If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Russell wrote:
Eric, you make a very good point. What if security were not an issue? What would your position be if our hypothetical flight recorder had been downgraded because the manufacturer decided to retire? If there is no reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for signs of tampering, and can not answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms, and maintain the security keys, I think it ought to be prohibited from world record use. IGC should also determine if it is still suitable for international competition. I'd leave it up to national bodies about it's acceptance for their purposes, which IGC can't control in any case. -- ----- Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What if security were not an issue?
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Russell wrote:
What if security were not an issue? I beginning to think I don't understand the question. Hypothetically, the manufacturer retires, yet everyone, including GFAC, IGC, all the other manufacturers, and the users, agree that the unit still meets these requirements: -there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for signs of tampering -it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms -it can maintain the security keys And yet, the unit is prohibited from world record use? Is this the question? -- ----- Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
X-no-archive: yes
In article , Eric Greenwell writes Pat Russell wrote: What if security were not an issue? I beginning to think I don't understand the question. Hypothetically, the manufacturer retires, yet everyone, including GFAC, IGC, all the other manufacturers, and the users, agree that the unit still meets these requirements: -there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for signs of tampering -it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms -it can maintain the security keys And yet, the unit is prohibited from world record use? Is this the question? GFAC are reviewing this. The alternative is for owners to be aware that there is no manufacturer support for certain units and if there is any question regarding a world record claim that the manufacturer might be able to resolve, the claim is likely to fail. Caveat Emptor. In today's market there are only two manufacturers that are in this category, and their recorders are listed to be degraded for other reasons, so this does not effect any current recorders. Tim Newport-Peace "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility." |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for hanging in there, Eric. I mean no disrespect when I insist on the question. I do have a point. Taking your requirements one at a time: -there is a reliable agent that can inspect the flight recorder for signs of tampering This is a question of physical security. The person responsible is the official observer. This has always been true. -it can answer critics with questions about the security of algorithms Electronic security is not perfect. It can be "strong" or "weak" just like physical security. If the world believes that the electronic security designed into the flight recorder is strong enough to do the job, then there will be no critics. If the world believes that new techniques have rendered the flight recorder vulnerable, then it is GFAC's responsibility to issue a disapproval. The manufacturer need not exist. -it can maintain the security keys You may have to clarify this one. I don't think security algorithms need maintenance. So yes, this is the question (verbose version): In the absence of any security challenge, criticism, disapproval notice, or special procedure required of the manufacturer, would the manufacturer's retirement be reason enough to cause the automatic downgrading of a flight recorder from usable for world records to unusable for world records? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Danewid wrote:
... Are you aware of that in most European countries you also have to buy a transponder Mode S in the near future???? ... The transponder problem is completeley different. In Europe, at least in France (and probably also in Germany), most gliders are owned by clubs, as well as loggers and future transponders. In my club, for 20 gliders we have 5 loggers and this is sufficient, as they are stricltly needed only for badges and not every pilot fly a badge every day. However if the regulation about transponders become effective we are going to be forced to buy 20 transponders. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force Print News for April 30, 2004 | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | May 1st 04 10:20 PM |
Mil Acft Comms Log, Florida - Friday 30 April 2004 | AllanStern | Military Aviation | 0 | May 1st 04 07:12 AM |
Air Force Print News for April 23, 2004 | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | April 24th 04 10:11 PM |
Air Force Print News for April 19, 2004 | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 12:22 AM |
FS 2004 'Shimmer' Effect of Ground Scenery | Mr Zee | Simulators | 3 | August 24th 03 04:40 PM |