Date of effect now 1 April 2004 for revised IGC-approval for certain legacy types of GNSS flight recorder

Ian, it's a nice story, and I am also glad that the pilot in the
story got credit for his performance.

However, the story does not support the new requirement for
manufacturers to stay in business. In fact, you describe how
the manufacturer hindered the process of homologation, leading
the reader to believe that the world record would have been
approved more quickly if the manufacturer had been unavailable.

Here is my understanding of how homologation is structured:

1. The pilot is free to provide any evidence at all to support
his claim.

2. The homologating body evaluates the claim, perhaps
requesting further information from any source, and then makes a
judgement.

Please tell me if I've got it wrong.

Both the pilot and the homologating body are free to consult
with anybody, including the manufacturer, former employees,
other experts, GFAC, the next-door-neighbor, anybody.

Signed statements by any of these people will be evaluated by
the homologating body in the processing of the claim.

The availability of any particular person to give assistance or
to make a statement is completely unpredictable, completely
irrelevant, and should not be part of the regulations regarding
approval of Flight Recorders.

-Pat