A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 28th 03, 09:48 PM
Robert Danewid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


All I can say is, no discussion seems possible with anyone who still has
their head stuck in what happened nearly a decade ago. I have no doubt
that there are things that should be done differently, now, if we
started with a clean sheet of paper. But, as far as I can tell, no one
is willing to come up with a sensible proposal as to what we can change
now, given the current context.


Without your history, you have no future.

And with the history in mind, I have asked you several times to put
forward the real arguments, not all that computer stuff, for increasing
security. You have failed, and I agree that there are more fun things to
do than discussing GFAC.

Take care
Robert

Robert

  #52  
Old November 28th 03, 10:06 PM
Marc Ramsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert Danewid wrote:
And with the history in mind, I have asked you several times to put
forward the real arguments, not all that computer stuff, for increasing
security.


The relevant increase in security took place in 1997. Prior to that
point, every thing I know suggests that the security requirements were
ambiguous, at best. All that happened is that flight recorders that
could not have been approved under 1997 specifications have been
downgraded to the next lower level. Perhaps they should have been
downgraded in 1997, perhaps the specifications shouldn't have been
changed in 1997. I don't know, because I wasn't involved.

If you think the 1997 security requirements were too strict, I think the
onus is on you to propose and justify a set of requirements that you
would consider to be more appropriate.

Marc
  #53  
Old November 30th 03, 06:29 PM
Jonathan Gere
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry for the subject line, but did I overlook the effective, public
notice that IGC was even considering this change? In any real sense,
the relevant change takes place in 1April2004. Unless, that is,
popular opinion causes the IGC to reverse itself. That is when most
loggers in the world will be disqualified for world records. The
relevant increase in security did not take place in 1997, because
anyone trying to cheat presumably used one of the "not secure enough"
models from that time forward.

If you feel that adequate official observer oversight makes these
"legacy" loggers adequate for world records, please call/write/mail
your IGC representative!

Jonathan Gere

Robert Danewid wrote:
And with the history in mind, I have asked you several times to put
forward the real arguments, not all that computer stuff, for increasing
security.


The relevant increase in security took place in 1997. Prior to that
point, every thing I know suggests that the security requirements were
ambiguous, at best. All that happened is that flight recorders that
could not have been approved under 1997 specifications have been
downgraded to the next lower level. Perhaps they should have been
downgraded in 1997, perhaps the specifications shouldn't have been
changed in 1997. I don't know, because I wasn't involved.

If you think the 1997 security requirements were too strict, I think the
onus is on you to propose and justify a set of requirements that you
would consider to be more appropriate.

Marc

  #54  
Old December 1st 03, 12:25 AM
CH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well...
looking at the response of this decision I remember what
the Swiss IGC delegate, Mr. Nietlispach, told me once,
because I was trying to forward a proposal to the IGC:

quote
"We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
not reverse!"
quote

And it does not look like anything would have changed
since then. The IGC has lost track with the needs of the
gliding community and acts like the Vatican.

And when the IGC decided not to handle gliding records
of motorised and non-motorised gliders separately any-
more it laid the grave stone to pure gliding records. I am
sure, that in 5 years no gliding records will exist anymore,
not been flown without a retractable motor.

So - why worry about the "revised IGC approvals" when
you fly a glider without a motor?

Because we cannot be sure, if not tomorrow the IGC
makes the next step to exclude existing loggers to fly
a thousand km and up as well.....
Anything is possible

"We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
not reverse!"

Ch. 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





  #55  
Old December 1st 03, 02:33 PM
Ulrich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Right on Christian. It’s time that the IGC bureaucracy, with its
expensive digs in Switzerland, its authoritarian ivory tower approach
and its penchant for spending other people’s money was brought
back to reality. This is that world-wide, gliding is an expensive,
shrinking sport, and that they would be better off addressing this
vital issue than creating more cost by unilaterally and
heavy-handedly legislating about logger security. Do barographs and
cameras have RSA level security?

U. Werneburg

"CH" wrote in message ...
Well...
looking at the response of this decision I remember what
the Swiss IGC delegate, Mr. Nietlispach, told me once,
because I was trying to forward a proposal to the IGC:

quote
"We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
not reverse!"
quote

And it does not look like anything would have changed
since then. The IGC has lost track with the needs of the
gliding community and acts like the Vatican.

And when the IGC decided not to handle gliding records
of motorised and non-motorised gliders separately any-
more it laid the grave stone to pure gliding records. I am
sure, that in 5 years no gliding records will exist anymore,
not been flown without a retractable motor.

So - why worry about the "revised IGC approvals" when
you fly a glider without a motor?

Because we cannot be sure, if not tomorrow the IGC
makes the next step to exclude existing loggers to fly
a thousand km and up as well.....
Anything is possible

"We (the IGC) tell the gliding community what to do,
not reverse!"

Ch. Hostettler

  #57  
Old December 2nd 03, 09:08 AM
Janos Bauer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Good idea!

/Janos

ps: more than 6 months ago I requested a small modification (extend GPS
type list) in the EW logger approval document but still there is no
change...this modification is also supported by the original document...
it could reduce the cost of an IGC approved logger system, but who
cares...

Mike Borgelt wrote:

Reminds me of what the late Roger Woods once told me about the first
time he was Australian delegate to the IGC. He was taken aside and
told " forget the people who sent you here, here WE decide what
happens".

Do you really want the IGC to address the problem of the shrinking
sport of gliding given their "successful" track record?

How about we all send our badges back to the IGC? We know what we've
done and nobody else cares.

Mike Borgelt

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Force Print News for April 30, 2004 Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 May 1st 04 10:20 PM
Mil Acft Comms Log, Florida - Friday 30 April 2004 AllanStern Military Aviation 0 May 1st 04 07:12 AM
Air Force Print News for April 23, 2004 Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 April 24th 04 10:11 PM
Air Force Print News for April 19, 2004 Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 April 21st 04 12:22 AM
FS 2004 'Shimmer' Effect of Ground Scenery Mr Zee Simulators 3 August 24th 03 04:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.