Ian,OUTSTANDING!!!! Let's hope they listen. Later!-MarkAt 23:36 25 November 2003, Ian Forbes wrote:On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:00:36 +0000, CH wrote: And why Ian is it, that suddenly the Cambridge 25
Model should not be save enough anymore. Was the safety standard proposed
by the IGC not good enough - too lax?The politics of flight recorders seems to be as complicated
as some oftheir technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of
mistrust surroundingthe motivation of the decisions of the 'GNSS Flight
Recorder ApprovalCommittee' (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps
the technicalissues should be separated from the political ones.If the GFAC defined a series of 'levels of security'
for GNSS FlightRecorders. For example:Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS,
barometric hightLevel 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal
GPS, barometric hightLevel 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hightLevel 500: Internal GPS, barometric hightLevel 400: External GPS, barometric hightLevel 300: Commercial GPS with logging functionLevel 200: GPS + PDA + SoftwareMy numbering leaves lots of scope for slotting in new
categories inbetween. Perhaps a new level around 550 for a logger
with GPS only and nobarometric hight. The list is probably longer than
the GFAC would care toadminister but it illustrates the point. The next generation
of recorderswill do things we have not thought of yet, but after
they have beeninvented, they can classified into a new 700 category.The GFAC would have the job of defining the above levels,
testingrecorders and awarding approval at the appropriate
level.Then the various bodies that monitor performances in
the sport couldspecify what level of Flight Recorder is suitable for
each performance. EGthe IGC could determine requirements for world records
and badges atvarious levels. (Currently this would be minimum 610
for a world record ina m/g, minimum 500 for a 1000km diploma in a pure glider
and minimum 400for a gold badge).National bodies and competition organizers could specify
their minimumrequirements for national and regional competitions.The Online Contest organizers (who process far more
flight claims thananybody else and have their own unique requirements)
could also specifytheir minimum requirements. (Or just list the security
level of the loggerused for each claim, for peer review).It could even be extended to other sports like hang
gliding andparagliding. They could use the same numbering system,
and supplyvolunteers to help with the work of the GFAC. This
could double thepotential market size for these devices.Manufacturers would design for a certain level of approval.
There would beno moving of the technical goal posts between time
of R&D and time offinal approval. Once approved a design would not loose
its approval.Most important the buyers would know what they are
getting. Clearly alevel 610 logger is better than a level 500 one. The
authors of PDAsoftware would know they have got a way to go to get
from level 200 to610.Finally if the IGC were faced with a proposal that
level 500 is no longersuitable for world records then hopefully all the delegates
voting on theissue would realize that the proposal effects existing
equipment as wellas new equipment.The development of loggers has resulted in new forms
of competition likethe OLC. This has motivated a major interest in cross
country flying atour club and I am sure at many other clubs around the
world. This has beena very positive development, which has only become
possible now that alarge number of pilots have access to loggers. It has
taken over 6 yearsfrom the development of the first loggers to reach
this point. I am justnot sure if the politics of the GFAC over that time
has aided or hinderedthe process.Ian