I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Please show me real life examples that people are cheating with our
current recorders. And even so, if you can, it only shows that they have
been detected and that the system worked. If there has been cheating,
why has it then been kept a secret? Why have these pilots not been
punished and their names published?

Perhaps the GFAC philosophy is to have a cheat safe system, and if
someone cheats and get caught it is covered up in order not to show that
the system after all was not cheat safe? No system is cheat safe. You
must find the right level. GFAC has found a sky high level.

Can you show me that the 1994 level of security was "right" at that time
and not overkill, as I think it was? Suppose it was right and will so be
for many years. Marc, I have been a critic of GFAC since 1994 and I
think that I had quite an influence in establishing the lowest approval
class. I have not changed my mind.

Show me evidence, not just lots of talk about computer tech.

What GFAC is doing is exactly the same thing as when our CAA says they
must increase controlled airspace in order to maintain flight safety.
GFAC says we must increase security in order to prevent cheating. In the
first case we (are supposed to) fight like hell to get CAA show us
arguments and facts, when it comes to GFAC we are supposed just to
accept it.

No point arguing more on this topic with you Marc, you are at the same
end of the gliding world as Ian, I am on the other side. Still, I am
sure you are great guy and I look forward to meet you some day.

Robert

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Danewid wrote:

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Robert Danewid wrote:

This is not just a case of security for loggers, this is a case of
bad thinking and bad philosophy by our elected leaders.


Oh, I get it, because the elected leaders don't agree with you, it
must be "bad thinking and bad philosophy". I know what you mean,
that's exactly how I feel about the present administration in
Washington D.C. 8^)

Marc



That is my opinion, not yours of course. Your argument is an argument
you use when you are running out of arguments.

Robert


No, Robert, it's an argument I use when there is no longer any point to
arguing. I think everyone understands that you don't like what's being
done. What, exactly do you suggest doing differently? In particular,
how would you approach the problem of documenting world record flights?

Marc