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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
AS a one time OO, I had understood that the pilot was never to be allowed
to retain the sealed barograph before or after the flight; if a sealed barograph is left with a clever manipulator, he does not have to unseal it; just put it in a vacuum chamber with an altimeter and pump it down in a convincing manner for an altitude gain. You have a "real " trace but a phoney flight. I could do that. John Firth Chris Nicholas ) writes: Bill Dean wrote: [snip] "In other words the trace had been drawn freehand and not by the barograph. I don't know how he got round the official observer." I was one of the BGA Executive Committee which disallowed the claim, on advice, and decided (or ratified the decision) to disallow the previous UK record too. I choose my words carefully in case of litigation. For the second flight (claimed world record), we were told that the barograph had originally been prepared the previous day. It was a Winter barograph, using a smoked foil, and had a special modification to allow it to go much higher than the normal 12km limit of the factory unit. The pilot drew the OO's attention to the use of the modified pivot appropriate to the intended height. The instrument was then sealed (using gummed paper tape) and signed by the OO across the join in the tape. On the record attempt day, the pilot claimed it had not been used since sealing on the previous day, and showed it briefly to the same OO before the flight, "still" sealed. It was reported that the OO could see no trace on that part of the drum (about half) visible through the transparent part of the cover. After the flight, another OO (who I have since met personally and discussed this) was doubtful that it was a valid claim. The pilot nevertheless submitted the claim. A trail of detailed investigation was started which exposed the process deficiencies that could have allowed access to open the barograph, put a trace on it, and then reseal it. Forensic examinations led to the conclusion that the submitted trace was fraudulent. The pilot asked to address the BGA Executive Committee in person when he was told that the claim would be disallowed. He then claimed that somebody had switched the trace at some time between him doing the flight and posting the evidence to the BGA. He said that the one received by the BGA was superficially similar to the genuine trace which he claimed had been created on the barograph, and he had not realised that it had been switched by some other person before he posted it. The evidence for the first, UK record flight, had by then been disposed of, so it could not be subjected to the same forensic testing - and of course it had not been looked at so carefully when originally submitted and allowed. There had been no doubts expressed in a way which reached the BGA at the time, though there were some which surfaced after the second incident. Those familiar with the technology of that time will recall that the ideal process was for an OO to check that the foil was blank before the flight on the day, then seal it. When retrieved from the glider after the flight, by the same or another OO, it should be checked as being still sealed, before being opened, verified as having been carried by that pilot on that flight in that glider, and signed again - i.e. continuity/integrity of the history of the trace was preserved and verified. An important element of security with that process is to allow no opportunity to steam open the sealing tape and enable a false trace to be created or substituted, after which the tape could be stuck back with the join carefully reproduced. Some contemporaries allegedly reported that one or more of the ideal steps had not been followed. The rest is history. The BGA also changed its procedures - physical record flight evidence (film/barograph trace) was ruled as having to be kept indefinitely, not returned to the pilot or otherwise disposed of. I am no expert in these things, but I believe that those events have informed the subsequent emphasis on the need for security of logger traces etc., in both BGA and IGC. I imagine that such emphasis will continue, in spite of the claims by some subscribers on other threads that it goes too far. Chris N. -- John Firth What is the meaning of life? Life is trial by computer |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Batoulson wrote [snip] Anyone filing a fraudulent
claim is only kidding himself, the rest of the world should not care!! ---------------------- Barney, some of the rest of the world cared because if the records had been allowed to stand, it was considered that they put them beyond the reach of anyone else to break by legitimate means. Chris N. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing | zxcv | Military Aviation | 55 | April 4th 04 07:05 AM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc) | Peter Stickney | Military Aviation | 45 | February 11th 04 04:46 AM |
Ta-152H at low altitudes | N-6 | Military Aviation | 16 | October 13th 03 03:52 AM |
Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) | Marry Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 18 | July 30th 03 08:52 PM |