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

John, you are completely right. But i do not htink that that is the real
issue.

I ask myself, why this increase in security? What is the reason? How
many cases of cheating or falsifying document has been revealed?

Why increase the security level just because things has deloped over the
years? Suppose that what was decided in 1994 was "overkill" and still is
good enough?

What really is annoying is that our own world organization is now using
the same arguments as our CAA:s and airspace authorities are using when
increasing controlled airspace and making transponders etc mandatory.

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of bad
thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.

Robert


John Galloway wrote:
At 20:36 26 November 2003, Pat Russell wrote:

What if: a pilot who already holds a world record
uses the same
flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record.
He
submits his claim, gets a new national record, but
is not
allowed to claim a new world record because the flight
recorder
was downgraded in the meantime.

This is not a matter of 'interpretation,' nor has it
ever
existed before. It is merely bizarre.


Pat,

I don't see that as bizarre at all. In any sport equipment
approvals can be changed so that what was OK last year
is not this year. It would be truly bizarre if this
could not be the case.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone in the position
to be going for a world record would be unable to fix
him or herself up with an approved logger for the flight
one way or another.

John Galloway

Robert Danewid wrote:
This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of bad
thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.

Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it must
be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean, that's
exactly how I feel about the present administration in Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc

That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert



Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Danewid wrote:

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of bad
thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.


Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it must
be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean, that's
exactly how I feel about the present administration in Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc

And may I add, I am not sure the elected leaders do not agree with me.
After all what happened in 1995 - 97, and how this topic was presented
in Prague, I am convinced that GFAC is living its own life and, although
putting in a massive work to keep gliding free from potential GPS
hackers, I am not sure it is good for the gliding movement.

Robert

Robert Danewid wrote:
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Danewid wrote:

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.

Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc

That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert

No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?

Marc

I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
punished and their names published?

Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
class. I have not changed my mind.

Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
accept it.

No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

Robert

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Danewid wrote:

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Robert Danewid wrote:

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.


Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc



That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert


No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?

Marc

Robert,

Robert Danewid wrote:
I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Are you suggesting that the security levels specified in 1994/95 were
adequate for our purposes, and any subsequent changes should be rescinded?

Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
punished and their names published?

There is no evidence of actual cheating. The security systems of one of
the flight recorders approved under the 1995 specification was broken a
few years ago as an academic exercise. There is much evidence
suggesting that the security of other flight recorders approved under
the 1995 specifications could be even more easily broken.

Do you suggest waiting until there is a proven instance of cheating
before taking any action? Or, do you assume that any such cheating can
always be detected through other means (how?), therefore no changes are
necessary?

Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

As a member of GFAC, I can assure you that we all are aware that there
is no such thing as a cheat safe system.

Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
class. I have not changed my mind.

You'll have to tell me what you tink the "1994 level of security" was,
before I can express an opinion. I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
accept it.

No, you make your argument, and if enough people agree, the IGC and/or
GFAC will change direction as appropriate.

No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

I think I can safely say that Ian and I are rarely on the same side of
discussions within GFAC. I think I've stated enough of my opinions on
r.a.s. in the past for anyone paying attention to realize that I, too,
think we could make some changes that would result in simpler, cheaper
flight recorders. But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

I believe that IGC shall operate under complete influence of the larger
soaring community,
not only some influence. Marc, you are about to prove everything always
suspected about GFAC!

The compromise you are talking about was an official Swedish proposal to
the IGC meeting in 1997, which was deemed so severe that there had to be
a special pre-meeting in order to persuade me to think twice, which I
fortunately did not.


I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

And I am a highly trained engineer in Structural Engineering. Although I
am an engineer, the worst thing I know is to let engineers solve all
problems. Because as an engineer, and I am one, you are trained to find
a "hardware" solution to all problems, even if it is a "software"
problem. And this often means a solution which is much to technical and
complicated. There is a German saying "Warum einfach machen wenn man es
so schön komplizieren kann". I think GFAC is using this as their motto.


But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.


So GFAC is making rules/policies of their own? And what do GFAC think is
in the interest of pilots and manufacturers? Has that policy ever been
approved by the IGC? I thought GFAC was a committee whose work was
regulated by Terms-of Reference.

Now I rest my case.

Robert


Marc