CAI Model 20 to OLC?

Steve- Buy a Nano and stick it in your shirt pocket. Works with every antique you climb into. OLC gave up trying to cater to the Legacy Cambridge loggers years ago. For the same reason we changed from the telegraph and smoke signals.

If you still get the OLC "points", who cares about the big red V?

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 10:59:52 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes. :-) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a valid score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a couple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but still a big red V.

I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it is making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe they would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use Skylines" comments.

Suggestions welcome.

Steve Leonard

If flying 30 plus year old gliders is no big deal then why the sarcasm over 20 year old instruments? Also it seems especially when it comes to badges that we have tighter security the our state department. Why can't any IGC file be OK....are we really afraid that people will cheat the system? I guess with all that prize money people will do anything.

Accept all IGC files and let pilots be on their honor.

Dennis

DC

At 14:09 12 July 2017, wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 10:59:52 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Yeah, I know I should "buy a new logger". But, I fly old sailplanes.
:-=
) Anyone had success uploading a file from a Model 20 and getting a
valid
=
score? I am 0 for 3. The first two, I wrote off to too few satellites a
c=
ouple of times during the flight. Didn't have that issue today, but
still
=
a big red V.
=20
I am using the same conversion program I used last year, and it says it
i=
s making a valid file. It worked fine last year, but doesn't now. Maybe
t=
hey would like me better if I gave them money? And, please, no "Use
Skylin=
es" comments.
=20
Suggestions welcome.
=20
Steve Leonard

If flying 30 plus year old gliders is no big deal then why the sarcasm
over=
20 year old instruments? Also it seems especially when it comes to
badges
=
that we have tighter security the our state department. Why can't any IGC
f=
ile be OK....are we really afraid that people will cheat the system? I
gues=
s with all that prize money people will do anything.=20

Accept all IGC files and let pilots be on their honor.

Dennis

The Cambridge M10 (from which came the M20) was only secure in the .CAI
file, the .IGC file was not secure, something Dave Ellis promised to fix,
but never did. The M10 was the first, later recorders all had secure .IGC
files.

We Learn.

But to assume that all pilots are honourable has been proved to be wrong,
and we only know about the people who have been caught.

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

The Cambridge M10 (from which came the M20) was only secure in the .CAI
file, the .IGC file was not secure, something Dave Ellis promised to fix,
but never did. The M10 was the first, later recorders all had secure .IGC
files.

We Learn.

But to assume that all pilots are honourable has been proved to be wrong,
and we only know about the people who have been caught.

Didn't get to fly Sunday, and haven't gotten to checking your suggestion yet, Tim. As I recall, and I am sure you can correct me if I am wrong, the CAI Model 10/20/25 were all secure in .cai, but the creation of the .igc was not. However, they were done BEFORE the standard had been established. Dave Ellis said he would remedy the situation, but moved on the to 302, where he did remedy the situation regarding the .igc format, but did not go back and "fix" the issue for the 10/20/25. Sort of like why Schempp-Hirth didn't go back and do a gross weight increase on the N3 when they had the N4 out. Why go back and improve something you aren't making any longer? Support it, yes. But make it better?

To my eye, this whole thing came about as those running the OLC set out to "punish" CAI for not doing as they said they would and making a secure conversion for files from the 10/20/25. Work-arounds were developed and used, and then it came down to a different workaround and a FEE to be paid to OLC.. As I recall, ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.

And my question was and still is, "Has anyone recently been able to upload and get a valid flight using a CAI 10/20/25 logger and the ClearNav provided conversion program?" Trying to figure out if it is a problem on my end, or on OLC end. If it is on their end, I think I am done. If it is on my end, I need to figure out what I am doing wrong or what is wrong with the loggers I am using (3 flights, two different loggers used).

As far as "trust", they accept files from an app on a phone as valid, but not from a logger that is still acceptable for getting badges and records up to some level in the USA. And as Dennis said, "We ain't getting no girls, prize money or anything like that from OLC points." I upload to push myself and others in USA Region 10.

Maybe I can check things later, but there are hotter things I am dealing with right now.

Thanks,

Steve

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:17:47 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:

Maybe I can check things later, but there are hotter things I am dealing with right now.

Thanks,

Steve

Dealing with the fame and fortune of OLC participation?
The paparazzi?
And anyone with that many aircraft must be dodging hordes of women!

Foolish: The rules like only having 48 hours to submit, replace or even add comments, and if the logger is not gold standard you don't get OLC League credit.
Counterproductive: No smiley next to our names (and others) any more.
Jim

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-5, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

The Cambridge M10 (from which came the M20) was only secure in the .CAI
file, the .IGC file was not secure, something Dave Ellis promised to fix,
but never did. The M10 was the first, later recorders all had secure .IGC
files.

We Learn.

But to assume that all pilots are honourable has been proved to be wrong,
and we only know about the people who have been caught.

Didn't get to fly Sunday, and haven't gotten to checking your suggestion yet, Tim. As I recall, and I am sure you can correct me if I am wrong, the CAI Model 10/20/25 were all secure in .cai, but the creation of the .igc was not. However, they were done BEFORE the standard had been established. Dave Ellis said he would remedy the situation, but moved on the to 302, where he did remedy the situation regarding the .igc format, but did not go back and "fix" the issue for the 10/20/25. Sort of like why Schempp-Hirth didn't go back and do a gross weight increase on the N3 when they had the N4 out. Why go back and improve something you aren't making any longer? Support it, yes. But make it better?

To my eye, this whole thing came about as those running the OLC set out to "punish" CAI for not doing as they said they would and making a secure conversion for files from the 10/20/25. Work-arounds were developed and used, and then it came down to a different workaround and a FEE to be paid to OLC. As I recall, ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.

And my question was and still is, "Has anyone recently been able to upload and get a valid flight using a CAI 10/20/25 logger and the ClearNav provided conversion program?" Trying to figure out if it is a problem on my end, or on OLC end. If it is on their end, I think I am done. If it is on my end, I need to figure out what I am doing wrong or what is wrong with the loggers I am using (3 flights, two different loggers used).

As far as "trust", they accept files from an app on a phone as valid, but not from a logger that is still acceptable for getting badges and records up to some level in the USA. And as Dennis said, "We ain't getting no girls, prize money or anything like that from OLC points." I upload to push myself and others in USA Region 10.

Maybe I can check things later, but there are hotter things I am dealing with right now.

Thanks,

Steve

Steve after first reading your post I posted my last flight using the Model 20 and the cai conversion program successfully. I normally upload the IGC file from my Oudie unless i want to use it for a badge. Then I would need to use the cai converted file. And yes ...lets make this as easy and cheap to users as possible... if someone cheats well they have to live with it.

Dennis

DC

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:42:00 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Steve after first reading your post I posted my last flight using the Model 20 and the cai conversion program successfully. I normally upload the IGC file from my Oudie unless i want to use it for a badge. Then I would need to use the cai converted file. And yes ...lets make this as easy and cheap to users as possible... if someone cheats well they have to live with it.

Dennis

DC

Thank you, Dennis. Sounds like the problem is somewhere on my end. Going to have to dig in and find it.

As far as "cheating" on OLC goes, remember the guy who was submitting logs made via Condor? Those were "OK", but Cambridge files are no good. :-)

Steve Leonard

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:


ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.

You're welcome...

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 12:07:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:


ClearNav stepped up and developed a final workaround, and paid the FEE to OLC so the legacy loggers could continue to be used.

You're welcome...

And since I didn't actually say it then, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Now, I need to give you a bunch of business replacing batteries in my old Model 20s and 25s. Hopefully help you recover some of that cost.

Steve Leonard