Cambridge 20 approval status

[Humphrey]

I have owned a Cambridge Model 20 flight recorder for several years
now. I have kept up with all the software upgrades to ensure it has
the maximum features and functionality. None of these upgrades fixed
some serious flaws in the software design, which I was not told about
when I bought the unit.

I am not exactly sure of the total facts and sequence of events, but
the following describes a pretty sorry state of affairs…
Late last year (2003), the IGC in its wisdom, demoted this and other
types/models of Flight Recorder from "full" to badges and diplomas
only. This unilateral decision was met with an outcry from around the
world. The IGC then withdrew this decision, reconsidered it and then
repeated that decision in early 2004 with a clear statement that the
Model 20 (amongst others) would have its approval level reduced on 1
Oct 2004. On this basis and recognising the generous grandfathering
of rights, I decided to buy a new Flight Recorder.

Recently, I have been advised that this decision has been changed
again. Three things annoy me here:
Firstly that the IGC cannot make up its mind - there have now been so
many U-turns that I am getting dizzy!
Secondly that this notice has been made in a back-handed way,
contained right at the bottom of an advisory notice about a review of
the process to look at the way Flight Recorders approvals are
appraised. I have looked on the manufacturers website and there is no
information. Apparently one has to subscribe to an IGC discussion
forum (exciting stuff!) to have received this notice, and have taken
the trouble to read through a whole document to get the nitty-gritty
details at the end.
Thirdly the wording of the statements is very unclear and could be
regarded as ambiguous. Even now, I am not entirely sure of the
approval levels.

I am left questioning the competence of bureaucracy......

Humphrey

[Don Johnstone]

Are you really surprised? You are talking about people
who believe that a barometric logger records height
above something and who are unable to grasp the simple
fact that it does not. It records barometric pressure
which may or may not, depending on the temperature,
humidity and depth of the air convert this pressure
to an approximation of the height above something,
who knows what? Despite the existence of a far more
accurate system the barometric cause is still worshipped.
I think the term is Luddite.


At 03:24 15 September 2004, Humphrey wrote:
>I have owned a Cambridge Model 20 flight recorder for
>several years
>now. I have kept up with all the software upgrades
>to ensure it has
>the maximum features and functionality. None of these
>upgrades fixed
>some serious flaws in the software design, which I
>was not told about
>when I bought the unit.
>
>I am not exactly sure of the total facts and sequence
>of events, but
>the following describes a pretty sorry state of affairs…
>Late last year (2003), the IGC in its wisdom, demoted
>this and other
>types/models of Flight Recorder from 'full' to badges
>and diplomas
>only. This unilateral decision was met with an outcry
>from around the
>world. The IGC then withdrew this decision, reconsidered
>it and then
>repeated that decision in early 2004 with a clear statement
>that the
>Model 20 (amongst others) would have its approval level
>reduced on 1
>Oct 2004. On this basis and recognising the generous
>grandfathering
>of rights, I decided to buy a new Flight Recorder.
>
>Recently, I have been advised that this decision has
>been changed
>again. Three things annoy me here:
>Firstly that the IGC cannot make up its mind - there
>have now been so
>many U-turns that I am getting dizzy!
>Secondly that this notice has been made in a back-handed
>way,
>contained right at the bottom of an advisory notice
>about a review of
>the process to look at the way Flight Recorders approvals
>are
>appraised. I have looked on the manufacturers website
>and there is no
>information. Apparently one has to subscribe to an
>IGC discussion
>forum (exciting stuff!) to have received this notice,
>and have taken
>the trouble to read through a whole document to get
>the nitty-gritty
>details at the end.
>Thirdly the wording of the statements is very unclear
>and could be
>regarded as ambiguous. Even now, I am not entirely
>sure of the
>approval levels.
>
>I am left questioning the competence of bureaucracy......
>
>Humphrey
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

> I think the term is Luddite.


Add alarmist. Technology in the cockpit has been both boon and bane.
Once upon a time, it was fairly easy to spoof a committee of flight
reviewers. Creative photographic techniques, a less than ethical
official observer, and a carefully crafted foil could pass for a world
record flight.

Without a doubt, technology has reduced cheating across the board. And
especially in contests. However, those who administrate such things
are left with a low opinion of soaring pilot virtue and a fear that a
determined cheater can act with impunity. Thus the arcane requirements
for FRs.

For the rest of us, it helps to look at the problem from a more
realistic point of view. Most of the recorders on the market at
suitable for badge flights and contests. How many of us are really
going to set any world records this year? Or next?

I recall a poll conducted last year. It found that 20% of US wage
earners considered themselves to be in the top 1/2 percentile for
annual income. Conclusion, 19.5% of American wage earners have trouble
discerning facts from aspirations. Some might think that charming...
others might see an oppotunity to capitalize on it...

If anyone is considering selling their Cambridge Model 20 or 25 to
upgrade to an approved system, let me know. I'm in the market for a
backup FR.