To answer a few other posts...

Yes I'm now hooked on X-C. I now understand the idea of
interthermal sink. When I was flying the 1-26 and 2-33,
penetration was such a problem that X-C days were few
and far between, and X-C was less a matter of skill than
weather. High L/D and penetration really do help for
creating hope and X-C. Having few soarable days can
be very disappointing. Lower performing ships are great
trainers, but I'd encourage new pilots to step up
quickly for (mainly) psychological reasons. The PW-5
was perfect for this (no ballast, no flaps, no retracts,
easy to assemble). I have two 1-26 X-C and nine PW-5
X-C. A trailer and easy-to-assemble glider are a
big deal. Still dunno what the fuss is about
automatic hookups though...the manual ones seem
to work fine so far and they are right in plain view
and easy to inspect...

My Volkslogger had some courses in it, and I had declared
one by pressing buttons. I changed my mind, disconnected
power, and wrote a written declaration. I reconnected
power and flew the flight. Much to my chagrin, the logger
had the old declaration on the .IGC file. Yep, I tested
this a couple more times. Bad feature. I've now eliminated
all courses from the logger. Problem solved, no more
electronic declarations. Since you have to provide the .igc
file with the paperwork, and the electronic declaration
is more recent, no way around this otherwise. Also be careful
because a small power interruption can cause this same redeclaration.
I use a seperate battery for the VL (actually a drill battery).
I like the idea of a written declaration anyway so my
towpilot and crew know the plan.

Yes the towpilot is usually my OO. Technically I think tampered
with means and includes removing power from the VL. Also, if
you run out of memory before the OO disconnects the logger, how
can the OO verify the trace? So I have the OO note the time
the logger is disconnected and then it is consistent with an
uninterrupted .IGC file. I don't have the slightest idea how
one could tamper with an .IGC file (isn't this like
a public key cipher? No-one has figured out how to
crack these, right? Factoring two large primes' product?
Yikes), but apparently this is a concern to someone.

Landing witnesses? OK this is also just silly. Violates
common sense when using a GPS logger. Way back in the good
ol' days, maybe you could convince some farmer to lift
your glider on the back of a trailer and drive it over
flat ground to the next airport. Unbroken baro in hand,
your OO got suspicious and called the FAI and asked them to
change the rule. But with a logger? If the logger was
put in the glider with the pilot, and the towpilot
released, what, was there some kind of midair pilot
switch? OK, assume no-one saw the landing, but the GPS says
you were there and the .IGC file is uninterrupted
(leave the battery connected until your non-ssa
crew and you get back to the home field and the
OO towpilot disconnects it). How do you fake a longer flight?
What does the landing witness add to this that
a towpilot release statement would not? Common sense
means a towpilot release statement should be a fine
substitute for a landing witness.

How about GPS altitudes? I suspect all new GPS's will
have WAAS, and if it's good enough for the 767 landing
0/0, it'll be good enough for us. 3-7 meters of
accuracy is darned good. I'm betting Garmin can easily
be swayed to put .IGC capability in their $200 GPS's
and this will be a non-issue quickly. Using pressure
altitudes for badges and records is simply outdated.
The FAI I'm certain will see this and accept either
form of proof, once the first WAAS and .igc producing
gps is manufactured.