Cheap GPS Loggers for FAI Badges - Status?

Don Johnstone wrote:

A GPS sealed in a box is as secure, if not more so
than a smokey barograph. It is many more times secure
as a computer file produced by a 'secure' logger, the
security algorithums of which are historically interesting,
almost. The information contained in the GPS memory
is raw source data, that produced by the logger is
not. Replacing a proper seal as used on smokey barographs,
if all the rules are followed, is infinitely more difficult
than decoding and faking a computer file.


Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.
--


Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
for GPS loggers used for those same purposes? Very few of us will ever
compete in a World Championship or set a World record. Until we do, a
COTS GPS sealed in an OOed lunchbox would be fine.

....and yes, I know YOU could unravel the seal - but then you ARE a very
special person.


Graeme Cant

Graeme Cant wrote:
Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as completely
adequate security for all purposes, why do we need heightened security
for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?

A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence (i.e.,
photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance legs. The
additional security required of approved flight recorders was a direct
response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera documentation
for world records (the result of a number of known cheating incidents).

Marc

Excellent! After hundreds of posts, a straight statement of policy (or
at least one well-connected individual's version of policy) - that a
data recording device, sealed by and OO, placed in the glider and
removed from the glider by an OO - whether that device is a camera, a
barograph or a simple GPS engine - is not good enough. That implies
the technical people working to support our sport seized on the new
digital world as the opportunity to solve a problem, to deal with an
unsatisfactory situation.

Perhaps we need to debate that proposition.

Bruce

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Graeme Cant wrote:

Since a sealed-by-an-OO barograph is accepted by the IGC as
completely adequate security for all purposes, why do we need
heightened security for GPS loggers used for those same purposes?


A sealed barograph has not been acceptable for world records for a
number of years, and is only acceptable with additional evidence
(i.e., photographs and/or landing statements) for badge distance
legs. The additional security required of approved flight recorders
was a direct response to the perceived insecurity of barograph/camera
documentation for world records (the result of a number of known
cheating incidents).

Marc

In article e0Rvc.625398$Pk3.282686@pd7tw1no,
says...
Excellent! After hundreds of posts, a straight statement of policy (or
at least one well-connected individual's version of policy) - that a
data recording device, sealed by and OO, placed in the glider and
removed from the glider by an OO - whether that device is a camera, a
barograph or a simple GPS engine - is not good enough.

To discover this "policy" for world records, all you had to do was read
the rules. It's been there for several years. Cameras and barographs
still suffice for badges - this "policy" is also in the rules.

That implies
the technical people working to support our sport seized on the new
digital world as the opportunity to solve a problem, to deal with an
unsatisfactory situation.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Do you know the history of the flight
recorder, and how it was developed in response to a request from people
running an international competition in New Zealand? It was not a
solution that went looking for a problem.


Perhaps we need to debate that proposition.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

In article ,
says...
Eric Greenwell wrote:

Perhaps I am a very special person, but I think I could remove and
replace the typical lead seal on a barograph unknown to the OO, but I
don't know how to fake an IGC file from an approved flight recorder that
would pass the verification test.

I'm sure you ARE very special Eric and you're absolutely right that a
sealed barograph is MUCH, MUCH less secure than the over-specified,
self-destructing, weakly-encrypted, kilobuck loggers the IGC mandates.

Clearly, my post addressed the sealing only, and not the overall system.
I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth, since I am in favor
of the COTS idea, as I have stated before.


It's irrelevant to the point discussed here (fairly) consistently for
the past fortnight, however, which is that:

(1) a properly OOed COTS GPS in a lunch box is no LESS secure than a
sealed barograph and...

I think this could be true, using the proper GPS and procedures. The
challenge, I think, is to choose GPS(s) that pilots want to use AND
allow simple procedures, so the OO is not burdened excessively.

(2) the level of security of a sealed barograph is perfectly adequate
for the vast majority of glider flights so...

I'm assuming you mean "badge flights". Correct?


(3) Why doesn't the IGC give its imprimatur to a set of procedures which
would be internationally accepted for the vast majority of glider
flights using COTS GPS loggers right up to World champs and World records?

As another poster mentioned, World records require a secure recorder. I
don't know what is required in World comps, but I see no reason to not
to require secure recorders. The usual argument for COTS is to encourage
participation in badges by newer pilots, which certainly doesn't include
World comp capable pilots. I think sticking to the "early pilot" group
will make it easier to get COTS accepted, and attempting to extend to
World comps and records will make acceptance much less likely.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA