There actually two things that make a logger IGC approved
1. The anti-tampering methods which both signs the code against changes
in the file (easy) and against opening the device (electronic seal).
Quite many of loggers have integral antenna to make your approach a bit
difficult.
2. The approved loggers have also internal pressure metering to have
reliable altitude reference (flight levels are based on normal
pressure). It also makes faking the gps signal more difficult as gps
height should follow the altitude trace.
I believe that tampering with results is quite difficult in practice
during the competition because you can't know much earlier where one
should fly and at what time. Normally we are so many that being missed
and still "as-of-been-there" is quite difficult an equation. At least
here (and in most comps I know) the IGC files are made available and
some peer-control would quite surely - at least in long run - show this
forgery off. Also the time restraints give quite a little time for
tampering.
hannu (I have been scoring maybe 50-60 comps since '91)
On 29.3.2011 8:10, Luke O'Donnell wrote:
I was under the impression it was the same in Australia - generally
XCSoar/SeeYou etc traces are accepted in smaller reigonal comp's, but
not at the national level. If i recall correctly, the Australian
National's rules (Jan 2011) were that you could submit a non-IGC
approved trace only once during the competition - intended to be a
failsafe in the event of a logger failure.
I havn't found much solid documentation on the web RE the anti-tamper
requirements for IGC-approved loggers, are these really all that
tamper-proof? I imagine that anyone who was really dedicated to
cheating could probably plug a device into the external GPS antenna
connector of an approved logger and spoof the gps signals. This would
remove the need for such a cheater to actually tamper with the .igc
file, which would presumably be detectable with reference to some sort
of hashing algorithm.
Luke
On 29 March 2011 14:50, Max Kellermann <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 2011/03/29 06:30, Hannu Niemi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Only thing you are missing without declaration is the "accelerated
> rate of fixes" near turnpoint (though I am not sure if GPS-NAV even
> supports this). In Volkslogger et al the logger logs fixes every
> second below 0.5 km before the turning point cylinder
XCSoar does that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to
meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers.
Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your
software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
Xcsoar-user mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
Xcsoar-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
