OLC Submissions and Cambridge 302

[scooter]

Can someone who is sucessfully using the DOS applications for
downloading, converting logs from the 302 and sucessfully posting to
OLC post the process? I am interested in the DOS process only.

There are 4 files mentioned on OLC and FAI web sites:

1. datacam2.exe - for downloading flight traces (does this yield a .cai
file?)
2. valicam2.exe - for verifying security of cai or .igc?
3. conv-cam - to make an .igc out of a .fai?
4. cai2igc - seems same as #3 - perhaps not for the 302

Thanks

Scott Elhardt

[Marc Ramsey]

scooter wrote:
> Can someone who is sucessfully using the DOS applications for
> downloading, converting logs from the 302 and sucessfully posting to
> OLC post the process? I am interested in the DOS process only.
>
> There are 4 files mentioned on OLC and FAI web sites:
>
> 1. datacam2.exe - for downloading flight traces (does this yield a .cai
> file?)
> 2. valicam2.exe - for verifying security of cai or .igc?
> 3. conv-cam - to make an .igc out of a .fai?
> 4. cai2igc - seems same as #3 - perhaps not for the 302

datacam2.exe (download) and valicam2.exe (validation) are the only DOS
programs that are needed for the 302, it's native file format is IGC, so
no conversion is necessary. The other programs are for the GPS-NAV.

Marc

[Doug Haluza]

Be advised that we have identfied a problem with the C302 where
valicam2.exe reports "Log Data Integrity OK, Signature Data Integrity
OK, Security Fail" which indicates a bad security seal, even though the
C302 reports that the security seal is good. All we know so far is that
it has happened on a C302 that has produced good logs before without
any known cause (i.e. it wasn't tampered with). Suspected causes are
nearly full memory, and not using the datacam2.exe DOS download
program, but we have not been able to isolate this yet. So if you have
had this problem, please post your story to help us understand the
problem.

Whenever you download an IGC file from the C302 (or any IGC logger) and
want to use it for OLC or FAI badges and records, you must run the IGC
DOS validation program to make sure you have a valid log file. Do this
before you erase the flight from the logger memory. If the file does
not pass validation, download it again, using a different computer if
necessary. If you are using a windows program to download, and still
get an invalid log, try the DOS version of the download program.

[scooter]

Thanks Marc;

Have you tried running these applications under PocketDOS on a PDA?

Seems it would be nice to not have to connect a laptop each time.

Scott

[Marc Ramsey]

scooter wrote:
> Thanks Marc;
>
> Have you tried running these applications under PocketDOS on a PDA?
>
> Seems it would be nice to not have to connect a laptop each time.

I've used the Cambridge-supplied PDA utility to download for several
years, with no problems. You can get it from their web site.

Marc

[5Z]

Use the 302 utility program available from CAI to download to the PDA:
http://www.cambridge-aero.com/300series.htm#Utility%20Programs

The utility program reports validation, so am not sure about whether
following up with valicam is still needed.

-Tom

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I recommend using the Cambridge 300 Utility on a Pocket PC or PC first. It
is very easy to use and will work 99.9999% of the time. If it fails, try
again. If it fails multiple times then try the DOS program. It would
probably work equally well using Pocket DOS on a Pocket PC.

Good Soaring,

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

"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Be advised that we have identfied a problem with the C302 where
> valicam2.exe reports "Log Data Integrity OK, Signature Data Integrity
> OK, Security Fail" which indicates a bad security seal, even though the
> C302 reports that the security seal is good. All we know so far is that
> it has happened on a C302 that has produced good logs before without
> any known cause (i.e. it wasn't tampered with). Suspected causes are
> nearly full memory, and not using the datacam2.exe DOS download
> program, but we have not been able to isolate this yet. So if you have
> had this problem, please post your story to help us understand the
> problem.
>
> Whenever you download an IGC file from the C302 (or any IGC logger) and
> want to use it for OLC or FAI badges and records, you must run the IGC
> DOS validation program to make sure you have a valid log file. Do this
> before you erase the flight from the logger memory. If the file does
> not pass validation, download it again, using a different computer if
> necessary. If you are using a windows program to download, and still
> get an invalid log, try the DOS version of the download program.
>

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> Use the 302 utility program available from CAI to download to the PDA:
> http://www.cambridge-aero.com/300series.htm#Utility%20Programs
>
> The utility program reports validation, so am not sure about whether
> following up with valicam is still needed.

I've never had an IGC file that validates when downloaded using the
Cambridge PDA utility, that later fails to validate with valicam2. The
paranoid (like myself), will always later verify a file using valicam2,
if they want to be certain of proper flight documentation for
badge/record (or for that matter, OLC) purposes.

The one thing you absolutely do not want to do, is download from a 302
(or other approved flight recorders) using, for (a not quite random)
example, SeeYou, and send the resulting IGC file off without verifying it...

Marc

[Greg Arnold]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Be advised that we have identfied a problem with the C302 where
> valicam2.exe reports "Log Data Integrity OK, Signature Data Integrity
> OK, Security Fail" which indicates a bad security seal, even though the
> C302 reports that the security seal is good. All we know so far is that
> it has happened on a C302 that has produced good logs before without
> any known cause (i.e. it wasn't tampered with). Suspected causes are
> nearly full memory, and not using the datacam2.exe DOS download
> program, but we have not been able to isolate this yet. So if you have
> had this problem, please post your story to help us understand the
> problem.
>
> Whenever you download an IGC file from the C302 (or any IGC logger) and
> want to use it for OLC or FAI badges and records, you must run the IGC
> DOS validation program to make sure you have a valid log file. Do this
> before you erase the flight from the logger memory. If the file does
> not pass validation, download it again, using a different computer if
> necessary. If you are using a windows program to download, and still
> get an invalid log, try the DOS version of the download program.
>

Sounds exactly like the problem I had. I was downloading to an Ipaq
using the CAI supplied PDA download program. CAI said they saw a
problem like this maybe once every year or two. It then happened again
after another 9 or 10 flights. Cambridge didn't suggest trying a DOS
download, but instead replaced the flash memory. Problem hasn't
recurred, but I have had only a handful of flights since the repair, and
the repair did give an empty memory, so if that was the problem you
wouldn't see it again for quite a while.

[[email protected]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> 5Z wrote:
> > Use the 302 utility program available from CAI to download to the PDA:
> > http://www.cambridge-aero.com/300series.htm#Utility%20Programs
> >
> > The utility program reports validation, so am not sure about whether
> > following up with valicam is still needed.
>
> I've never had an IGC file that validates when downloaded using the
> Cambridge PDA utility, that later fails to validate with valicam2. The
> paranoid (like myself), will always later verify a file using valicam2,
> if they want to be certain of proper flight documentation for
> badge/record (or for that matter, OLC) purposes.
>
> The one thing you absolutely do not want to do, is download from a 302
> (or other approved flight recorders) using, for (a not quite random)
> example, SeeYou, and send the resulting IGC file off without verifying it...
>
Now hold on here, I have a CAI 302, I use the CAI Utility program
2.56 and download my flight to my PDA, to my flash card. When I get
home, I take it from my flash card to See You, then I submit it to the
OLC, using See You. I don't have any problems, not last year, year
before, or this year. I also use my 302 for contests, no problems.
Also, last year, set numerous State records. No problem. When I power
up my panel, and the 302 is turned on, I watch the 303 window for the
checks that the 302 goes thur before I go fly. When I download the
flight from the 302, using the CAI Utility progam, I get a windows
message, telling me everything is OK. I am not a software hacker, just
use it like it was designed for, and will be very happy when my new
glider gets here, so I can go fly and start posting flights on the OLC.
What I do hope for, is some year the OLC folks come up with a OLC
contest for those of us who would like to declare turnpoints before we
go flying, maybe giving us bonus points for declared completed tasks,
thus, we show we can plan a flight before we just go flying and skylark
around the sky. I do enjoy skylarking around the sky, and find using
the OLC helps me practice, by trying to get the most from the day. BUT
for me, declaring a task, and competing it, is very rewarding, just as
contest flying is, when completing the called task results in good
results. I now am rambling, which I wouldn't be, if my new glider would
of gotten here on time. As you all can see, I am not happy about my new
glider not being here. Never trust a salesman, period. The reason for
no early contest reports is.....yep.....no new glider. Salesman know so
much before they get your money, then afterwards, they know nothing.
Sorta like those 3 monkeys.......see no, hear no, speak no, they just
sit around and scratch, belch, and fart........Thermal tight, Soar
high, Fly safe, # 711.

[5Z]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> The one thing you absolutely do not want to do, is download from a 302
> (or other approved flight recorders) using, for (a not quite random)
> example, SeeYou, and send the resulting IGC file off without verifying it...

Too bad there isn't a requirement for a checksum in addition to the G
record. The checksum would validate the integrity of the file without
the overhead and "proprietariness" of validating the security of the
file.

-Tom

[Andy]

Doug Haluza wrote:
> Be advised that we have identfied a problem with the C302 where
> valicam2.exe reports "Log Data Integrity OK, Signature Data Integrity
> OK, Security Fail" which indicates a bad security seal, even though the
> C302 reports that the security seal is good. All we know so far is that
> it has happened on a C302 that has produced good logs before without
> any known cause (i.e. it wasn't tampered with). Suspected causes are
> nearly full memory, and not using the datacam2.exe DOS download
> program, but we have not been able to isolate this yet. So if you have
> had this problem, please post your story to help us understand the
> problem.

My 302 was delivered to me with this problem. I put up with it for a
year because my contest logs were still accepted. I then returned the
302 to Cambridge for sealing. Late last year it happened again - 302
display reporting good seal but log showed bad security and was
rejected by OLC. Again I returned it for reseal but only at the end of
season and continued to download my logs. I think they reported
security fail. I used my model 25 for OLC claims and didn't lose any
flights.

I later was very surprised that a review of my 302 logs using Aero
Explorer Plus showed that the security problem only showed on one day
and that subsequent logs were ok. It seems the problem healed itself
and I didn't need to return it. I'll go back and check again if there
is interest in pooling data to fix the problem

I use GlideNav II for download but also tried the CAI pda utility.
Neither gave a good security report for the problem flight.

Andy (GY)

[Doug Haluza]

There is one case on the OLC now where alternate flights from the same
logger show good/bad/good/bad security. Cambridge has requested the
unit be returned for flash replacement. One suggestion is that the
problem may be related to the memory wraparound where old logs are
deleted to make room for a new log. If so, erasing the logger memory
before it fills up may help, but this is speculation and has not been
confirmed. This would be consistent with your experience, though.

Andy wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
> My 302 was delivered to me with this problem. I put up with it for a
> year because my contest logs were still accepted. I then returned the
> 302 to Cambridge for sealing. Late last year it happened again - 302
> display reporting good seal but log showed bad security and was
> rejected by OLC. Again I returned it for reseal but only at the end of
> season and continued to download my logs. I think they reported
> security fail. I used my model 25 for OLC claims and didn't lose any
> flights.
>
> I later was very surprised that a review of my 302 logs using Aero
> Explorer Plus showed that the security problem only showed on one day
> and that subsequent logs were ok. It seems the problem healed itself
> and I didn't need to return it. I'll go back and check again if there
> is interest in pooling data to fix the problem
>
> I use GlideNav II for download but also tried the CAI pda utility.
> Neither gave a good security report for the problem flight.
>
> Andy (GY)

[[email protected]]

Actually, there is some kind of internal issue with some of the 302's.
Doesn't seem to be all but some do seem to develop this same problem
over time. Guy in my club had the same problem (Fails Security but
unit says seal is fine). Had to send in the unit to get it corrected.
Talked to Gary K and he said they had a problem and could fix it but
the units had to be sent in. Worked for my friends 302 anyway.

-Mark

[Greg Arnold]

wrote:
> Actually, there is some kind of internal issue with some of the 302's.
> Doesn't seem to be all but some do seem to develop this same problem
> over time. Guy in my club had the same problem (Fails Security but
> unit says seal is fine). Had to send in the unit to get it corrected.
> Talked to Gary K and he said they had a problem and could fix it but
> the units had to be sent in. Worked for my friends 302 anyway.
>
> -Mark

Do you know what they did to correct it? With mine, they told me I
needed to replace the flash memory (which I did, at some expense).

[[email protected]]

Nope. They just had him send it in and it was fixed under warranty.
The only thing he paid for was a charge for calibration.

-Mark