OLC flight error checking?

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...l?dsId=1875776

I wonder how this "flight" could have got through even the most basic
reasonableness check. I assume there is none.

Andy

Andy wrote:
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...l?dsId=1875776

I wonder how this "flight" could have got through even the most basic
reasonableness check. I assume there is none.

The OLC web site checks just the mathematical correctness of the G
record, but afaik it does not do any plausibility checks. That would
be quite error prone und unreliable, probably too annoying and not
worth it.

This flight however looks interesting. It was supposedly recorded
with a Colibri. He has another suspicious flight:

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...tId=1022483629

I wonder how the "pilot" managed to do this. Can this possibly be a
GPS reception problem or hardware/software bug, or did he fake the G
record on a made-up IGC file?

Faking G records should be reasonably easy to do. When vendors keep
their cryptographic specifications secret, it always smells a lot like
snake oil. My rough guess is that no certified IGC logger would
withstand a real cryptanalysis.

Max

On Jun 7, 6:14*am, Max Kellermann wrote:
Andy wrote:
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0....html?dsId=187....

I wonder how this "flight" could have got through even the most basic
reasonableness check. *I assume there is none.

The OLC web site checks just the mathematical correctness of the G
record, but afaik it does not do any plausibility checks. *That would
be quite error prone und unreliable, probably too annoying and not
worth it.

This flight however looks interesting. *It was supposedly recorded
with a Colibri. *He has another suspicious flight:

*http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0....html?flightId....

I wonder how the "pilot" managed to do this. *Can this possibly be a
GPS reception problem or hardware/software bug, or did he fake the G
record on a made-up IGC file?

Faking G records should be reasonably easy to do. *When vendors keep
their cryptographic specifications secret, it always smells a lot like
snake oil. *My rough guess is that no certified IGC logger would
withstand a real cryptanalysis.

Max

Max Please explain

He has another suspicious flight:

Michael

mpcehand wrote:
Max Please explain

He has another suspicious flight:

At timestamp 20:25:11, he has a ground speed of 362 kph. This one
looks very much like an unintended logger problem.

On Jun 7, 7:53*am, Max Kellermann wrote:
mpcehand wrote:
Max Please explain

*He has another suspicious flight:

At timestamp 20:25:11, he has a ground speed of 362 kph. *This one
looks very much like an unintended logger problem.

I am sure that the logger is the problem.. It is being sent to Remde
for a check up. Once the flight is downloaded I am not sure how to
change what is put on OLC
The pilot of that flight is an honest person. It seem sad to me that
someone would think that they are trying to cheat with out having all
the facts. Once that label has been suggested on this forum it takes
on a life of its own. The pilot that made the flight says that the
altitude trace is accurate but that the map view of the flight is not
and has contacted several people asking for help to fix this problem.
OLC included.
Respectfully,

Michael

On Jun 7, 7:09*am, mpcehand wrote:
On Jun 7, 7:53*am, Max Kellermann wrote:

mpcehand wrote:
Max Please explain

*He has another suspicious flight:

At timestamp 20:25:11, he has a ground speed of 362 kph. *This one
looks very much like an unintended logger problem.

I am sure that the logger is the problem.. It is being sent to Remde
for a check up. Once the flight is downloaded I am not sure how to
change what is put on OLC
The pilot of that flight is an honest person. *It seem sad to me that
someone would think that they are trying to cheat with out having all
the facts. Once that label has been suggested on this forum it takes
on a life of its own. The pilot that made the flight says that the
altitude trace is accurate but that the map view of the flight is not
and has contacted several people asking for help to fix this problem.
OLC included.
Respectfully,

Michael

was he in the area affected by lightsquared testing during these
flights?

mpcehand wrote:
It seem sad to me that someone would think that they are trying to
cheat with out having all the facts.

Playing thought police? (Note: I did not accuse the pilot of
anything)

On Jun 7, 12:04*am, Andy wrote:
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0....html?dsId=187....

I wonder how this "flight" could have got through even the most basic
reasonableness check. *I assume there is none.

Andy

The pilot that made the flight knows about the mistake. No one is
trying to fake anything. OLC has been contacted.
Not everyone is trying to be a cheat.
When the flight was downloaded fromthe FR that is the way it came out.

Michael

On Jun 7, 4:37*am, mpcehand wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:04*am, Andy wrote:

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0....html?dsId=187....

I wonder how this "flight" could have got through even the most basic
reasonableness check. *I assume there is none.

Andy

The pilot that made the flight knows about the mistake. *No *one is
trying to fake anything. *OLC has been contacted.
Not everyone is trying to be a cheat.
When the flight was downloaded fromthe FR that is the way it came out.

Michael

My OP was about OLC reasonableness checks. It was certainly not my
intention to suggest there was any falsification. I have known the
pilot for years. Although an experienced airplane pilot he has only
recently taken up soaring, I was interested in looking at his log as
it seemed like a long flight for someone with his experience level.

Andy

This very much looks like a heat related problem I have experienced
before with the EW Microrecorder.

Tony
TS1