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

From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

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

An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
excludes evidence for world record flights.

Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.

There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.

Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
date at the end:

There are currently 24 models of IGC-approved GNSS recorder, from 10
different manufacturers. GFAC has completed a review of legacy
recorders, the IGC-approvals of which go back as far as 1996. The
following principles have been agreed for the futu

For world record flight claims, it is not considered suitable to have
recorders with one or more of the following characteristics:
1. No security microswitch or equivalent (this operates if the case is
opened).
2. Without electronic security giving the strength of systems such as
RSA (public/private key systems) as assessed by GFAC and its experts in
electronic security.
3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
with them).

Negotiations with appropriate manufacturers have been going on for some
time, and revised IGC-approval documents have been circulated to them.
Types of recorders affected will have IGC-approvals for the new "all IGC
badge flights and distance diploma" level.

Types of recorders affected with the main reason:
Cambridge 10, 20 and 25 (not RSA or equivalent strength).
Filser LX20 first batch (not RSA or equivalent strength, no
microswitch).
Peschges VP8 (no microswitch, original manufacturer understood to be no
longer in the recorder business).
Print Technik GR1000 (not RSA or equivalent strength, original
manufacturer no longer in the recorder business).
Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
list this will be announced as soon as it is made.

Timescale
The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
will take effect on 1 April 2004.

The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

Ian Strachan wrote in message ...
From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

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

3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
with them).

Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
flight log.

The original appoval specifies the conditions for use of a recorder
and the demise of its manufacturer should be of no consequence.


Andy (GY)

In article , Andy
Durbin writes
Ian Strachan wrote in message
...
From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

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

3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
with them).

Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
flight log.

In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past in
explaining to the validating authority what is likely to have happened.

Several world records have been saved as a result of manufacturer advice
and tests where otherwise they would have been lost.

Sometimes the recorder has been returned to the manufacturer for tests
so that the anomaly can be explained. In at least one case, after
manufacturer tests indicated a line of investigation, further flight
tests were carried out by GFAC with that recorder and resulted in
several World Records being validated. Without this process it would
not have been.

You can argue that this should equally apply to badge flights, but world
records are particularly important and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

Ian Strachan wrote in message ...
In article , Andy
Durbin writes
Ian Strachan wrote in message
...
From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

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

3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
with them).

Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
flight log.

In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past in
explaining to the validating authority what is likely to have happened.

Several world records have been saved as a result of manufacturer advice
and tests where otherwise they would have been lost.

Sometimes the recorder has been returned to the manufacturer for tests
so that the anomaly can be explained. In at least one case, after
manufacturer tests indicated a line of investigation, further flight
tests were carried out by GFAC with that recorder and resulted in
several World Records being validated. Without this process it would
not have been.

You can argue that this should equally apply to badge flights, but world
records are particularly important and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Ian,

Thanks for the reply.

I can certainly understand that using a recorder with no manufacturer
support would put the record claim at risk if an anomaly is
experienced.

I cannot understand that use of an unsupported, but previously
approved, recorder should be disallowed. The circumstance in which an
unexplained anomaly is observed in the log could be covered in the
rules. No explanation then no record.

(I am not actively seeking world records but my CAI model 25 is now
disallowed and I don't have great confidence that my 302 will survive
under this rule)


Andy (GY)

In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past...

And this is justification for disallowing "unsupported" FRs from
being used for world records? The logic of this escapes me.

Obviously, a pilot seeking a world record is motivated to carry
the best possible recording equipment -- the FR least likely to
produce homologation headaches after the flight.

However, the pilot should be free to choose any approved FR, at
his own risk. The issue is cheat-proof, not hassle-proof.

If the pilot's claim is made more difficult by the
unavailability of the FR manufacturer, then so be it. A glitch
in the flight log should be treated the same as a barograph
failu rejection of claim. If the glitch can be circumvented
by a manufacturer still in business, then the pilot is fortunate
(the particular circumvention would still have to be approved by
the homologating body).

Here's an analogy:

The pilot is the plaintiff. It is the his responsibility to
make his best case for a world record. The FR manufacturer (if
any) is an expert witness hired by the plaintiff.

The IGC is the court. They judge the evidence and make a
ruling. GFAC is a technical advisor to the court.

It is wrong for the court to insist on the makeup of the
plaintiff's team.

-Pat

Ian Strachan wrote:

Would you please explain why lack of manufacturer support has any
bearing on the security of a flight recorder or the validity of a
flight log.


In the event of an anomaly in recording or in the IGC file data, advice
from the recorder manufacturer has proved vital in the past in
explaining to the validating authority what is likely to have happened.

Several world records have been saved as a result of manufacturer advice
and tests where otherwise they would have been lost.

Sometimes the recorder has been returned to the manufacturer for tests
so that the anomaly can be explained. In at least one case, after
manufacturer tests indicated a line of investigation, further flight
tests were carried out by GFAC with that recorder and resulted in
several World Records being validated. Without this process it would
not have been.

I thought a primary reason for having a manufacturer around was for
examining the flight recorder when cheating was suspected. They should
be the best authority on whether the instrument or it's code has been
modified.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article , Eric Greenwell
writes
Ian Strachan wrote:

snip

In at least one case, after manufacturer tests indicated a line of
investigation, further flight tests were carried out by GFAC with
that recorder and resulted in several World Records being validated.
Without this process it would not have been.

I thought a primary reason for having a manufacturer around was for
examining the flight recorder when cheating was suspected. They should
be the best authority on whether the instrument or it's code has been
modified.

Eric, the case referred to was not a security problem but a mis-set
Engine Noise Level (ENL) system in the recorder concerned. This
rendered the proof of engine-running (or rather of not-running!) in this
motor glider problematical. As several world records hung on this
recorder (it is always better to carry more than one for such important
flights!), FAI consulted GFAC on the matter, which is normal procedure
and applies to NACs as well (such as the SSA's badgelady who has also
been known to contact us for opinions on anomalies found in recorder
evidence).

First we asked that the manufacturer to look at the recorder concerned
and to maintain its original state (that is, not to open it up and
re-set it). The mis-setting was confirmed and apologies were made. All
ENLs were very low and it was difficult to see where the engine had been
run and where it had not. Of course the pilot should have picked this
up before going for the records, but we know that pilots are more
interested in flying than instrumentation! Because the manufacturer
did not have access to the type of motor glider that had been used for
the world record claims I asked for it to be sent to me for flight
tests.

As you know, I fly from Lasham in the UK where we have some 200 gliders
on site. I was able to find an example of the same motor glider that
was used with this recorder in several world record flights. The
suspect recorder was flown in the MG concerned together with a "control"
recorder. This confirmed the ENL levels found in the world record
flights. Comparing them with the "control" data enabled us to confirm
which of the (low) ENL levels were engine running and which were
background cockpit noise and other short-term "clunks and clicks" that
sometimes occur.

In addition, the record flights were still in the memory and the
recorder's VALI program check worked, thus proving that it had not been
re-set or altered since the world record flights. A combination of this
evidence enabled a statement to be made to FAI that the engine had not
been run between the start and finish of the glide performances
concerned.

Sorry that this explanation is not short, but it does illustrate a
number of things that are worth noting.

I am very pleased when records and other flight performances can be
"saved" when otherwise they might have been lost due to anomalies in the
evidence. We should be rigorous on standards of evidence, but sometimes
independent after-flight checks and tests can maintain standards despite
certain anomalies.

The above is not a unique case, there have been many others that are
referred to GFAC for an opinion. We are always willing to look at IGC
flight data files from anyone where it is thought that a strange reading
or other anomaly exists.

So it's not only security issues, which is where we came in at the
beginning!

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee

Bentworth Hall West
Bentworth
Alton, Hampshire GU34 5LA
ENGLAND


Tel: +44 1420 564 195
Fax: +44 1420 563 140

Ian, it's a nice story, and I am also glad that the pilot in the
story got credit for his performance.

However, the story does not support the new requirement for
manufacturers to stay in business. In fact, you describe how
the manufacturer hindered the process of homologation, leading
the reader to believe that the world record would have been
approved more quickly if the manufacturer had been unavailable.

Here is my understanding of how homologation is structured:

1. The pilot is free to provide any evidence at all to support
his claim.

2. The homologating body evaluates the claim, perhaps
requesting further information from any source, and then makes a
judgement.

Please tell me if I've got it wrong.

Both the pilot and the homologating body are free to consult
with anybody, including the manufacturer, former employees,
other experts, GFAC, the next-door-neighbor, anybody.

Signed statements by any of these people will be evaluated by
the homologating body in the processing of the claim.

The availability of any particular person to give assistance or
to make a statement is completely unpredictable, completely
irrelevant, and should not be part of the regulations regarding
approval of Flight Recorders.

-Pat

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?
Is there a real reason behind this decision or is it just
a temporary mental slip if the IGC?

Chris Hostettler


"Ian Strachan" wrote in message
...
From: Chairman, IGC GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC)

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

An announcement was recently made to the effect that a number of types
of legacy recorders would have the terms of their IGC-approval adjusted
to the new "all IGC badge and distance diploma" level. This level
excludes evidence for world record flights.

Originally the date on which this was to take effect was 1 January 2004.
After the announcement a number of questions and comments have been
received. Questions have been answered and comments have been discussed
by the IGC GFA and GNSS Committees and with members of the IGC Bureau.

There was a consensus that the January date might be too early for some
pilots wishing to attempt world records and using one of the affected
recorder types to make the change. The President of IGC has therefore
ruled that the date of effect will be put back to 1 April 2004. This
gives more time for owners who may wish to attempt world records to
obtain other types of recorder, and is also a convenient date between
the main soaring seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres.

Here is a copy of part of the original announcement with the change of
date at the end:

There are currently 24 models of IGC-approved GNSS recorder, from 10
different manufacturers. GFAC has completed a review of legacy
recorders, the IGC-approvals of which go back as far as 1996. The
following principles have been agreed for the futu

For world record flight claims, it is not considered suitable to have
recorders with one or more of the following characteristics:
1. No security microswitch or equivalent (this operates if the case is
opened).
2. Without electronic security giving the strength of systems such as
RSA (public/private key systems) as assessed by GFAC and its experts in
electronic security.
3. No immediate manufacturer support (out of production and the
original manufacturer either no longer exists or is no longer dealing
with them).

Negotiations with appropriate manufacturers have been going on for some
time, and revised IGC-approval documents have been circulated to them.
Types of recorders affected will have IGC-approvals for the new "all IGC
badge flights and distance diploma" level.

Types of recorders affected with the main reason:
Cambridge 10, 20 and 25 (not RSA or equivalent strength).
Filser LX20 first batch (not RSA or equivalent strength, no
microswitch).
Peschges VP8 (no microswitch, original manufacturer understood to be no
longer in the recorder business).
Print Technik GR1000 (not RSA or equivalent strength, original
manufacturer no longer in the recorder business).
Zander GP940. This type of recorder is also under consideration but no
decision has been made at this time, if it is to be added to the above
list this will be announced as soon as it is made.

Timescale
The above changes to the "all IGC badges and distance diploma" level
will take effect on 1 April 2004.

The only pilots affected will be those planning to attempt world record
flights from this date, for which other types of IGC-approved flight
recorder must be used that are IGC-approved without flight limitations.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

X-no-archive: yes
In article , CH
writes
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?
Is there a real reason behind this decision or is it just
a temporary mental slip if the IGC?

Chris Hostettler

It was safe enough ten years ago, but now the power of PCs has increase
by a degree of magnitude and more is known about decryption software, so
it can no longer be considered 'safe'. It's called 'progress'.

In a similar way, visual observation of TPs is no longer used although
it used to be; and there is a proposal to disallow this and also the use
of Cameras, for Badge Evidence in addition to World Records.

It's called 'progress'.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."