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

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

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

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 he

"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 futu

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.

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

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

In article , John Ferguson
. co.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

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 .......

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

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

-Pat

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 oftheir technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of
mistrust surroundingthe motivation of the decisions of the 'GNSS Flight
Recorder ApprovalCommittee' (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps
the technicalissues should be separated from the political ones.If the GFAC defined a series of 'levels of security'
for GNSS FlightRecorders. For example:Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS,
barometric hightLevel 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal
GPS, barometric hightLevel 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hightLevel 500: Internal GPS, barometric hightLevel 400: External GPS, barometric hightLevel 300: Commercial GPS with logging functionLevel 200: GPS + PDA + SoftwareMy numbering leaves lots of scope for slotting in new
categories inbetween. Perhaps a new level around 550 for a logger
with GPS only and nobarometric hight. The list is probably longer than
the GFAC would care toadminister but it illustrates the point. The next generation
of recorderswill do things we have not thought of yet, but after
they have beeninvented, they can classified into a new 700 category.The GFAC would have the job of defining the above levels,
testingrecorders and awarding approval at the appropriate
level.Then the various bodies that monitor performances in
the sport couldspecify what level of Flight Recorder is suitable for
each performance. EGthe IGC could determine requirements for world records
and badges atvarious levels. (Currently this would be minimum 610
for a world record ina m/g, minimum 500 for a 1000km diploma in a pure glider
and minimum 400for a gold badge).National bodies and competition organizers could specify
their minimumrequirements for national and regional competitions.The Online Contest organizers (who process far more
flight claims thananybody else and have their own unique requirements)
could also specifytheir minimum requirements. (Or just list the security
level of the loggerused for each claim, for peer review).It could even be extended to other sports like hang
gliding andparagliding. They could use the same numbering system,
and supplyvolunteers to help with the work of the GFAC. This
could double thepotential market size for these devices.Manufacturers would design for a certain level of approval.
There would beno moving of the technical goal posts between time
of R&D and time offinal approval. Once approved a design would not loose
its approval.Most important the buyers would know what they are
getting. Clearly alevel 610 logger is better than a level 500 one. The
authors of PDAsoftware would know they have got a way to go to get
from level 200 to610.Finally if the IGC were faced with a proposal that
level 500 is no longersuitable for world records then hopefully all the delegates
voting on theissue would realize that the proposal effects existing
equipment as wellas new equipment.The development of loggers has resulted in new forms
of competition likethe OLC. This has motivated a major interest in cross
country flying atour club and I am sure at many other clubs around the
world. This has beena very positive development, which has only become
possible now that alarge number of pilots have access to loggers. It has
taken over 6 yearsfrom the development of the first loggers to reach
this point. I am justnot sure if the politics of the GFAC over that time
has aided or hinderedthe process.Ian