OLC participation and "red marks"

The cambridge logs that are not passing the OLC security check all have
a line at the top of the L record section of the file like

LCAMN CAI Utility DLL Vers: 1, 0, 1, 4

or

LCAMN CAI SeeYou conversion

The ones that pass straight away have the line

LCAMNCONV-CAM Version 2.0.2 IGC File Creation

SeeYou currently, and last years version, put an L record like the first
one in the .igc file. The old DOS utility puts the L record in there
that the OLC likes.

It looks like the OLC security check for 2006 expanded the portion of
the .igc file they are comparing to the binary .cai file (actually to
the binary file reconverted to an .igc file on the server using the
CONV-CAM utility) and are now kicking out files submitted with the wrong
L record describing how the .igc file was generated from the .cai file.
They appear to have been manually accepting files they notice have been
incorrectly kicked.

An easy fix until the OLC automated processing is corrected, that I
haven't tried yet, would be to use SeeYou to generate your .igc file
which will append the .cai binary file on the end, then go in with a
text editor and replace the

LCAMN CAI Utility DLL Vers: 1, 0, 1, 4

line with

LCAMNCONV-CAM Version 2.0.2 IGC File Creation

I'm sure someone could script this making it much simpler, but its still
easier than using the DOS command line.

Its genrally a no-no to edit your .igc file, but I think this will work.
Any other tampering with the .igc file will probably cause the file not
to pass the security check.

Ron's flight also appears to have the wrong end of flight time which
made the optimizer not work correctly. That can usually be edited
through the OLC web interface.

-Dave Leonard

Papa3 wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:

Stewart Kissel wrote:

Link to thread with one pilots directions for submitting
with the older Cambridge loggers....if you poke around
the OLC site, they have their version of these directions
as well.

http://www.abqsoaring.org/viewThread.php?threadID=68

Good directions, but I think he is wrong that you have to change the
file name if you need to do the process a second time. It is true that
OLC wants to use the old uploaded file the second time, but you can
force it to use the new file by clicking on the button that allows you
to upload a new file.

I don't presently have a flight on OLC that I can open, so I can't say
just how you do this, but I have done it several times without any problem.


To Greg's point, the failure rate is still unacceptably high, even when
following the directions. I know - I've tried to help out several
people in my club with Cambridge loggers, and the success rate is only
about 50%. The folks in my club (currently in first place in the US
right now, I might add) , have actually begun to revolt. They've
basically decided that the OLC is "unstable" and are not willing to
invest more computer time trying to get scored. Though that might not
be a fair statement, it is an understandable perception. Given that,
we can expect participation to drop off.

Whether or not we want to blame Cambridge, the OLC, SeeYou, or anyone
else, the problem with the validation of G Records for Cambridge
loggers is a real issue that isn't going away right now. I think we
ought to reconsider whether this Validation is worth the price (ie.
turning off prospective participants). My suggestion is that we ask
OLC to disable Validation until someone comes up with a script that
successfully handles all of the steps required to create an acceptable
output from a Cambridge Logger using a user-friendly interface.
Asking the average glider pilot to manipulate files using a DOS command
prompt is a recipe for failure (or at least good for a laugh or two).


Erik Mann (P3)

p.s. If anyone want an example of the situation, take a look at the
file from Ron Schwartz on 3/27 in the US. The source .CAI file
passes Vali-Cam just fine. Ran CAI2IGC just fine. Output .IGC file
shows the binary .CAI file appended to the IGC file. File still shows
up on OLC as invalid, not to mention that the scoring distance is also
wrong. Would appreciate anyone who can download the file and see if
anything jumps out at you.