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.