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

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 of
their technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of mistrust surrounding
the motivation of the decisions of the "GNSS Flight Recorder Approval
Committee" (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps the technical
issues should be separated from the political ones.

If the GFAC defined a series of "levels of security" for GNSS Flight
Recorders. For example:

Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 500: Internal GPS, barometric hight

Level 400: External GPS, barometric hight

Level 300: Commercial GPS with logging function

Level 200: GPS + PDA + Software

My numbering leaves lots of scope for slotting in new categories in
between. Perhaps a new level around 550 for a logger with GPS only and no
barometric hight. The list is probably longer than the GFAC would care to
administer but it illustrates the point. The next generation of recorders
will do things we have not thought of yet, but after they have been
invented, they can classified into a new 700 category.

The GFAC would have the job of defining the above levels, testing
recorders and awarding approval at the appropriate level.

Then the various bodies that monitor performances in the sport could
specify what level of Flight Recorder is suitable for each performance. EG
the IGC could determine requirements for world records and badges at
various levels. (Currently this would be minimum 610 for a world record in
a m/g, minimum 500 for a 1000km diploma in a pure glider and minimum 400
for a gold badge).

National bodies and competition organizers could specify their minimum
requirements for national and regional competitions.

The Online Contest organizers (who process far more flight claims than
anybody else and have their own unique requirements) could also specify
their minimum requirements. (Or just list the security level of the logger
used for each claim, for peer review).

It could even be extended to other sports like hang gliding and
paragliding. They could use the same numbering system, and supply
volunteers to help with the work of the GFAC. This could double the
potential market size for these devices.

Manufacturers would design for a certain level of approval. There would be
no moving of the technical goal posts between time of R&D and time of
final approval. Once approved a design would not loose its approval.

Most important the buyers would know what they are getting. Clearly a
level 610 logger is better than a level 500 one. The authors of PDA
software would know they have got a way to go to get from level 200 to
610.

Finally if the IGC were faced with a proposal that level 500 is no longer
suitable for world records then hopefully all the delegates voting on the
issue would realize that the proposal effects existing equipment as well
as new equipment.

The development of loggers has resulted in new forms of competition like
the OLC. This has motivated a major interest in cross country flying at
our club and I am sure at many other clubs around the world. This has been
a very positive development, which has only become possible now that a
large number of pilots have access to loggers. It has taken over 6 years
from the development of the first loggers to reach this point. I am just
not sure if the politics of the GFAC over that time has aided or hindered
the process.


Ian