In article ,
says...
Eric Greenwell wrote:

Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

Clearly, my post addressed the sealing only, and not the overall system.
I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth, since I am in favor
of the COTS idea, as I have stated before.


It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

I think this could be true, using the proper GPS and procedures. The
challenge, I think, is to choose GPS(s) that pilots want to use AND
allow simple procedures, so the OO is not burdened excessively.

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

I'm assuming you mean "badge flights". Correct?


(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

As another poster mentioned, World records require a secure recorder. I
don't know what is required in World comps, but I see no reason to not
to require secure recorders. The usual argument for COTS is to encourage
participation in badges by newer pilots, which certainly doesn't include
World comp capable pilots. I think sticking to the "early pilot" group
will make it easier to get COTS accepted, and attempting to extend to
World comps and records will make acceptance much less likely.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA