Revised IGC-approvals for some types of legacy recorder

Ian Strachan wrote:

At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level for
GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
"all
flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter is
used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.

Let's admit that this third level was necessary... Now the problem is
that most people refer to "IGC approved" loggers, not mentionning
whether it is for "all IGC badge and distance diploma flights" or
"all flights" or "badge flights up to and including Diamonds" ... in
fact most glider pilots ignore that there are different level of IGC
approval !

May I suggest that there be somewhat shorter names such as "approved
level 1, 2 or 3" or "class A, B or C" ? Things would be clearer this way.

Now, what about World Championships ??? Are they less important that
world records ??? I don't think so. One could say that it is more
difficult to cheat in a Championship than for records, that's right, but
it is not impossible (and it already happened !), and the stake is
higher too.

You (GFAC) didn't say anything about which approval level would be
appropriate for World Championships, did you ? If I read the rules for
these Championships, it says (Annex A 5.4.a) : "All GNSS FR’s approved
by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted."

Does it mean that all loggers SHALL be accepted, whatever their approval
level ???

Same question for national records or Championships, what type of
approved loggers would you recommand ? I understand that for these type
of performances NACs may have their own rules, and allow
non-IGC-approved loggers (which is not even permitted for a mere 50 km
silver D badge, but this is another debate...), but I think that IGC
should emit at least a recommendation.


--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Denis Flament moncourrieles
writes
Ian Strachan wrote:

At the last IGC Plenary meeting earlier in 2003, a new approval level for
GNSS flight recorders was agreed. This was for "all IGC badge and
distance diploma flights" and was in addition to the existing levels for
"all
flights" and "badge flights up to and including Diamonds". The latter is
used for types of recorder units that do not have their own GPS receiver
but rely on a separate GPS unit connected to the recorder by cable.

Let's admit that this third level was necessary... Now the problem is
that most people refer to "IGC approved" loggers, not mentionning
whether it is for "all IGC badge and distance diploma flights" or
"all flights" or "badge flights up to and including Diamonds" ... in
fact most glider pilots ignore that there are different level of IGC
approval !

May I suggest that there be somewhat shorter names such as "approved
level 1, 2 or 3" or "class A, B or C" ? Things would be clearer this way.

That may well happen, but the initial announcement need to be clear
about the intention.

It was suggested:

A: All Purposes including World Records.
B: Badges and Diplomas
D: Badges up to Diamond

Or did D stand for Diplomas?


Now, what about World Championships ??? Are they less important that
world records ??? I don't think so. One could say that it is more
difficult to cheat in a Championship than for records, that's right, but
it is not impossible (and it already happened !), and the stake is
higher too.

You (GFAC) didn't say anything about which approval level would be
appropriate for World Championships, did you ? If I read the rules for
these Championships, it says (Annex A 5.4.a) : "All GNSS FR’s approved
by the IGC up to two months prior to the Opening Day shall be accepted."

Does it mean that all loggers SHALL be accepted, whatever their approval
level ???

I don't think it is within GFAC's remit to say what should or should not
be used for World Championships. That is for the Annex A team to decide
upon.

Same question for national records or Championships, what type of
approved loggers would you recommand ? I understand that for these type
of performances NACs may have their own rules, and allow
non-IGC-approved loggers (which is not even permitted for a mere 50 km
silver D badge, but this is another debate...), but I think that IGC
should emit at least a recommendation.

Again, not within GFAC's remit to decide. It is up to the NAC and
Competition Organisers concerned. No doubt GFAC will advise when and if
requested, but to proffer a recommendation unasked might not be welcome.

On the necessity of the action of downgrading the approvals, waiting for
proof that the security has been broken is rather "Closing the Stable
Door after the Horse has Bolted". Prevention is better than cure.

In 1994 the security level of the time was judged to be sufficient,
bearing in mind the power of the PCs available at the time.

In 2004 ten years will have passed and the Power of PCs has made serious
advances, or if you prefer, the security of the early Recorders has been
seriously degraded.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

I don't think it is within GFAC's remit to say what should or should not
be used for World Championships. That is for the Annex A team to decide
upon.

Annex A is part of the Sporting Code as well as are world records or
badges ; Annex A group are the specialists for World Championships
within SC3, like there is a Sporting code specialist for records and
badges within main part of SC3.

I think GFAC should not decide which loggers should or should not be
used for badges and records neither... they should approve loggers
within a security classification (class A, B, C, etc.), and it should be
up to the sporting code specialist (for main SC3 and Annex A) to propose
to the IGC plenary which class of approval is required for badges,
records, Championships, etc.

As part of Annex A group I would recommand that only loggers approved
for world records be accepted for world championships. But it is not the
case today.


--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Denis Flament
writes
As part of Annex A group I would recommand that only loggers approved
for world records be accepted for world championships. But it is not the
case today.

I did not find anywhere in SC3A and mention of Recorder Categories, and
prior to this announcement, there were two categories one for 'Badges up
to Diamond' and another for full approval.

It would seem to me that as any recorder could be used up to now, Ian's
announcement does not effect SC3A, as it simply divided previously
accepted recorders into two subdivisions.

I think I must disagree with Denis about "only loggers approved for
world records be accepted for world championships".

In any competition it is far more difficult to falsify a recording
because:

1. The task is not known until a relatively short time before take-
off.

2. The Start-Line Open time will not be known in advance of take-
off

3. The recorder must be handed in within a relatively short time
from landing.

4. The falsified record would need show the correct time for
Takeoff, Finishing and Landing.

These checks, especially the combination of 3 and 4, will give an added
level of security, so that a lower level of FR security should be
accepted.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

I did not find anywhere in SC3A any mention of Recorder Categories,

you're right, there are none

I think I must disagree with Denis about "only loggers approved for
world records be accepted for world championships".

In any competition it is far more difficult to falsify a recording

Not so much, you may use a simple software to modify slightly your
depature time without changing take-off, landing, etc.

When using photo-time cameras it was difficult too to cheat, but it has
been done (at least at WGC 93 in sweden)

And, apart from the technical considerations, there is so few pilots
attempting world records that no reasonable manufacturer will ever
present any new model in this category !!! It's not economically viable.

--
Denis
Private replies: remove "moncourrielest" from my e-mail address
Pour me répondre utiliser l'adresse courriel figurant après
moncourrielest" dans mon adresse courriel...

Wow! If they do away with the pressure sensor requirement,
I can submit SoaringPilot for approval. If it only
gets the lowest level approval, I'd be happy. I'm
sure Jerry and Henryk would agree. However, I won't
get my hopes up. That way if it happens, it will be
a WONDERFUL surprise. :-) Later!-MarkAt 22:42 19 November 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:I personally believe thepressure sensor requirement should be eliminated for
badge/diploma levelapproval.Marc

Mark Hawkins wrote:

Wow! If they do away with the pressure sensor requirement,
I can submit SoaringPilot for approval. If it only
gets the lowest level approval, I'd be happy. I'm
sure Jerry and Henryk would agree. However, I won't
get my hopes up. That way if it happens, it will be
a WONDERFUL surprise. :-) Later!-Mark

At 22:42 19 November 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:
I personally believe thepressure sensor requirement should be eliminated for
badge/diploma levelapproval.

The lack of a pressure sensor is not the only thing that prevents PDA
software from getting approval. But, keep trying, Mark 8^)

Marc