Why so expensive (flight recorders)

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire here. What about WAAS enabled
GPS. If the derived altitude is good enough for a quasi ILS approach
to 250' , shouldn't this be good enough for a flight logger?

Peter

Sorry, but this is the sort of esoteric disscusion that actualy turns
me off to soaring.

IMHO either system is just fine, pick one and use it. Contests can do
what ever thay want, I won't participate due to several reasons. Badge
flying & CC is all I'm into.

From what I'm hearing I must use a Barograph in addition to the
expensive logger that I thought would do away with the 19th century
mechanical stuff of pressure chambers and mechanical camera pointing
that is not easy for a newcommer or non-decated sport flyier to do
correctly 100% of the time.

I would vote for the IGC to accept one system or the other, not
intermix them as is now done. If you're trying to measure your
position in relation to a forbidden airspace, you must use the one the
FAA or other National Agency requires, e.g.the altitude device on your
panel and disregard the others.

If you're in a contest you must use whatever the CD requires, right?

If you're going for badges or records you must use the system the
sanctioning body requires, right?

If you're going for club points you use what they require, even if
it's optically observed by the club VP of contest points.


Right now it appears we must use 19th century (or earlier) technology
for FAI altitude gains, expensive secure loggers for distance/time
measurments, and another divice for in-cockpit navigation.

If I were starting out in this sport, I'd choke on all those
requirements above and not go for badges, CC or contests becaue the
investment in dedicated equipment is too high, (I collected my devices
over the years as my paycheck could afford it).

If we really want to allow low cost entry to this sport, IMHO we
should allow the COTS GPS instruments for the badge flights as least,
I'm truely sorry that will destroy the market for dedciated Soaring
Instrument makers of high priced loggers, it's a shame, but that's
competition for you, happens everyday in my industry, (and I still
can't understand why they cost so much). Maybe it's just learning
curve, if so, we've learned, now move on.

End game: FAI/IGC pick a system, stick with it, allow older systems
for an economic phase in time (are we there yet?), and please try to
make it user friendly, espicialy new users friendly.

Wayne

vontresc wrote:
Just to throw some more fuel on the fire here. What about WAAS enabled
GPS. If the derived altitude is good enough for a quasi ILS approach
to 250' , shouldn't this be good enough for a flight logger?

WAAS and other satellite-based augmentation systems like EGNOS (which is
not yet operational) are not available worldwide. IGC stands for
International Gliding Commission, which is why WAAS is not quite a good
enough solution at the moment...

Marc

Of course a COTS could easily output an ICAO-ISA altitude, it's just a
matter of using the formula and unselect any other corrections. The
manufacturer could thus implement this feature, it is much easier than
correcting and auto-calibrating GPS altitude.

This is true, but the pressure sensors need to have rather good
temperature compensation and long term stability, which may not be the
case with the sensors in consumer grade GPS receivers.



Sure, I forgot. The sensor of course need to be not only calibrated but also
compensated against temperature.
I think that latest Garmin have a temperature sensor for this, but not old
ones.

However, I feel that nowadays "consumer grade GPS" sold in dozen of
thousands of units at a price of 500-600$ (in europe much more) cannot be
called cheap and represent the state-of-the-art in terms of technology.
There are also low cost gps units, and you get what you pay for, exactly as
with LCD screens and computers, or a pair of glasses made in china.
So I would'nt bet that a good Garmin prices at 500$ is inferior to any
"professional" altimeter or gps ot both. Au contraire, it probably is better
being more recent.
Let's not forget that the cost of an Interseema sensor , used in GP941 and
many other I guess, is below 20$ to the common user.

In the end, I feel that IGC will not change the Code to make COTS usable for
badges. They should change the rule about what is altitude, abandoning
ICAO-ISA which is a standard.

Maybe with a petition?

Thanks again Mark! Paolo

On Feb 25, 1:36 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:

....snip...

There are certainly some in this Certified Flight Recorder Crowd (like
myself, I guess) who think that GPS altitude, properly recorded and
evaluated, should be quite adequate for demonstrating that one has met
the requirements for at least a Gold badge.

You had me convinced otherwise.

....snip...

That is why it is so necessary to work with the IGC delegates. They are
the only ones who can change the rules...

Marc

I guess what I thought was going on here was us discussing whether we
should try to convince the IGC to allow GPS altitude or not. Actually
getting the ICG to change wasn't my focus. If somebody had given a
reason that GPS altitude was just not gonna work, I would drop the
question.

Todd

On Feb 25, 8:00*pm, vontresc wrote:
Just to throw some more fuel on the fire here. What about WAAS enabled
GPS. If the derived altitude is good enough for a quasi ILS approach
to 250' , shouldn't this be good enough for a flight logger?

I don't think WAAS enabled GPS is available throughout the gliding
world. Whatever solutions are acceptable to the IGC have to be
available anywhere that people are flying, not just in the US:

http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html

Who benefits from WAAS?

Currently, WAAS satellite coverage is only available in North America.
There are no ground reference stations in South America, so even
though GPS users there can receive WAAS, the signal has not been
corrected and thus would not improve the accuracy of their unit. For
some users in the U.S., the position of the satellites over the
equator makes it difficult to receive the signals when trees or
mountains obstruct the view of the horizon. WAAS signal reception is
ideal for open land and marine applications. WAAS provides extended
coverage both inland and offshore compared to the land-based DGPS
(differential GPS) system. Another benefit of WAAS is that it does not
require additional receiving equipment, while DGPS does.

Other governments are developing similar satellite-based differential
systems. In Asia, it's the Japanese Multi-Functional Satellite
Augmentation System (MSAS), while Europe has the Euro Geostationary
Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS). Eventually, GPS users around the
world will have access to precise position data using these and other
compatible systems.

On 25 Feb, 20:04, FreeFlight107 wrote:
Sorry, but this is the sort of esoteric disscusion that actualy turns
me off to soaring.

IMHO either system is just fine, pick one and use it. Contests can do
what ever thay want, I won't participate due to several reasons. Badge
flying & CC is all I'm into.

From what I'm hearing I must use a Barograph in addition to the
expensive logger that I thought would do away with the 19th century
mechanical stuff of pressure chambers and mechanical camera pointing
that is not easy for a newcommer or non-decated sport flyier to do
correctly 100% of the time.


If you have an IGC full flight data recorder ( most of us call then
rloggers ) then it can be used, stand alone, for anything up to and
including world records without the need for a barograph or anything
else.

Provided of course that the recorder is igc certified to that level -
most are.

FreeFlight107 wrote:
Sorry, but this is the sort of esoteric disscusion that actualy turns
me off to soaring.

IMHO either system is just fine, pick one and use it. Contests can do
what ever thay want, I won't participate due to several reasons. Badge
flying & CC is all I'm into.

A system has been chosen, and we are using it. The discussion is about
increasing the choices to lower costs.


From what I'm hearing I must use a Barograph in addition to the
expensive logger that I thought would do away with the 19th century
mechanical stuff of pressure chambers and mechanical camera pointing
that is not easy for a newcommer or non-decated sport flyier to do
correctly 100% of the time.

If you use an "expensive" logger (meaning, I assume, a "secure" IGC
logger good for badges and records), you will NOT need to use a
barograph. Get one of these, and you skip the esoteric discussion going
on here, and enjoy all the benefits of the best (if more expensive)
system. It's what I have, an it's great for badges and records, making
the pilot's job and the observer's job about as easy as possible. I'm
not bothered by the extra $600 it cost me over the COTS units being
discussed, as it continues to deliver it's advantages year after year.

snip

Right now it appears we must use 19th century (or earlier) technology
for FAI altitude gains, expensive secure loggers for distance/time
measurments, and another divice for in-cockpit navigation.

To repeat, get an IGC secure logger, and you can use it for everything,
including altitude gains. The navigation device can may be part of some
loggers, you can use a device that connects to it (e.g., and Ipaq
running See You Mobile, Winpilot, etc), or you can use an entirely
separate device (even a paper map). Navigation is a separate issue from
flight recording.

If I were starting out in this sport, I'd choke on all those
requirements above and not go for badges, CC or contests becaue the
investment in dedicated equipment is too high, (I collected my devices
over the years as my paycheck could afford it).

And this discussion is aimed at reducing these costs you complain about!
I'm surprised it "turns you off".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Let's see:
1) IGC Flight recorders are expensive because the market is small
2) No manufacturer is making any profit, some have left the business
(and their customers)
3) The market is almost saturated
4) If COTS receivers are accepted, half (or more) of the shrinking
market evaporates

Guess what will happen to the price of IGC approved flight recorders.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences.

Hi nimbusgb schrieb:

At the time that flight recorders were just getting going a LOT of
consultation was done and many, many hours were spent by people like
Tim for zero reward apart from delivering an acceptable methodology
for improving and simplifying the flight verification procedures. At
the time Cambridge were the only manufacturers of any sort of flight
recorder following their early demos in Sweden in 93 and New Zealand
in 95. Even they did not get things all their way in the ensuing
regulation changes. In this day and age and the track record of
American companies it still surprises me that they didn't tie the
whole idea up in patents which might have had us paying 5 times the
current price for flight recorders today.

There where other companies arrount, that did flight recording with GPS
for quite a long time, at the time CAI promoted the flight recording for
documentation in central competitions. So there was no way to
patent it.