Question for US Rules committee on AH capability within LX NAV computers?

Don, do you race? Do you understand why there is a rule prohibiting hardware or software that allows cloud flying?

We all understand that if you want to, it is now easy to cheat. But the point is that because of the rule, it is CHEATING, and if you are caught you get booted from the race.

When not racing, by all means have an AH - it can be a life saver. But when you race you agree to play by the rules.

As far as carrying my Sig or Glock in my glider cockpit - You appear to be a Brit. So the most dangerous thing you would encounter following a landout is probably a band of rowdy football (soccer to us colonials) fans.

In my backyard, I have rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, etc. And in some of the places I fly over, there are human coyotes that are a lot more dangerous. So if I choose to arm myself, because I can (unlike you poor bloody poms), then it's because I have evaluated the risk and feel it is worth doing.

Also, a Sig is good for shooting out the AH from your cheating competitor's instrument panel....

Cheers!

Kirk
66
"Gun control is hitting what you aim at - the first time..."

On Apr 16, 3:21*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
That is not going to work. The same private code is used in many flight
recorders, so all you have to do is break into one and break into the
software. You then have the private key for all similar flight recorders.
Mine as you put it is still intact. It is pointless relying on a private
key of any length if you are going to put it out into the world in an
easily available box, that is not security, that is total ignorance and I
suspect the penny has already dropped with the IGC as well, took em long
enough.

Don, use of a single private key for multiple units of a given
approved flight recorder model is not permissible. Each flight
recorder unit must have a unique private key. This requirement was
added to the specification in 2001 (AL4), after it was shown that one
design (since updated) had this flaw. See section 6.1 and Appendix G
of the IGC Technical Specification for GNSS Flight Recorders, if it
amuses you.

Any device that is freely available to a community at large (as
opposed to locked away in safes) can't be 100% free of security
issues, but shared private keys is not one of them...

Marc

Marc wrote:
Don, use of a single private key for multiple units of a given
approved flight recorder model is not permissible. Each flight
recorder unit must have a unique private key.

Food for thought (opening Pandora's box a little):

The VALI-xxx.EXE (or the according DLL) needs to contain all public
keys of all flight recorders of its kind.

Does everybody have to update their VALI-xxx.EXE when I send my flight
recordor for seal repair to the manufacturer?
If not, how else are new public keys distributed?

(Yes, there are other technical solutions like including the signed
certificate and the public key in the G record, but this technology
has not been documented and peer reviewed, and crypto technology that
hasn't been peer reviewed is insecure more often than not.)

Max

At 23:48 16 April 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
Don, do you race? Do you understand why there is a rule prohibiting
hardwa=
re or software that allows cloud flying?

We all understand that if you want to, it is now easy to cheat. But the
po=
int is that because of the rule, it is CHEATING, and if you are caught
you
=
get booted from the race.

When not racing, by all means have an AH - it can be a life saver. But
whe=
n you race you agree to play by the rules.

As far as carrying my Sig or Glock in my glider cockpit - You appear to
be
=
a Brit. So the most dangerous thing you would encounter following a
lando=
ut is probably a band of rowdy football (soccer to us colonials) fans.

In my backyard, I have rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, etc. And in
some
=
of the places I fly over, there are human coyotes that are a lot more
dange=
rous. So if I choose to arm myself, because I can (unlike you poor
bloody
=
poms), then it's because I have evaluated the risk and feel it is worth
doi=
ng.

Also, a Sig is good for shooting out the AH from your cheating
competitor's=
instrument panel....

Cheers!

Kirk
66
"Gun control is hitting what you aim at - the first time..."

I think you are confusing having an AH with being allowed to cloud fly.
Cloud flying in competition is permmitted in the UK as is the fitting of an
AH. If the EASA rules are strictly complied with the removal of an AH is
not a simple task. A lot of gliders in the UK are fitted with AH for very
good reason, mine was although I took care to never deliberately set out to
fly in cloud. An even larger number, possibly a majority have a turn and
slip fitted. My point is simple, having a rule that says you cannot fly in
cloud is fine and enforceable. A ban on having an AH is not enforceable,
quite apart from the lash up that I built, my iPhone has an app that
provides that instrument so enforcing that ban is not possible without
draconian, and possibly unlawful measures, like searching every pilot
before they get into the cockpit. A rule that cannot be enforced is better
never made. Having an AH is not cheating, flying in cloud is (in some parts
of the world). By all means enforce no cloud flying, but crippling
technology is not the way to go about enforcing it. If someone wants to
cheat they will find a way of fitting an AH that you cannot see. Someone
who has no intention of cheating will not do so whatever instrument they
happen to have fitted.

I do not campaign against you right to bear arms so why should you campaign
to have software crippled that would improve safety where clouds are more
of a problem.

On Apr 17, 1:52*am, Max Kellermann wrote:
Food for thought (opening Pandora's box a little):

The VALI-xxx.EXE (or the according DLL) needs to contain all public
keys of all flight recorders of its kind.

Does everybody have to update their VALI-xxx.EXE when I send my flight
recordor for seal repair to the manufacturer?
If not, how else are new public keys distributed?

(Yes, there are other technical solutions like including the signed
certificate and the public key in the G record, but this technology
has not been documented and peer reviewed, and crypto technology that
hasn't been peer reviewed is insecure more often than not.)


There are a variety of ways this is handled with varying levels of
complexity. In general, though, the VALI program and/or DLL contains
the public side of a pre-generated pool of key pairs intended to be
sufficient to cover the entire lifecycle of the flight recorder
design. The manufacturer provides designated repair agents with key
reset hardware and/or software, which involves communication of
various one-time-only factors in both directions to set a valid
private key within the unit. In the rare event that the key pool is
exhausted, the VALI code can inform the user that a newer revision of
the software is needed. Including a manufacturer signed copy of the
public key in the G record has been proposed in the past, but there
are a number of flaws with that approach which make it unacceptable...

Marc

On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:17:10 AM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:

I think you are confusing having an AH with being allowed to cloud fly.
Cloud flying in competition is permmitted in the UK as is the fitting of an
AH. If the EASA rules are strictly complied with the removal of an AH is
not a simple task. A lot of gliders in the UK are fitted with AH for very
good reason, mine was although I took care to never deliberately set out to
fly in cloud. An even larger number, possibly a majority have a turn and
slip fitted. My point is simple, having a rule that says you cannot fly in
cloud is fine and enforceable. A ban on having an AH is not enforceable,
quite apart from the lash up that I built, my iPhone has an app that
provides that instrument so enforcing that ban is not possible without
draconian, and possibly unlawful measures, like searching every pilot
before they get into the cockpit. A rule that cannot be enforced is better
never made. Having an AH is not cheating, flying in cloud is (in some parts
of the world). By all means enforce no cloud flying, but crippling
technology is not the way to go about enforcing it. If someone wants to
cheat they will find a way of fitting an AH that you cannot see. Someone
who has no intention of cheating will not do so whatever instrument they
happen to have fitted.

I do not campaign against you right to bear arms so why should you campaign
to have software crippled that would improve safety where clouds are more
of a problem.

Don, I'm not confusing anything. If you don't compete in contests that have the no AH rule (all FAI or SSA sponsored races, for example), then by all means have an AH or T&B. But the rule is there, and it's pretty simple to enforce - look in the cockpit for AH or T&B, have pilot state on contest registration what software he is using on his moving map, and sign a statement that he does not have AH apps on his smart phone.

Most pilots wont cheat, and going to the effort to conceal AH software (or pull out and use your smart phone) is probably going to make that cheater more likely to take a chance and get caught - and booted.

And realize that this brouhaha is mainly from the US, where cloud flying is extremely uncommon - and AHs are rare in most glider cockpits, so it isn't a big handicap to not have one installed.

But leaving an AH up and running is just too much of a temptation to take that extra turn in 10 knots up into the cloud....and guys do that now without an AH!

So I don't see what the big panic is all about. Just comply with the bloody rules and have fun!

Cheers,

Kirk

Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever


Enjoy....

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airpl...385491648?mt=8

At 17:22 20 April 2012, Guy Byars wrote:
Getting back to the subject of the AH here are so many solid state rate
gyros on the market, which will interface to a pocket PC or whatever


Enjoy....

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airpl...385491648?mt=8

Yes, and I know it works, so that will be a ban on mobile phones then.

I'm planning an updated glider panel with the intention of racing in the future in the US. In a thirty year old club class glider. I've found it very frustrating how little current, concise, useful information is available about what instruments are acceptable, what software is acceptable, etc.

-Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Rest...0Approvals.pdf

Butterfly is the only item on that list. Doesn't seem to be a very popular or effective "approval" process.

-The "restricted device policy" suggests a burner phone be carried as opposed to a functional modern phone. Is that the official policy of SSA in 2017?
-The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
-This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
-In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?

Everything but refrigerators now comes with a built in inertial platform. If you want to guarantee no one flies in cloud, mandate dashcams.

https://www.amazon.com/Btopllc-Recor...words=dash+cam

-Are LXNAV products with AHRS available by software key allowed? They are not on this list:
-The "restricted device policy" claims there will be a list published of acceptable software. And unacceptable software. That might be useful. Where is it?
-This antique discussion thread implies that XCSoar (which as of 2017 still has a not-very-good AH option) is illegal. Is it? Do I have to run some forked version of it?
-In the year 2017 is anyone in the US competing using XCSoar as a flight computer? On a phone with no SIM card installed?


Since no one here is interested in answering these questions, is there anyone at SSA I should be emailing? Calling? Sending a letter?

The SSA "Guide to Competition" also says exactly nothing about flight computers, instruments, etc....