I'm not saying that COTS equates to self certifying,
I was trying (badly) to make the point that you have
more reason to believe something when a higher standard
of proof is required. And that anything where there
could be a perception of lowering the bar for cheaters
should be approached with extreme care....

If I want to learn how to interface with some garmin
gps from my pc, I can google for the specification
of the garmin interace and slap together some C code
to upload a trace or otherwise fiddle with my logger
unit. As for procedures, the potential problem is
that, with a COTS logger (say for example an iPaq with
winpilot or some other hypothetical approved software),
who is to say the person flying hasn't downloaded to
their iPaq a little utility (no doubt disguised as
a calculator ;-) ) to emulate the serial port and
feed in a rubbish NMEA feed? The OO would need to have
seen the iPaq being hard resest and all new software
installed to be able to guarentee no additional software
is installed... Not an easy task.

These are things it's far harder to do with volkslogger
and other specially designed loggers because they were
not designed to allow easy access (although I realise
an EW takes an NMEA feed, but even there, pressure
altitude is hard to fake, without a pressure chamber).


This is not a case of 'innocent until proven guilty',
it's about requiring a standard of proof high enough
to keep insurance types satisfied and not lowering
any bars. Fail to keep them happy with your qualifications,
your premiums go up... not good.

And as for OO's being complicit with a cheater, that
could happen anyway, whether or not we have COTS units,
who's to say your driving examiner wasn't bribed? Insurance
companies have to accept a small potential rate of
false declarations by people, otherwise they would
never manage to insure anyone (no insurance = no money
for them), all their risks are factored into the premiums.
There will always be some degree of cheating, that's
just human nature, all we can do is throw as many roadblocks
at them as we can.

Anything we can do to make soaring cheaper is good,
but if we are not careful we just drive up costs in
other areas....


J

At 13:48 09 June 2004, Papa3 wrote:
Jamie,

Prove your statement? Assume, for a moment, that a
document exists which
gives specific (simple) pre/post flight requirements
to the OO for dealing
with a couple of approved COTS units (same as we have
today for photographic
and barogroph validation). For instance:

1. Validate that track logs are cleared prior to flight.
This is done
by... Or, identify existing track logs prior to
flight. This is done
by...

2. Observe dowload of track log post flight. This
is done by...






I have it on pretty good authority from folks that
have actually spent a lot
of time working with COTS units that this perceived
decrease in security is
a complete, total farce. Since I'm in the US, I'll
use the standard of
innocent until proven guilty - in other words, COTS
is no less secure if OO
procedures are followed.

I think this idea that we're going from some iron-clad
proof of validity to
basically self-certifying is a joke.
How did your insurance companies know
that the OO was not in complicity with a pilot when,
for example, certifying
that the barograph was sealed or a fresh roll of film
was inserted under
his/her observation. Etc.




'Jamie Denton' wrote in
message ...


If we allow COTS units, we lower the standard of proof
neccesary for badges, we devalue the Silver badge
etc
in the eyes of the insurance companies...