Badges ? ... We don't need no stinkin' badges

Andrew Warbrick

Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
should reject the claim.


Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?

"The following fixes are not recorded as being relative to the WGS84
geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes are not used
to validate the flight.

22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04 11:24:02 UTC inclusive.

EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc' is VALID."

At 08:36 20 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:
Andrew Warbrick

Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
should reject the claim.


Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?

'The following fixes are not recorded as being relative
to the WGS84
geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes
are not used
to validate the flight.

22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04
11:24:02 UTC inclusive.

EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc'
is VALID.'

That's interesting, it would appear I was wrong. Are
you saying that file was generated with a 'mouse GPS'
and contains more than 22 fixes?

I was under the impression the datum record would only
be generated by Garmin's proprietary PGRMM sentence.
My 'mouse GPS', based on the SiRF chipset definitely
can't output this sentence.

I'm afraid I can't do any testing, as I haven't owned
an EW for nearly four years now. If you've got sample
files, feel free to send me a copy (I do have some
old files generated with an IGC upgraded EW model B
and a GPS from the approved list).

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
At 08:36 20 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:

Andrew Warbrick

Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
should reject the claim.


Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?

'The following fixes are not recorded as being relative
to the WGS84
geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes
are not used
to validate the flight.

22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04
11:24:02 UTC inclusive.

EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc'
is VALID.'


That's interesting, it would appear I was wrong. Are
you saying that file was generated with a 'mouse GPS'
and contains more than 22 fixes?

I was under the impression the datum record would only
be generated by Garmin's proprietary PGRMM sentence.
My 'mouse GPS', based on the SiRF chipset definitely
can't output this sentence.

I'm afraid I can't do any testing, as I haven't owned
an EW for nearly four years now. If you've got sample
files, feel free to send me a copy (I do have some
old files generated with an IGC upgraded EW model B
and a GPS from the approved list).

I checked the official specification and you are partly right. GPS
shall send the datum change but if there was no change (or GPS boot up)
while the EW is connected you won't have datum info. In this case the OO
is responsible to ensure that the GPS sends (is set to do) WGS84 based data.
The specification says also something about the previous vali
revision. So probably you referred to a previous version.
It's not important, it's just something to show that we are almost at
the COTS security level


/jancsika

Jancsika wrote:
I checked the official specification and you are partly right. GPS
shall send the datum change but if there was no change (or GPS boot up)
while the EW is connected you won't have datum info. In this case the OO
is responsible to ensure that the GPS sends (is set to do) WGS84 based
data.
The specification says also something about the previous vali revision.
So probably you referred to a previous version.
It's not important, it's just something to show that we are almost at
the COTS security level

The approval document makes it quite clear in Annex B1.1 that "only
listed GPS units which conform to the criteria given under 'hardware' at
the beginning of this document are permitted for IGC flight evidence"
and that it is the official observer's responsibility to "make a record
of the type and serial number of the GPS unit." So, independent of
whether it is detectable using the IGC file alone, an official observer
would have to falsely state the type of GPS unit used on the badge
application form for a claim using a GPS unit other than those listed.
If one can't trust OOs to follow the stated requirements, or make
truthful statements about EW equipment, there will be far more room for
OO mischief with COTS-based evidence.

No one questions that the EW units provide a lesser level of security
than other approved flight recorders. That is why they are only
approved for badges up to Diamonds. They nonetheless provide some
features that COTS units will not. In particular, they record pressure
altitude, and generate a digital signature that provides some nominal
assurance that the IGC file has not been tampered with after download.

Once again, I'll state that I support use of COTS evidence for badges.
But, any successful proposal is going to have to find a way to address
the concerns of the IGC delegates concerning the pressure altitude and
the validity of the evidence. If one argues that it is silly to be
concerned about these things for badges, then I (and others) will ask:
why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed statement that a badge
flight was completed as stated, and require no further evidence?

Marc

At 18:06 20 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
If one argues that it is silly to be
concerned about these things for badges, then I (and
others) will ask:
why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed statement
that a badge
flight was completed as stated, and require no further
evidence?

Marc


Probably mostly because thirty years ago some git was
faking world records and generated bad publicity for
gliding when he was found out.

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
At 18:06 20 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:

If one argues that it is silly to be
concerned about these things for badges, then I (and
others) will ask:
why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed statement
that a badge
flight was completed as stated, and require no further
evidence?

Marc



Probably mostly because thirty years ago some git was
faking world records and generated bad publicity for
gliding when he was found out.

Taking it just on the pilot's word wasn't allowed before those
incidents, so I don't think that's it. In any case, Marc was referring
to badges, not world records.

Like Marc, I like the idea of COTS for badges, at least up to Diamond,
at which point I think the pilot is hooked and will buy an IGC recorder
without quibble. I'm not familiar with all the COTS proposals, but the
ones I've seen seem little more than taking the pilot's word for it. I
hope this situation will change, so it's cheaper to use GPS
documentation for the easier badges.

In the ideal world, the badge claim submission would be much like the
OLC, except the official observer would also submit some information,
and one minute later "Ta-Da!", a new badge is issued. OK, make it a day
or two, it'd still be more satisfying than the longer process now required.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Andrew Warbrick wrote:

At 18:06 20 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:

If one argues that it is silly to be concerned about these things for
badges, then I (and
others) will ask: why don't we simply accept the pilot's signed
statement
that a badge flight was completed as stated, and require no further
evidence?

Marc

Just because if we follow the COTS proposal more pilots will learn how
to use the whole system. How to declare a task, how to record the glider
path, how to analyze these logs etc-etc. The main issue: as side effect
they will learn how easy to fly a task with GPS support!
The badge system should motivate pilots to do something more. The
whole soaring community could benefit if more people could discover XC
and other special (wave) soaring adventures. Next step could be a
contest or a new world record with "real" loggers
IGC is about to coordinate soaring on the whole world and not only the
part where IGC approved loggers are easy to reach...

Eric:

here is the COTS proposal:
http://bauerj.fw.hu/vitorla/COTS/PRO...PROVE_COTS.htm
I don't know if this is the latest version but at least it gives you
some more details.

/jancsika