Greg Arnold wrote:

If indeed OLC is not checking the IGC file, it would seem the
solution would be for OLC to check the CAI file, then at the OLC do
the conversion to the IGC file.


They appear to be creating their own IGC file, and selectively checking
parts of it against what the pilot submitted. They're trying to verify
security in a file that has absolutely no security in it. This season,
they started checking more records than before, and that's when the snafu
with SeeYou popped up, since SeeYou was using a different way of doing
the cai to igc conversion than they were. A rather strange way of
handling
the situation, if you ask me.

If that is what they really are doing, that is crazy. They create their
own IGC file from the CAI file, then check that against the IGC file
submitted by the pilot? Why not just use the IGC file they create?
Seems like they are complicating things just for the purpose of making
things more complicated.


True, it's hard to understand the logic in the bigger picture. But we've
had the same confusion in the US for many years. Flight claims for badges
and records with those models have always had the requirement that both
..igc and .cai files be submitted. If an NAC evaluator gets both files, the
only sensible thing to do is throw away the pseudo-igc file, validate the
..cai file, and create a new pseudo-igc file from the .cai file, using software
they trust. So why require both files be submitted? Makes no sense.

Neither Cambridge nor IGC were ever particularly candid in explaining
that the "igc" files from these models are quite bogus. That's got to
be a contributing factor in the ongoing confusion on the issue.

-Dave