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

Ian,OUTSTANDING!!!! Let's hope they listen. Later!-MarkAt 23:36 25 November 2003, Ian Forbes wrote: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 oftheir technical aspects. Clearly there is a lot of
mistrust surroundingthe motivation of the decisions of the 'GNSS Flight
Recorder ApprovalCommittee' (GFAC) both now and in years gone by. Perhaps
the technicalissues should be separated from the political ones.If the GFAC defined a series of 'levels of security'
for GNSS FlightRecorders. For example:Level 610: Encryption, microswitch, ENL, internal GPS,
barometric hightLevel 600: Encryption, microswitch, no ENL, internal
GPS, barometric hightLevel 510: ENL, internal GPS, barometric hightLevel 500: Internal GPS, barometric hightLevel 400: External GPS, barometric hightLevel 300: Commercial GPS with logging functionLevel 200: GPS + PDA + SoftwareMy numbering leaves lots of scope for slotting in new
categories inbetween. Perhaps a new level around 550 for a logger
with GPS only and nobarometric hight. The list is probably longer than
the GFAC would care toadminister but it illustrates the point. The next generation
of recorderswill do things we have not thought of yet, but after
they have beeninvented, they can classified into a new 700 category.The GFAC would have the job of defining the above levels,
testingrecorders and awarding approval at the appropriate
level.Then the various bodies that monitor performances in
the sport couldspecify what level of Flight Recorder is suitable for
each performance. EGthe IGC could determine requirements for world records
and badges atvarious levels. (Currently this would be minimum 610
for a world record ina m/g, minimum 500 for a 1000km diploma in a pure glider
and minimum 400for a gold badge).National bodies and competition organizers could specify
their minimumrequirements for national and regional competitions.The Online Contest organizers (who process far more
flight claims thananybody else and have their own unique requirements)
could also specifytheir minimum requirements. (Or just list the security
level of the loggerused for each claim, for peer review).It could even be extended to other sports like hang
gliding andparagliding. They could use the same numbering system,
and supplyvolunteers to help with the work of the GFAC. This
could double thepotential market size for these devices.Manufacturers would design for a certain level of approval.
There would beno moving of the technical goal posts between time
of R&D and time offinal approval. Once approved a design would not loose
its approval.Most important the buyers would know what they are
getting. Clearly alevel 610 logger is better than a level 500 one. The
authors of PDAsoftware would know they have got a way to go to get
from level 200 to610.Finally if the IGC were faced with a proposal that
level 500 is no longersuitable for world records then hopefully all the delegates
voting on theissue would realize that the proposal effects existing
equipment as wellas new equipment.The development of loggers has resulted in new forms
of competition likethe OLC. This has motivated a major interest in cross
country flying atour club and I am sure at many other clubs around the
world. This has beena very positive development, which has only become
possible now that alarge number of pilots have access to loggers. It has
taken over 6 yearsfrom the development of the first loggers to reach
this point. I am justnot sure if the politics of the GFAC over that time
has aided or hinderedthe process.Ian

A good point has been raised on the IGC mailing list. With the new
categories it may be possible to have a ratified national record that
exceeds the same task world record.

Ian

In article , tango4
writes
A good point has been raised on the IGC mailing list. With the new
categories it may be possible to have a ratified national record that
exceeds the same task world record.

In principle this has always been possible because FAI and IGC (rightly)
cannot control criteria for events and flights for which the rules are
made by the National body.

For example, one of Jim Payne's USA 100 km triangle records was for a
time at a faster speed than the world record. This was because of
different criteria on the shape of triangles.

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

In principle this has always been possible because FAI and IGC (rightly)
cannot control criteria for events and flights for which the rules are
made by the National body.

This is true, but it does not apply to your exampe, below:

For example, one of Jim Payne's USA 100 km triangle records was for a
time at a faster speed than the world record. This was because of
different criteria on the shape of triangles.

In fact, the criteria were identical when the flight took place.

The IGC criteria changed after the flight, specifically for the
purpose of disapproving it.

It has always been the intention and practice of the USA to use
international rules for the homologation of national records.

-Pat

In article , Pat Russell
writes

In principle this has always been possible because FAI and IGC (rightly)
cannot control criteria for events and flights for which the rules are
made by the National body.

This is true, but it does not apply to your exampe, below:

For example, one of Jim Payne's USA 100 km triangle records was for a
time at a faster speed than the world record. This was because of
different criteria on the shape of triangles.

In fact, the criteria were identical when the flight took place.

The IGC criteria changed after the flight, specifically for the
purpose of disapproving it.

I think that is a bit hard. What happened was a difference in
interpretation of the then Sporting Code rule on triangle shape, the SSA
one was more generous than that of IGC. For the world record the matter
went to FAI arbitration via a Tribunal called by the President of the
FAI Air Sport General Commission (CASI). Personally, I was all for
approving it as a world record and gave evidence to the Tribunal to that
effect, as, I think did Bernald Smith on behalf of the SSA. However,
the decision went the other way. That's life!

So it is merely factual that for a while, until Jim Payne did an even
faster flight, the US 100k triangle record was in excess of the world
record.

This confirms my point that it is not possible for IGC/FAI to control
flights for which the evidence and interpretation is to National rules
and procedures rather than those of the IGC and FAI.

--
Ian Strachan

I think that is a bit hard. What happened was a difference in
interpretation...

It was a bit hard, and I apologize. We agree on what happened.

I acknowlege that it has always been possible for a national
record to exceed a world record due to a difference in
interpretation of the rules. The Jim Payne example is a case in
point.

However, I think that you have missed the distinction between
the Jim Payne reality and the following hypothetical:

What if: a pilot who already holds a world record uses the same
flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record. He
submits his claim, gets a new national record, but is not
allowed to claim a new world record because the flight recorder
was downgraded in the meantime.

This is not a matter of "interpretation," nor has it ever
existed before. It is merely bizarre.

Pat Russell wrote:

What if: a pilot who already holds a world record uses the same
flight recorder on a flight that beats the old record. He
submits his claim, gets a new national record, but is not
allowed to claim a new world record because the flight recorder
was downgraded in the meantime.

This is not a matter of "interpretation," nor has it ever
existed before. It is merely bizarre.

It doesn't sound bizarre to me. Requirements can change as the situation
changes. For example, suppose after his first record, a way was found to
cheat with the type of recorder he used (perhaps a new algorithm for
cracking security codes is developed). I think it is bizarre to suggest
a recorder can be used for all records in the future, once it has been
used to establish one record.


--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In my day job I do a bit of IT. We normally balance
risk of the outcome with reward when we talk of security.

Question - who in gliding is going to make a killing
from faking a GNSS log.

It really has to be 'just secure enough' to balance
the risk/reward question. I don't know anyone who is
going to become rich from declaring (and passing) a
new world record.

In reality, does the common gliding herd really mind
if someone fakes it. Who are GFAC/IGC protecting ?

If IGC suspect that someone has been cheating (remember
that they used to cheat with cameras) just refuse to
ratify the claim.

John

Thanks for that input!

Robert

John Ferguson wrote:
In my day job I do a bit of IT. We normally balance
risk of the outcome with reward when we talk of security.

Question - who in gliding is going to make a killing
from faking a GNSS log.

It really has to be 'just secure enough' to balance
the risk/reward question. I don't know anyone who is
going to become rich from declaring (and passing) a
new world record.

In reality, does the common gliding herd really mind
if someone fakes it. Who are GFAC/IGC protecting ?

If IGC suspect that someone has been cheating (remember
that they used to cheat with cameras) just refuse to
ratify the claim.

John