I agree absolutely....!
if someone wants to cheat they can...no question, no seal on a black box
will prevent this....
what is to stop me from handing a secure logger to some other pilot in an
ETA and letting them fly and turn in the log with my name on it and tell the
world the flight was in a K8...absolutely nothing...
The point is....Badges are personal..... it's more important to the holder
than to me or anyone else..if you can lie to yourself and be proud of it
then you have bigger issues than how the badge was claimed....
and ....not to make light of anyone's accomplishments...the ABC, Bronze,
Silver and even gold badges if you like could still be documented and
"officially observed" with a camera, barograph or a simple and cheap
handheld GPS, PDA or one of the many new personal data-loggers just as well
as they can be "proven" on an IGC "approved" data-logger..
Now especially for newer pilots who would like to get into the badge
thing...eliminating barographs and cameras as proof simply takes away one
more incentive for them to try...we have in our club and I'm sure nearly
every club has, someone who has an old barograph or camera they would make
available for free to help them make the attempts.. would it be so terrible
to let someone fly 5 hours in a club glider with a wind up barograph as
proof of their accomplishment? Would anyone feel cheated because they didn't
have to buy the badge with a $1000 logger?
And......there were quite literally Thousands! (plural) of barographs sold
through the years...they are still out there....and I bet Kodak sold more
than a dozen or so cameras too...
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at
www.wingsandwheels.com
"Papa3" wrote in message
...
On Feb 13, 12:19 am, Bruce wrote:
Not true - no-one said you can't use the $100 GPS for all the most useful
functions. (Navigation and flight analysis.) There are just restrictions
on
using them for FAI awards where there is a higher standard of proof
demanded.
Regrettably this is so because there have been documented cases of fraud
in
badge and record claims. Proof that there is scum in every pond I suppose.
Now whether the design of IGC logger security is efective at preventing
that is
another question.
Bruce
Jim Beckman wrote:
What a nonsense, Ian. In the ancient times, people
wanting to get a badge needed to buy a barograph and
a camera, and if I recall correctly, they weren't
cheap -
typically more expensive than a logger today.
So, what changed is the technology, not the price
tag.
But the comparison ought to be between the cost of
a logger that's approved, and one that isn't. To produce
a flight log, it isn't necessary to spend more than
a hundred dollars. The technology is available, and
it's cheap, but we aren't allowed to use it.
Jim Beckman (NJ)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What seems to repeatedly get lost in the discussions is that the IGC
Approved logger STILL requires that you trust the OO. Once you've
made that conceptual leap, the case for COTS becomes clear. There
are simple and effective manual procedures which provide equivalent
security under a COTS scenario. So, statements that COTS somehow
inherently provides a lower level of security are just wrong. It IS
true that there are a few more manual procedures required, such as
sealing access to the data port, taking control of the recorder during
download and applying a little more scrutiny during flight analysis.
IF these procedures are followed, an equivalent level of security can
be achieved.
Why is the OO required for an IGC Approved logger? For example, I own
an LS8-18. I'm going to try for a record flight in Standard
Class. Who confirms that the glider was appropriately configured
for the flight claimed? The OO. Just one of dozens of
examples.
If anyone wants to understand this more, please see the below:
http://home.netcom.com/~pappa3/files...rity_draft.pdf