Badges ? ... We don't need no stinkin' badges

Andrew Warbrick wrote:
At 08:36 20 September 2005, Jancsika wrote:

Andrew Warbrick

Here we go again. Vali-ewa.exe only checks the hash
of the file against the G line, if there are no datum
records in the file your OO or the NAC's badge secretary
should reject the claim.


Hmm, and why does it print this info same cases?

'The following fixes are not recorded as being relative
to the WGS84
geodetic datum. Care should be taken that these fixes
are not used
to validate the flight.

22 fixes from 05-04-04 11:22:59 UTC to 05-04-04
11:24:02 UTC inclusive.

EW Flight Recorder security checks indicate file '544E7AM3.igc'
is VALID.'


That's interesting, it would appear I was wrong. Are
you saying that file was generated with a 'mouse GPS'
and contains more than 22 fixes?

I was under the impression the datum record would only
be generated by Garmin's proprietary PGRMM sentence.
My 'mouse GPS', based on the SiRF chipset definitely
can't output this sentence.

I'm afraid I can't do any testing, as I haven't owned
an EW for nearly four years now. If you've got sample
files, feel free to send me a copy (I do have some
old files generated with an IGC upgraded EW model B
and a GPS from the approved list).

I checked the official specification and you are partly right. GPS
shall send the datum change but if there was no change (or GPS boot up)
while the EW is connected you won't have datum info. In this case the OO
is responsible to ensure that the GPS sends (is set to do) WGS84 based data.
The specification says also something about the previous vali
revision. So probably you referred to a previous version.
It's not important, it's just something to show that we are almost at
the COTS security level


/jancsika