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

Robert,

Robert Danewid wrote:
I strongly believe that there is no need to further increase security.

Are you suggesting that the security levels specified in 1994/95 were
adequate for our purposes, and any subsequent changes should be rescinded?

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?

There is no evidence of actual cheating. The security systems of one of
the flight recorders approved under the 1995 specification was broken a
few years ago as an academic exercise. There is much evidence
suggesting that the security of other flight recorders approved under
the 1995 specifications could be even more easily broken.

Do you suggest waiting until there is a proven instance of cheating
before taking any action? Or, do you assume that any such cheating can
always be detected through other means (how?), therefore no changes are
necessary?

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.

As a member of GFAC, I can assure you that we all are aware that there
is no such thing as a cheat safe system.

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.

You'll have to tell me what you tink the "1994 level of security" was,
before I can express an opinion. I know you've been a critic, and I
know you were instrumental in the compromise that got the EW approved.
But, the fact that the EW was ultimately approved indicates that GFAC
and the IGC do not operate without some influence from the larger
soaring community.

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

I am a computer geek. That's why I was appointed to GFAC. If you want
a political argument, try Ian or Bernald.

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, you make your argument, and if enough people agree, the IGC and/or
GFAC will change direction as appropriate.

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.

I think I can safely say that Ian and I are rarely on the same side of
discussions within GFAC. I think I've stated enough of my opinions on
r.a.s. in the past for anyone paying attention to realize that I, too,
think we could make some changes that would result in simpler, cheaper
flight recorders. But, within GFAC, it is necessary to balance the
interests of the pilots and manufacturers, at the same operating under
the restrictions implied by being a subcommittee of the IGC.

Marc