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

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

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

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

What if security were not an issue?

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

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."

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?

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.

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