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

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 future:

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.

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 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.

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,

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)

Is this an April 1st joke????

Hi Robert,

I find your comments rather strange as I am under the impression that you were at the last IGC Meeting in Prague when this resolution was passed. Do you remember which way your country voted? The only objection to this at the time was by France as far as I can recall.

But just to put everything into prospective we are not really talking about insecure or cheating, we are talking about a possible breach of the older type Public/Private security code with pure computer power.For example 10 years ago maybe 1000 computers @ a 1000 days. Today 100 computers @ 10 days (still a formidable task).

Regards

Yes I was there, but as you may remember this topic was handled very briefly. For the first time (as I recall) the proposal was not read out, but delegates were reffered to the written report from GFAC. I personally had the impression that we were taking a decision that would apply to new recorders not old ones. Maybe this is because of the finer meanings of the English language, which is not my native language, that I did not understand this. Neither did my colleauges.

In my opinion this decision was a masterpiece on how to foul people to vote in your favour.

But still, if the argument is what Marc wrote, then why postpone the implementation?

And if some of the comments that suggest that only the highest level shall be used in international comps, should result in this, it is really bad. Lots of people have to buy new recorders, because that will certainly influence organizers at lower levels. Are you aware of that in most European countries you also have to buy a transponder Mode S in the near future????

I really do not understand the way GAFC thinks. 'my' international organization,IGC, which I thought was obliges to make life easy for me, is putting a lot of effort and resources in to prevent cheating.

To that I shall add that I am one of the guys who really have caught a cheater (at WGC in 1993 where I was Deputy Director), how many has GFAC caught????

HELP

I find the IGC site terrible to navigate - Where do I find a simple explanation/list of recorders and their classification into suitable for World records, etc.

I think I read it but I'm not sure as the document is less than clear.

Robert, this may be because it was put the previous year and this was the final year of the IGC 'two years before a decision' policy.

Which was part of the formal agenda which was published for anyone to read and certainly available to IGC delegates like yourself. Not the doing of me or GFAC but that of IGC procedures which expect delegates to know the agenda and its annexes.

The GFAC paper published in the agenda nearly 2 months before the meeting indicated that it was to apply to existing recorder approvals in two different ways:

1. To uplift recorders that were then at the 'up to Diamonds' level but deserved higher. Such as the Scheffel Themi. Bernd Scheffel and owners of Themis would be most grateful, I think.

2. To apply the new 'all IGC badge flights' level to existing recorders that did not meet current security levels by a large margin. That is, they did not even meet the 1997 IGC Specification on these matters. A particular problem was the type of recorder whose symmetric checksum system of electronic security was cracked by the Wedekinds several years ago and also had no security microswitch. Would you support such a recorder being used for World records beyond April 2004, the present cut-off ? Some types of recorders with similar levels of weak security followed, which seems to be what you are objecting to.

Thank you for the inadvertent compliment on my Machiavellian procedures but what you suggest was not intended. A lot of warning was given in the IGC agenda papers circulated both in January 2002 and January 2003.

First to negotiate with the several manufacturers concerned. As you can imagine, this involved many exchanges including arguments and disagreements. Then, on the detail that had emerged, to get the support of the IGC GFA committee, the IGC GNSS committee, and finally the IGC Bureau. This rightly takes time!

Annex A to the Code says at the moment 'all GNSS FR's approved by the IGC' without specifying one of the three levels of approval that exist.

This includes the EW series of recorders have been at the lower 'badge flight up to Diamonds' level since 1997. These are the ones that do not have their own GPS and need a cable connection to a separate Garmin receiver. They are indeed 'IGC-approved' but at the 'Diamonds' level.

Under the same argument, the new 'all IGC badge and distance diploma' level of recorders will comply as well. Unless Annex A is changed, of course, for which the IGC Plenary meeting must consent at their meeting in Feb 2004 and the change must be in the agenda beforehand.

As you well know, Bob Henderson (IGC First VP and New Zealand delegate) is the Chairman of the IGC Annex A revision committee, and he can be contacted at any time (see via the IGC web site). He is the authority on what is intended for the future in comps that have to comply with Annex A to the code.

Annex A extract:

Complain to the webmaster. I also do not find a lot of web sites easy to navigate.

The qualifications in any IGC-approval are in the approval document itself, all of which documents are at the end of:
http://www.fai.org/gliding/gnss/igc_approved_frs.pdf

It is true that there is not yet a list of recorders at the three approval levels. There probably will be in the future, IGC officials are working in their own time and these things take time, I am afraid. The current situation is:

All 24 IGC-approved recorders are at the 'all flights' level except:

1. Badge flights up to and including Diamonds level: the EW series.

2. All IGC badge and distance diploma flights:

2.1 Now: Scheffel Themi

2.2 From 1 April 2004: Cambridge 10, 20 and 25 Filser LX20 first batch (no RSA, no micro) Peschges VP8 Print Technik GR1000 possibly the Zander GP940 (under consideration at the moment)

I hope this helps.