On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 12:03:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Well that totally sucks. I use a 302 as primary and an EW for backup. If those recorders have been sufficiently secure for the past ten years, what makes them suddenly unacceptable come Jan 1 ?

I don’t know about the EW, but I do know a lot of guys are still using a 302. Sounds like more bull**** designed to make us buy new gear. IGC sure likes to screw things up.

Since you didn't bother to follow the links, read the documents, and see what the above meant, I'll help you out.
For the 302:
"IGC-approval Level. The original IGC-approval was for IGC Level 1 (all flights including world records). This document gives notice that due to increases in IGC Specification conditions for Level 1, this type of FR will be adjusted to IGC Level 2 (all IGC badges and distance diplomas) with effect from 1 January 2020.The Levels of IGC-approval are listed in the Sporting Code for Gliding, Annex B para 1.1.4.This type of FR may also be used in gliding and FAI competitions and events to which the IGC Level 2 recorder standard applies."
http://www.ukiws.demon.co.uk/GFAC/ap...mbridge302.pdf
For the EW microrecorder:
"IGC-approval Level. The original IGC-approval was for IGC Level 1 (all flights including world records). This document gives notice that due to increases in IGC Specification conditions for Level 1, this type of FR will be adjusted to IGC Level 2 (all IGC badges and distance diplomas) with effect from 1 January 2020.The Levels of IGC-approval are listed in the Sporting Code for Gliding, Annex B para 1.1.4.This type of FR may also be used in gliding and FAI competitions and events to which the IGC Level 2 recorder standard applies."
http://www.ukiws.demon.co.uk/GFAC/ap...s/ew-micro.pdf

As to why, there was a paper (link below) describing the reasons for the previous downgrading, which really says that computers are getting good enough that old .igc file encryption wasn't able to be sufficiently secure. It begins:
"IGC-approved Flight Recorders - Security 1. Background. Earlier in 2011 GFAC was notified by an NAC that a false IGC file had been produced that continued to pass the IGC electronic Validation check. This file was for a 750km triangle and had been submitted to the NAC’s own OLC as if it was a real flight. However,the Header record of the file showed the glider as a K-13 and the two named pilots were well-known competition pilots who had not flown a K-13 together, let alone for 750km.
1.1 A copy of the IGC file was sent to the GFAC chairman who forwarded it to the ANDS and GFAC committees and their advisors for analysis. It was confirmed that the file passed the IGC electronic Validation check. The security system used the well-known "Public/Private Key" method where resistance to hacking depends on the length of the Private Key Analysis. The false IGC file contained flight data from a real flight but its Header record had been"doctored"with a false aircraft type and crew. It could be taken as an attempt to show that this method of cheating was feasible. Code-breaking ("hacking") techniques had been used to create a security record at the end of the file that enabled it to pass the IGC Validation check. Experts in electronic security from ANDS, GFAC and the NAC confirmed that types of IGC-approved FRs approved in the 1990sincludingthose using public/private key systems (such as RSA ) with low public key lengths,are now particularly vulnerable to hacking. This would allow completely false IGC files to be produced that would pass the IGC Validation check, including those more serious and less detectable than an obvious alteration of the file Header. Further details on electronic security are in Annex A."
Read it he
http://www.ukiws.demon.co.uk/GFAC/do...202011-10e.pdf

The just obsoleted standard, by my reading of http://www.ukiws.demon.co.uk/GFAC/do...c_gnss_al5.pdf was 2048 bit RSA encryption. The new standard, by my reading of http://www.ukiws.demon.co.uk/GFAC/do..._spec_gnss.pdf , is 3072 bit encryption (G2.1.2). The original FR's had 192, 512, and 1024 bit encryption according to the paper.

So, you now will have two FR's that cannot do World Records, but are good for the Diamond Badge and Distance Diplomas. The reason is, computers and hackers are getting better. IGC and the GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee in particular are on the job so that we can continue to use electronic FRs. Having processed badge claims using photo evidence, smoked a few Winter barographs, and developed a lot of film at contests, I'm happy they're on the job for us and that we can still use legacy recorders. They did a great job on the High Altitude FR's that Perlan needed for its records on very short notice.

Lest you think I'm on the committee, I'm not, and that I'm totally happy, no. I think there should be only 2 approval levels - all Badges and Diplomes, and all flights including World Records. Having FLARM/PowerFLARM - the most common FRs - not eligible for Distance Diplomas is problematic. When I finished my Diamond Badge - using my PowerFLARM - having to get another FR to do a 750 really bothered, and bothers me today. It would encourage more people to get FLARMs, and that would make each of us safer. It shouldn't be that way. One man's opinion.

Hopefully this will make this a short pre-Northern Hemisphere winter thread.. Have a nice day.

Dan
a club Senior Official Observer