> Finally, I depart on business to the USA in a couple of days and I will
> be "email incommunicado" for two weeks, back to the internet fray on 11
> December .......
>

[Ian Forbes]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:00:36 +0000, CH wrote:

> And why Ian is it, that suddenly the Cambridge 25 Model should not be
> save enough anymore. Was the safety standard proposed by the IGC not
> good enough - too lax?

The politics of flight recorders seems to be as complicated as some of
their technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of mistrust surrounding
the motivation of the decisions of the "GNSS Flight Recorder Approval
Committee" (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps the technical
issues should be separated from the political ones.

If the GFAC defined a series of "levels of security" for GNSS Flight
Recorders. For example:

Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 500: Internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 400: External GPS, barometric hight

Level 300: Commercial GPS with logging function

Level 200: GPS + PDA + Software

My numbering leaves lots of scope for slotting in new categories in
between. Perhaps a new level around 550 for a logger with GPS only and no
barometric hight. The list is probably longer than the GFAC would care to
administer but it illustrates the point. The next generation of recorders
will do things we have not thought of yet, but after they have been
invented, they can classified into a new 700 category.

The GFAC would have the job of defining the above levels, testing
recorders and awarding approval at the appropriate level.

Then the various bodies that monitor performances in the sport could
specify what level of Flight Recorder is suitable for each performance. EG
the IGC could determine requirements for world records and badges at
various levels. (Currently this would be minimum 610 for a world record in
a m/g, minimum 500 for a 1000km diploma in a pure glider and minimum 400
for a gold badge).

National bodies and competition organizers could specify their minimum
requirements for national and regional competitions.

The Online Contest organizers (who process far more flight claims than
anybody else and have their own unique requirements) could also specify
their minimum requirements. (Or just list the security level of the logger
used for each claim, for peer review).

It could even be extended to other sports like hang gliding and
paragliding. They could use the same numbering system, and supply
volunteers to help with the work of the GFAC. This could double the
potential market size for these devices.

Manufacturers would design for a certain level of approval. There would be
no moving of the technical goal posts between time of R&D and time of
final approval. Once approved a design would not loose its approval.

Most important the buyers would know what they are getting. Clearly a
level 610 logger is better than a level 500 one. The authors of PDA
software would know they have got a way to go to get from level 200 to
610.

Finally if the IGC were faced with a proposal that level 500 is no longer
suitable for world records then hopefully all the delegates voting on the
issue would realize that the proposal effects existing equipment as well
as new equipment.

The development of loggers has resulted in new forms of competition like
the OLC. This has motivated a major interest in cross country flying at
our club and I am sure at many other clubs around the world. This has been
a very positive development, which has only become possible now that a
large number of pilots have access to loggers. It has taken over 6 years
from the development of the first loggers to reach this point. I am just
not sure if the politics of the GFAC over that time has aided or hindered
the process.


Ian

[Pat Russell]

I like these ideas, Ian. Thank you for taking the time to write
them down.

-Pat

[Mark Hawkins]

Ian,OUTSTANDING!!!! Let's hope they listen. Later!-MarkAt 23:36 25 November 2003, Ian Forbes wrote:>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:00:36 +0000, CH wrote:>>> And why Ian is it, that suddenly the Cambridge 25
>>Model should not be>> save enough anymore. Was the safety standard proposed
>>by the IGC not>> good enough - too lax?>>The politics of flight recorders seems to be as complicated
>as some of>their technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of
>mistrust surrounding>the motivation of the decisions of the 'GNSS Flight
>Recorder Approval>Committee' (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps
>the technical>issues should be separated from the political ones.>>If the GFAC defined a series of 'levels of security'
>for GNSS Flight>Recorders. For example:>>Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS,
>barometric hight>>Level 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal
>GPS, barometric hight>>Level 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight>>Level 500: Internal GPS, barometric hight>>Level 400: External GPS, barometric hight>>Level 300: Commercial GPS with logging function>>Level 200: GPS + PDA + Software>>My numbering leaves lots of scope for slotting in new
>categories in>between. Perhaps a new level around 550 for a logger
>with GPS only and no>barometric hight. The list is probably longer than
>the GFAC would care to>administer but it illustrates the point. The next generation
>of recorders>will do things we have not thought of yet, but after
>they have been>invented, they can classified into a new 700 category.>>The GFAC would have the job of defining the above levels,
>testing>recorders and awarding approval at the appropriate
>level.>>Then the various bodies that monitor performances in
>the sport could>specify what level of Flight Recorder is suitable for
>each performance. EG>the IGC could determine requirements for world records
>and badges at>various levels. (Currently this would be minimum 610
>for a world record in>a m/g, minimum 500 for a 1000km diploma in a pure glider
>and minimum 400>for a gold badge).>>National bodies and competition organizers could specify
>their minimum>requirements for national and regional competitions.>>The Online Contest organizers (who process far more
>flight claims than>anybody else and have their own unique requirements)
>could also specify>their minimum requirements. (Or just list the security
>level of the logger>used for each claim, for peer review).>>It could even be extended to other sports like hang
>gliding and>paragliding. They could use the same numbering system,
>and supply>volunteers to help with the work of the GFAC. This
>could double the>potential market size for these devices.>>Manufacturers would design for a certain level of approval.
>There would be>no moving of the technical goal posts between time
>of R&D and time of>final approval. Once approved a design would not loose
>its approval.>>Most important the buyers would know what they are
>getting. Clearly a>level 610 logger is better than a level 500 one. The
>authors of PDA>software would know they have got a way to go to get
>from level 200 to>610.>>Finally if the IGC were faced with a proposal that
>level 500 is no longer>suitable for world records then hopefully all the delegates
>voting on the>issue would realize that the proposal effects existing
>equipment as well>as new equipment.>>The development of loggers has resulted in new forms
>of competition like>the OLC. This has motivated a major interest in cross
>country flying at>our club and I am sure at many other clubs around the
>world. This has been>a very positive development, which has only become
>possible now that a>large number of pilots have access to loggers. It has
>taken over 6 years>from the development of the first loggers to reach
>this point. I am just>not sure if the politics of the GFAC over that time
>has aided or hindered>the process.>>>Ian>>

[tango4]

A good point has been raised on the IGC mailing list. With the new
categories it may be possible to have a ratified national record that
exceeds the same task world record.

Ian

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, tango4
> writes
>A good point has been raised on the IGC mailing list. With the new
>categories it may be possible to have a ratified national record that
>exceeds the same task world record.

In principle this has always been possible because FAI and IGC (rightly)
cannot control criteria for events and flights for which the rules are
made by the National body.

For example, one of Jim Payne's USA 100 km triangle records was for a
time at a faster speed than the world record. This was because of
different criteria on the shape of triangles.

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[Pat Russell]

>In principle this has always been possible because FAI and IGC (rightly)
>cannot control criteria for events and flights for which the rules are
>made by the National body.
>
This is true, but it does not apply to your exampe, below:

>For example, one of Jim Payne's USA 100 km triangle records was for a
>time at a faster speed than the world record. This was because of
>different criteria on the shape of triangles.
>
In fact, the criteria were identical when the flight took place.

The IGC criteria changed after the flight, specifically for the
purpose of disapproving it.

It has always been the intention and practice of the USA to use
international rules for the homologation of national records.

-Pat

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Pat Russell
> writes
>
>>In principle this has always been possible because FAI and IGC (rightly)
>>cannot control criteria for events and flights for which the rules are
>>made by the National body.
>>
>This is true, but it does not apply to your exampe, below:
>
>>For example, one of Jim Payne's USA 100 km triangle records was for a
>>time at a faster speed than the world record. This was because of
>>different criteria on the shape of triangles.
>>
>In fact, the criteria were identical when the flight took place.
>
>The IGC criteria changed after the flight, specifically for the
>purpose of disapproving it.

I think that is a bit hard. What happened was a difference in
interpretation of the then Sporting Code rule on triangle shape, the SSA
one was more generous than that of IGC. For the world record the matter
went to FAI arbitration via a Tribunal called by the President of the
FAI Air Sport General Commission (CASI). Personally, I was all for
approving it as a world record and gave evidence to the Tribunal to that
effect, as, I think did Bernald Smith on behalf of the SSA. However,
the decision went the other way. That's life!

So it is merely factual that for a while, until Jim Payne did an even
faster flight, the US 100k triangle record was in excess of the world
record.

This confirms my point that it is not possible for IGC/FAI to control
flights for which the evidence and interpretation is to National rules
and procedures rather than those of the IGC and FAI.

--
Ian Strachan

[Marc Ramsey]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote...
> We have to wonder how many still don't have access due to
> the cost of approved loggers versus inexpensive handhelds,
> and how much interest in the badge system and our sport has
> been lost due to the early decision that a handheld GPS in
> an Official Observer sealed box is not sufficient for even
> the lowliest FAI badge.

We tend to forget that, up until 3 years ago or so, the most popular
low-cost handheld GPS units didn't record altitude or time in their track
logs. Those that did record altitude often had little control when fixes
were recorded, so it was difficult to reliably record flights of more than 3
hours duration. The end result would have been that it would have been
necessary to fly with a sealed barograph, as well as a sealed handheld, and
the official observer would have needed to have a fair bit of knowledge of
the GPS unit to ensure that it was set up properly (and the track memory
cleared) prior to sealing. A written flight declaration would also be
needed, and the observer data handling would need to be fairly stringent to
maintain even a moderate level of integrity. It's not clear to me that
there would be any advantage over simply using a camera.

Speaking of cameras, they have continued to be acceptable evidence for all
badges and diplomas. I don't remember the exact figures, but the percentage
of badge claims made using cameras worldwide has declined to very low
levels. If the expense and complication of flight recorders was as much of
a factor as is being suggested, I don't think this would be the case...

Marc

[Pat Russell]

>I think that is a bit hard. What happened was a difference in
>interpretation...
>
It was a bit hard, and I apologize. We agree on what happened.

I acknowlege that it has always been possible for a national
record to exceed a world record due to a difference in
interpretation of the rules. The Jim Payne example is a case in
point.

However, I think that you have missed the distinction between
the Jim Payne reality and the following hypothetical:

What if: a pilot who already holds a world record uses the same
flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record. He
submits his claim, gets a new national record, but is not
allowed to claim a new world record because the flight recorder
was downgraded in the meantime.

This is not a matter of "interpretation," nor has it ever
existed before. It is merely bizarre.

[Eric Greenwell]

Pat Russell wrote:

> What if: a pilot who already holds a world record uses the same
> flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record. He
> submits his claim, gets a new national record, but is not
> allowed to claim a new world record because the flight recorder
> was downgraded in the meantime.
>
> This is not a matter of "interpretation," nor has it ever
> existed before. It is merely bizarre.

It doesn't sound bizarre to me. Requirements can change as the situation
changes. For example, suppose after his first record, a way was found to
cheat with the type of recorder he used (perhaps a new algorithm for
cracking security codes is developed). I think it is bizarre to suggest
a recorder can be used for all records in the future, once it has been
used to establish one record.


--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Borgelt]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:52:28 +0200, "Ian Forbes"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:00:36 +0000, CH wrote:
>
>> And why Ian is it, that suddenly the Cambridge 25 Model should not be
>> save enough anymore. Was the safety standard proposed by the IGC not
>> good enough - too lax?
>
>The politics of flight recorders seems to be as complicated as some of
>their technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of mistrust surrounding
>the motivation of the decisions of the "GNSS Flight Recorder Approval
>Committee" (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps the technical
>issues should be separated from the political ones.
>
>If the GFAC defined a series of "levels of security" for GNSS Flight
>Recorders. For example:
>
>Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight
>
>Level 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight
>
>Level 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight
>
>Level 500: Internal GPS, barometric hight
>
>Level 400: External GPS, barometric hight
>
>Level 300: Commercial GPS with logging function
>
>Level 200: GPS + PDA + Software
Security depends on people and procedures, not hardware.

Any logger could be approved for anything with the right security
procedures in place. There is an approval condition for each logger
anyway and it simply needs to spell out the O.O. procedures required
for that logger.

GFAC's task would then be limited to examining the design features of
each logger and specifying the security procedures. They could be less
onerous for less prestigous events.

Better still just have a set of design feature rules that
manufacturers would design to for a particular level of O.O. procedure
and cut GFAC out of any approval loop. It only leads to suspicions of
corruption.

Mike Borgelt

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Marc Ramsey
> writes
>Speaking of cameras, they have continued to be acceptable evidence for all
>badges and diplomas. I don't remember the exact figures, but the percentage
>of badge claims made using cameras worldwide has declined to very low
>levels. If the expense and complication of flight recorders was as much of
>a factor as is being suggested, I don't think this would be the case...
>
>Marc

I asked this question of our Badge Officer and the suggested figure was
'about 1-2 percent' for UK.

There is however, a suggestion (not from GFAC I hasten to add) that
Camera should be 'phased out' over the next few years.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Pat Russell]

Eric, you make a very good point.

What if security were not an issue?

What would your position be if our hypothetical flight recorder
had been downgraded because the manufacturer decided to retire?

[John Galloway]

At 20:36 26 November 2003, Pat Russell wrote:
>
>What if: a pilot who already holds a world record
>uses the same
>flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record.
> He
>submits his claim, gets a new national record, but
>is not
>allowed to claim a new world record because the flight
>recorder
>was downgraded in the meantime.
>
>This is not a matter of 'interpretation,' nor has it
>ever
>existed before. It is merely bizarre.
>
Pat,

I don't see that as bizarre at all. In any sport equipment
approvals can be changed so that what was OK last year
is not this year. It would be truly bizarre if this
could not be the case.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone in the position
to be going for a world record would be unable to fix
him or herself up with an approved logger for the flight
one way or another.

John Galloway

[Robert Danewid]

John, you are completely right. But i do not htink that that is the real
issue.

I ask myself, why this increase in security? What is the reason? How
many cases of cheating or falsifying document has been revealed?

Why increase the security level just because things has deloped over the
years? Suppose that what was decided in 1994 was "overkill" and still is
good enough?

What really is annoying is that our own world organization is now using
the same arguments as our CAA:s and airspace authorities are using when
increasing controlled airspace and making transponders etc mandatory.

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of bad
thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.

Robert


John Galloway wrote:
> At 20:36 26 November 2003, Pat Russell wrote:
>
>>What if: a pilot who already holds a world record
>>uses the same
>>flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record.
>>He
>>submits his claim, gets a new national record, but
>>is not
>>allowed to claim a new world record because the flight
>>recorder
>>was downgraded in the meantime.
>>
>>This is not a matter of 'interpretation,' nor has it
>>ever
>>existed before. It is merely bizarre.
>>
>
> Pat,
>
> I don't see that as bizarre at all. In any sport equipment
> approvals can be changed so that what was OK last year
> is not this year. It would be truly bizarre if this
> could not be the case.
>
> I find it hard to imagine that anyone in the position
> to be going for a world record would be unable to fix
> him or herself up with an approved logger for the flight
> one way or another.
>
> John Galloway
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Robert Danewid wrote:
> This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of bad
> thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.

Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it must
be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean, that's
exactly how I feel about the present administration in Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Pat Russell wrote:
> Eric, you make a very good point.
>
> What if security were not an issue?
>
> What would your position be if our hypothetical flight recorder
> had been downgraded because the manufacturer decided to retire?

If there is no reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for
signs of tampering, and can not answer critics with questions about the
security of algorithms, and maintain the security keys, I think it ought
to be prohibited from world record use. IGC should also determine if it
is still suitable for international competition. I'd leave it up to
national bodies about it's acceptance for their purposes, which IGC
can't control in any case.

--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Pat Russell]

What if security were not an issue?

[Eric Greenwell]

Pat Russell wrote:

> What if security were not an issue?

I beginning to think I don't understand the question. Hypothetically,
the manufacturer retires, yet everyone, including GFAC, IGC, all the
other manufacturers, and the users, agree that the unit still meets
these requirements:

-there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for
signs of tampering
-it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms
-it can maintain the security keys

And yet, the unit is prohibited from world record use?

Is this the question?

--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Eric Greenwell
> writes
>Pat Russell wrote:
>
>> What if security were not an issue?
>
>I beginning to think I don't understand the question. Hypothetically,
>the manufacturer retires, yet everyone, including GFAC, IGC, all the
>other manufacturers, and the users, agree that the unit still meets
>these requirements:
>
>-there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for
>signs of tampering
>-it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms
>-it can maintain the security keys
>
>And yet, the unit is prohibited from world record use?
>
>Is this the question?

GFAC are reviewing this. The alternative is for owners to be aware that
there is no manufacturer support for certain units and if there is any
question regarding a world record claim that the manufacturer might be
able to resolve, the claim is likely to fail. Caveat Emptor.

In today's market there are only two manufacturers that are in this
category, and their recorders are listed to be degraded for other
reasons, so this does not effect any current recorders.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Pat Russell]

Thank you for hanging in there, Eric. I mean no disrespect when
I insist on the question. I do have a point.

Taking your requirements one at a time:

>-there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for
>signs of tampering

This is a question of physical security. The person responsible
is the official observer. This has always been true.

>-it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms

Electronic security is not perfect. It can be "strong" or
"weak" just like physical security. If the world believes that
the electronic security designed into the flight recorder is
strong enough to do the job, then there will be no critics. If
the world believes that new techniques have rendered the flight
recorder vulnerable, then it is GFAC's responsibility to issue a
disapproval. The manufacturer need not exist.

>-it can maintain the security keys

You may have to clarify this one. I don't think security
algorithms need maintenance.

So yes, this is the question (verbose version):

In the absence of any security challenge, criticism, disapproval
notice, or special procedure required of the manufacturer, would
the manufacturer's retirement be reason enough to cause the
automatic downgrading of a flight recorder from usable for world
records to unusable for world records?

[Robert Ehrlich]

Robert Danewid wrote:
> ...
> Are you aware of that in
> most European countries you also have to buy a transponder Mode S in the
> near future????
> ...

The transponder problem is completeley different. In Europe, at least
in France (and probably also in Germany), most gliders are owned by clubs,
as well as loggers and future transponders. In my club, for 20 gliders
we have 5 loggers and this is sufficient, as they are stricltly needed
only for badges and not every pilot fly a badge every day. However
if the regulation about transponders become effective we are going to
be forced to buy 20 transponders.

[Robert Danewid]

That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert



Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Robert Danewid wrote:
>
>> This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of bad
>> thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.
>
>
> Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it must
> be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean, that's
> exactly how I feel about the present administration in Washington D.C. 8^)
>
> Marc

[Robert Danewid]

And may I add, I am not sure the elected leaders do not agree with me.
After all what happened in 1995 - 97, and how this topic was presented
in Prague, I am convinced that GFAC is living its own life and, although
putting in a massive work to keep gliding free from potential GPS
hackers, I am not sure it is good for the gliding movement.

Robert

[Marc Ramsey]

Robert Danewid wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>> Robert Danewid wrote:
>>
>>> This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
>>> bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.
>>
>> Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
>> must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
>> that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
>> Washington D.C. 8^)
>>
>> Marc
>
> That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
> you use when you are running out of arguments.
>
> Robert

No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?

Marc

[Robert Danewid]

I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
punished and their names published?

Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
class. I have not changed my mind.

Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
accept it.

No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

Robert

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Robert Danewid wrote:
>
>> Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Danewid wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
>>>> bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
>>> must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
>>> that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
>>> Washington D.C. 8^)
>>>
>>> Marc
>
> >
>
>> That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
>> you use when you are running out of arguments.
>>
>> Robert
>
>
> No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
> arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
> done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
> how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?
>
> Marc
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Robert,

Robert Danewid wrote:
> I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Are you suggesting that the security levels specified in 1994/95 were
adequate for our purposes, and any subsequent changes should be rescinded?

> Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
> current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
> been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
> why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
> punished and their names published?

There is no evidence of actual cheating. The security systems of one of
the flight recorders approved under the 1995 specification was broken a
few years ago as an academic exercise. There is much evidence
suggesting that the security of other flight recorders approved under
the 1995 specifications could be even more easily broken.

Do you suggest waiting until there is a proven instance of cheating
before taking any action? Or, do you assume that any such cheating can
always be detected through other means (how?), therefore no changes are
necessary?

> Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
> someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
> the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
> must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

As a member of GFAC, I can assure you that we all are aware that there
is no such thing as a cheat safe system.

> Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
> and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
> for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
> think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
> class. I have not changed my mind.

You'll have to tell me what you tink the "1994 level of security" was,
before I can express an opinion. I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

> Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

> What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
> must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
> GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
> first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
> arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
> accept it.

No, you make your argument, and if enough people agree, the IGC and/or
GFAC will change direction as appropriate.

> No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
> end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
> sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

I think I can safely say that Ian and I are rarely on the same side of
discussions within GFAC. I think I've stated enough of my opinions on
r.a.s. in the past for anyone paying attention to realize that I, too,
think we could make some changes that would result in simpler, cheaper
flight recorders. But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Pat Russell wrote:

>>-there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for
>>signs of tampering
>
>
> This is a question of physical security. The person responsible
> is the official observer. This has always been true.

Tampering can include alterations inside the box (physical, electrical,
or programing) that the observer can not detect just by examining the
box or the file it produces. The entity most likely to be able to
determine this is the company that produces it, though it's possible the
ability could be passed on to another entity.

>
>
>>-it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms
>
>
> Electronic security is not perfect. It can be "strong" or
> "weak" just like physical security. If the world believes that
> the electronic security designed into the flight recorder is
> strong enough to do the job, then there will be no critics. If
> the world believes that new techniques have rendered the flight
> recorder vulnerable, then it is GFAC's responsibility to issue a
> disapproval. The manufacturer need not exist.

I agree the manufacturer would not be needed for this, once the unit is
approved. If further questions arise that only the manufacturer can
answer, and the manufacturer is no longer available, then the unit
should be downgraded.

>
>
>>-it can maintain the security keys
>
>
> You may have to clarify this one. I don't think security
> algorithms need maintenance.

As I understand it, the manufacturer maintains the keys for the
algorithms (the algorithm itself doesn't need maintenance). Different
keys can be used for different recorders. I don't know where these keys
go, or who ensures their secrecy, once the manufacturer is gone.
>
> So yes, this is the question (verbose version):
>
> In the absence of any security challenge, criticism, disapproval
> notice, or special procedure required of the manufacturer, would
> the manufacturer's retirement be reason enough to cause the
> automatic downgrading of a flight recorder from usable for world
> records to unusable for world records?

If, in this hypothetical situation, a recorder was downgraded only
because the manufacturer retired, I'd have to know the reasoning for
doing this before I could decide if it was a sufficient reason. I can't
think of one myself, but I am limited by my imagination!

Since the IGC flight recorder concept is basically about security, the
question seems to beg the question: of course, there is no reason to
disapprove a recorder if there is no concern for security.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Pat Russell]

> I can't
>think of one myself

I can't either, Eric. Thanks for the discussion!

-Pat

[John Ferguson]

In my day job I do a bit of IT. We normally balance
risk of the outcome with reward when we talk of security.

Question - who in gliding is going to make a killing
from faking a GNSS log.

It really has to be 'just secure enough' to balance
the risk/reward question. I don't know anyone who is
going to become rich from declaring (and passing) a
new world record.

In reality, does the common gliding herd really mind
if someone fakes it. Who are GFAC/IGC protecting ?

If IGC suspect that someone has been cheating (remember
that they used to cheat with cameras) just refuse to
ratify the claim.

John

[Robert Danewid]

Thanks for that input!

Robert

John Ferguson wrote:
> In my day job I do a bit of IT. We normally balance
> risk of the outcome with reward when we talk of security.
>
> Question - who in gliding is going to make a killing
> from faking a GNSS log.
>
> It really has to be 'just secure enough' to balance
> the risk/reward question. I don't know anyone who is
> going to become rich from declaring (and passing) a
> new world record.
>
> In reality, does the common gliding herd really mind
> if someone fakes it. Who are GFAC/IGC protecting ?
>
> If IGC suspect that someone has been cheating (remember
> that they used to cheat with cameras) just refuse to
> ratify the claim.
>
> John
>
>
>

[Robert Danewid]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

I know you've been a critic, and I
> know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
> But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
> and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
> soaring community.

I believe that IGC shall operate under complete influence of the larger
soaring community,
not only some influence. Marc, you are about to prove everything always
suspected about GFAC!

The compromise you are talking about was an official Swedish proposal to
the IGC meeting in 1997, which was deemed so severe that there had to be
a special pre-meeting in order to persuade me to think twice, which I
fortunately did not.


> I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
> a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

And I am a highly trained engineer in Structural Engineering. Although I
am an engineer, the worst thing I know is to let engineers solve all
problems. Because as an engineer, and I am one, you are trained to find
a "hardware" solution to all problems, even if it is a "software"
problem. And this often means a solution which is much to technical and
complicated. There is a German saying "Warum einfach machen wenn man es
so schön komplizieren kann". I think GFAC is using this as their motto.


But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
> interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
> the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.
>

So GFAC is making rules/policies of their own? And what do GFAC think is
in the interest of pilots and manufacturers? Has that policy ever been
approved by the IGC? I thought GFAC was a committee whose work was
regulated by Terms-of Reference.

Now I rest my case.

Robert


> Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Robert Danewid wrote:
> So GFAC is making rules/policies of their own? And what do GFAC think is
> in the interest of pilots and manufacturers? Has that policy ever been
> approved by the IGC? I thought GFAC was a committee whose work was
> regulated by Terms-of Reference.

Oh, get off it Robert. You know that GFAC is supposed to act as the
technical resource for developing specifications, testing procedures,
etc. Part of that is making sure we don't recommend changes that will
result in US$5000 flight recorders. Just as the primary reason for
recommending the "all badges and diplomas" approval level was to lower
the cost of flight recorders for the 99% of pilots who will never pursue
a world record. Nothing we recommend becomes policy, however, unless
the IGC approves it.

All I can say is, no discussion seems possible with anyone who still has
their head stuck in what happened nearly a decade ago. I have no doubt
that there are things that should be done differently, now, if we
started with a clean sheet of paper. But, as far as I can tell, no one
is willing to come up with a sensible proposal as to what we can change
now, given the current context.

If you are absolutely convinced the current system is corrupt and
unfixable, the solution seems to be to opt out of it, and start your
own. Meanwhile, there are other off-season topics which I find far more
fun to discuss...

Marc

[Robert Danewid]

> All I can say is, no discussion seems possible with anyone who still has
> their head stuck in what happened nearly a decade ago. I have no doubt
> that there are things that should be done differently, now, if we
> started with a clean sheet of paper. But, as far as I can tell, no one
> is willing to come up with a sensible proposal as to what we can change
> now, given the current context.
>

Without your history, you have no future.

And with the history in mind, I have asked you several times to put
forward the real arguments, not all that computer stuff, for increasing
security. You have failed, and I agree that there are more fun things to
do than discussing GFAC.

Take care
Robert

Robert

[Marc Ramsey]

Robert Danewid wrote:
> And with the history in mind, I have asked you several times to put
> forward the real arguments, not all that computer stuff, for increasing
> security.

The relevant increase in security took place in 1997. Prior to that
point, every thing I know suggests that the security requirements were
ambiguous, at best. All that happened is that flight recorders that
could not have been approved under 1997 specifications have been
downgraded to the next lower level. Perhaps they should have been
downgraded in 1997, perhaps the specifications shouldn't have been
changed in 1997. I don't know, because I wasn't involved.

If you think the 1997 security requirements were too strict, I think the
onus is on you to propose and justify a set of requirements that you
would consider to be more appropriate.

Marc

[Jonathan Gere]

Sorry for the subject line, but did I overlook the effective, public
notice that IGC was even considering this change? In any real sense,
the relevant change takes place in 1April2004. Unless, that is,
popular opinion causes the IGC to reverse itself. That is when most
loggers in the world will be disqualified for world records. The
relevant increase in security did not take place in 1997, because
anyone trying to cheat presumably used one of the "not secure enough"
models from that time forward.

If you feel that adequate official observer oversight makes these
"legacy" loggers adequate for world records, please call/write/mail
your IGC representative!

Jonathan Gere

> Robert Danewid wrote:
> > And with the history in mind, I have asked you several times to put
> > forward the real arguments, not all that computer stuff, for increasing
> > security.
>
> The relevant increase in security took place in 1997. Prior to that
> point, every thing I know suggests that the security requirements were
> ambiguous, at best. All that happened is that flight recorders that
> could not have been approved under 1997 specifications have been
> downgraded to the next lower level. Perhaps they should have been
> downgraded in 1997, perhaps the specifications shouldn't have been
> changed in 1997. I don't know, because I wasn't involved.
>
> If you think the 1997 security requirements were too strict, I think the
> onus is on you to propose and justify a set of requirements that you
> would consider to be more appropriate.
>
> Marc

[CH]

Well...
looking at the response of this decision I remember what
the Swiss IGC delegate, Mr. Nietlispach, told me once,
because I was trying to forward a proposal to the IGC:

quote>>
"We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
not reverse!"
<<quote

And it does not look like anything would have changed
since then. The IGC has lost track with the needs of the
gliding community and acts like the Vatican.

And when the IGC decided not to handle gliding records
of motorised and non-motorised gliders separately any-
more it laid the grave stone to pure gliding records. I am
sure, that in 5 years no gliding records will exist anymore,
not been flown without a retractable motor.

So - why worry about the "revised IGC approvals" when
you fly a glider without a motor?

Because we cannot be sure, if not tomorrow the IGC
makes the next step to exclude existing loggers to fly
a thousand km and up as well.....
Anything is possible

"We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
not reverse!"

Ch. Hostettler

____________________________________________

"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)
>
> Subject: Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval
> conditions for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder.
>
> An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
> of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
> to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
> excludes evidence for world record flights.
>
> Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
> After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
> received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
> by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.
>
> There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
> pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
> recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
> ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
> gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
> obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
> the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.
>
> Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
> date at the end:
>
> 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 immediate 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).
> Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
> decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
> list this will be announced as soon as it is made.
>
> Timescale
> The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
> will take effect on 1 April 2004.
>
> The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
> flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
> recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Chairman IGC GFA Committee
>
>
>

[Ulrich]

Right on Christian. It’s time that the IGC bureaucracy, with its
expensive digs in Switzerland, its authoritarian ivory tower approach
and its penchant for spending other people’s money was brought
back to reality. This is that world-wide, gliding is an expensive,
shrinking sport, and that they would be better off addressing this
vital issue than creating more cost by unilaterally and
heavy-handedly legislating about logger security. Do barographs and
cameras have RSA level security?

U. Werneburg

"CH" > wrote in message >...
> Well...
> looking at the response of this decision I remember what
> the Swiss IGC delegate, Mr. Nietlispach, told me once,
> because I was trying to forward a proposal to the IGC:
>
> quote>>
> "We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
> not reverse!"
> <<quote
>
> And it does not look like anything would have changed
> since then. The IGC has lost track with the needs of the
> gliding community and acts like the Vatican.
>
> And when the IGC decided not to handle gliding records
> of motorised and non-motorised gliders separately any-
> more it laid the grave stone to pure gliding records. I am
> sure, that in 5 years no gliding records will exist anymore,
> not been flown without a retractable motor.
>
> So - why worry about the "revised IGC approvals" when
> you fly a glider without a motor?
>
> Because we cannot be sure, if not tomorrow the IGC
> makes the next step to exclude existing loggers to fly
> a thousand km and up as well.....
> Anything is possible
>
> "We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
> not reverse!"
>
> Ch. Hostettler

[Mike Borgelt]

On 1 Dec 2003 05:33:24 -0800, (Ulrich) wrote:

>Right on Christian. It’s time that the IGC bureaucracy, with its
>expensive digs in Switzerland, its authoritarian ivory tower approach
>and its penchant for spending other people’s money was brought
>back to reality. This is that world-wide, gliding is an expensive,
>shrinking sport, and that they would be better off addressing this
>vital issue than creating more cost by unilaterally and
>heavy-handedly legislating about logger security. Do barographs and
>cameras have RSA level security?
>
>U. Werneburg
>
>"CH" > wrote in message >...
>> Well...
>> looking at the response of this decision I remember what
>> the Swiss IGC delegate, Mr. Nietlispach, told me once,
>> because I was trying to forward a proposal to the IGC:
>>
>> quote>>
>> "We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
>> not reverse!"
>> <<quote
Reminds me of what the late Roger Woods once told me about the first
time he was Australian delegate to the IGC. He was taken aside and
told " forget the people who sent you here, here WE decide what
happens".

Do you really want the IGC to address the problem of the shrinking
sport of gliding given their "successful" track record?

How about we all send our badges back to the IGC? We know what we've
done and nobody else cares.

Mike Borgelt

[Janos Bauer]

Good idea!

/Janos

ps: more than 6 months ago I requested a small modification (extend GPS
type list) in the EW logger approval document but still there is no
change...this modification is also supported by the original document...
it could reduce the cost of an IGC approved logger system, but who
cares...

Mike Borgelt wrote:

> Reminds me of what the late Roger Woods once told me about the first
> time he was Australian delegate to the IGC. He was taken aside and
> told " forget the people who sent you here, here WE decide what
> happens".
>
> Do you really want the IGC to address the problem of the shrinking
> sport of gliding given their "successful" track record?
>
> How about we all send our badges back to the IGC? We know what we've
> done and nobody else cares.
>
> Mike Borgelt