How Reliable Is Your Panel?

[Chip Bearden]

(from a related thread)
> It worked fine but I could hear it on the radio. Puting the switch in a
> metal box and grounding the box should help but it seems silly to me since
> the Volkslogger and SN-10 both can log the flight and are both very
> reliable. Of course the SN-10 log can't be used for badges or records but
> it could probably be used as a backup if the Volkslogger failed (which is
> not likely if reliable 12V power is assured).

Forgive me if I cringe at words such as "very reliable" and "not
likely." With all due respect to the technical wizards, these
assurances are maddening for anyone who's lost a flight due to flight
recorder or other electronic equipment failure.

I've had two unrelated GPS flight recorder failures in the past 12
months, neither caused by power problems. I know of several other
logger failures at the Hobbs U.S. Standard Class Nationals this
summer. Some folks had backups, some lost all points. Most serious
contest pilots now carry a backup flight recorder which, at nearly
$1,000 each, is an expensive form of insurance.

My faithful LNAV is still crunching away 12 years after I bought it
(albeit with a number of firmware upgrades) but takeoff grids and this
newsgroup are buzzing with complaints about problems with expensive
varios/flight computers. Most of us have backup varios but I've seen
few redundant full-race systems.

How frequently do these things fail? With the perspective of nearly 40
years of soaring, my answer is "increasingly often."

What appears to be a significant problem with flight recorder
reliability is mirrored by the agonized howls I heard this summer with
many of today's state-of-the-art vario/flight computers. The common
thread to all of this is the growing complexity of modern electronic
flight management systems and the small size of the soaring market
exacerbated by the profusion of small companies playing in it. I'm a
died-in-the-wool capitalist and I welcome the advances in
functionality that competition brings. But the unfortunate side effect
is that no single instrument or device is ever produced in sufficient
quantity to wring all the bugs out of it.

The ironic result is that many of us own spares for the cheap but
highly reliable stuff like PDAs (low cost and reliability being the
result of large non-soaring markets and high production volumes) but
only one of the really expensive but more temperamental
soaring-specific systems such as flight computers.

Flight recorders are somewhere in between. They work most--but not
all--the time, and they are sufficiently affordable to allow carrying
a spare.

I'm being simplistic here, obviously. I'm lumping together software,
hardware, and power issues, and ignoring differences across brands.
But I'm still troubled by the growing sense that "progress" is pushing
us into greater and greater dependence on electronic gadgets whose
reliability is proving to be less than acceptable to serious
cross-country and competition pilots.

At the end of the day, most of us are seeking the least expensive
combination of reliable, highly functional, easy-to-use equipment that
provides the most flexibility, compatibility, and redundancy. That
shouldn't be so difficult, right? :)

I don't have the answer, if indeed others think this is a problem. But
I'd welcome other perspectives.

Chip Bearden

[Andy Durbin]

(Chip Bearden) wrote in message >...
>
> I don't have the answer, if indeed others think this is a problem. But
> I'd welcome other perspectives.
>
> Chip Bearden

I never lost a turnpoint or a contst day when flying with 2 cheap
cameras. I lost a regional day to a logger utility software bug. I
now carry 2 recorders, a 302 and a GPS NAV. Also have 2 batteries.
My approximately $3000 investment now provides roughly equivalent
redundancy to my $32 investment in cameras.

If redundant recorders are used they should be dissimilar.



Andy

[tango4]

How about approaching your IGC representative to support a version of
loggers without barograph. Data logging a gps stream alone would reduce the
cost of loggers by 30% even if they still had to keep all the other security
stuff.

Better still get your competitions committee to accept the trace from a
garmin or other COTS units as secondary or even primary proof. There are
places in the world where you DON'T have to use IGC loggers for comp flying
and the scoring still works right.

Ian




"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
om...
> (Chip Bearden) wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> I don't have the answer, if indeed others think this is a problem. But
>> I'd welcome other perspectives.
>>
>> Chip Bearden
>
> I never lost a turnpoint or a contst day when flying with 2 cheap
> cameras. I lost a regional day to a logger utility software bug. I
> now carry 2 recorders, a 302 and a GPS NAV. Also have 2 batteries.
> My approximately $3000 investment now provides roughly equivalent
> redundancy to my $32 investment in cameras.
>
> If redundant recorders are used they should be dissimilar.
>
>
>
> Andy

[Marc Ramsey]

tango4 wrote:
> Better still get your competitions committee to accept the trace from a
> garmin or other COTS units as secondary or even primary proof. There are
> places in the world where you DON'T have to use IGC loggers for comp flying
> and the scoring still works right.

The odd part is that COTS GPS units have been perfectly legal for years
in US Regional and National contests, with the exception of those flying
for points to get on the US National Team (and using a COTS GPS as
backup for the occasional equipment failure likely won't jeopardize
those points). A Garmin Geko 201 records 10000 track points, at a 2
second recording interval it can handle a 5 1/2 hour task. I've seen
them for as little as $95US. Guess what I use for a backup 8^)

Marc

[Tony Verhulst]

.......The common
> thread to all of this is the growing complexity of modern electronic
> flight management systems and the small size of the soaring market
> exacerbated by the profusion of small companies playing in it....

How so many companies can compete in such a small market has always been
a mystery to me. Off the top of my head: Borgelt, Cambridge, Ilec,
Filser, Sage, Westerboer, Winter, Zander, ......, just amazing! Sorry if
I left off your favorite vendor :-).

Tony V "6N"
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[John Sinclair]

Hi Chip,
I was in the scoring office at Hobbs when a contestant
was told there was no trace on his little black box.
The guy was devastated, didn't go to the banquet and
I'm told he drove till midnight, not saying a word
to his wife. Answer; You got to have a back-up. I'm
talking, 2 GPS's, 2 displays and 2 recorders. A cheap
GPS driving a computer like the SN-10 would do for
one, but you must have a completely separate system,
like the old reliable Cambridge model 20 for your back-up.

For what it's worth, I have a Borgelt B-100 that I
got used for $750 bucks, driven by a model 20 and another
model 20 for back-up. The B-100 gives me everything
I can possibly want or use in flight, except a good
wind. I get that from my 2 GPS's and by looking 'Outside
the cockpit' at smoke, dust, ripples on the water,
etc. I turn the audio off on the B-100 (back-up only)
and use the climb only audio on my B-40 (hate down
audio) Got two 12 ah batteries that I charge every
nite. Switch from used battery to fresh one by switching
on the new one, just before I switch off the old battery.
Been doing this for 30 years and it works just fine,
please let's not start that 'Voltage spike' argument
again. It doesn't exist, there is however, a voltege
spike that may be produced when your radio is switched
off, so I always turn on my radio first and off last.
I have been using B-100's since they first came out
and have never had a malfunction, except the internal
battery went bad on one, which is probably what went
wrong with the guy that didn't have a trace on the
last day at Hobbs. My model 20's have also treked right
along for 9 years now, but I did loose an internal
battery this spring. Don't want and wouldn't use a
moving map. I believe we have reached a tech-data overload
situation, I am completely satisfied with the above
set-up and it is reliable.
Cheers, JJ


At 23:06 29 September 2004, Chip Bearden wrote:
>(from a related thread)
>> It worked fine but I could hear it on the radio.
>>Puting the switch in a
>> metal box and grounding the box should help but it
>>seems silly to me since
>> the Volkslogger and SN-10 both can log the flight
>>and are both very
>> reliable. Of course the SN-10 log can't be used for
>>badges or records but
>> it could probably be used as a backup if the Volkslogger
>>failed (which is
>> not likely if reliable 12V power is assured).
>
>Forgive me if I cringe at words such as 'very reliable'
>and 'not
>likely.' With all due respect to the technical wizards,
>these
>assurances are maddening for anyone who's lost a flight
>due to flight
>recorder or other electronic equipment failure.
>
>I've had two unrelated GPS flight recorder failures
>in the past 12
>months, neither caused by power problems. I know of
>several other
>logger failures at the Hobbs U.S. Standard Class Nationals
>this
>summer. Some folks had backups, some lost all points.
>Most serious
>contest pilots now carry a backup flight recorder which,
>at nearly
>$1,000 each, is an expensive form of insurance.
>
>My faithful LNAV is still crunching away 12 years after
>I bought it
>(albeit with a number of firmware upgrades) but takeoff
>grids and this
>newsgroup are buzzing with complaints about problems
>with expensive
>varios/flight computers. Most of us have backup varios
>but I've seen
>few redundant full-race systems.
>
>How frequently do these things fail? With the perspective
>of nearly 40
>years of soaring, my answer is 'increasingly often.'
>
>What appears to be a significant problem with flight
>recorder
>reliability is mirrored by the agonized howls I heard
>this summer with
>many of today's state-of-the-art vario/flight computers.
>The common
>thread to all of this is the growing complexity of
>modern electronic
>flight management systems and the small size of the
>soaring market
>exacerbated by the profusion of small companies playing
>in it. I'm a
>died-in-the-wool capitalist and I welcome the advances
>in
>functionality that competition brings. But the unfortunate
>side effect
>is that no single instrument or device is ever produced
>in sufficient
>quantity to wring all the bugs out of it.
>
>The ironic result is that many of us own spares for
>the cheap but
>highly reliable stuff like PDAs (low cost and reliability
>being the
>result of large non-soaring markets and high production
>volumes) but
>only one of the really expensive but more temperamental
>soaring-specific systems such as flight computers.
>
>Flight recorders are somewhere in between. They work
>most--but not
>all--the time, and they are sufficiently affordable
>to allow carrying
>a spare.
>
>I'm being simplistic here, obviously. I'm lumping together
>software,
>hardware, and power issues, and ignoring differences
>across brands.
>But I'm still troubled by the growing sense that 'progress'
>is pushing
>us into greater and greater dependence on electronic
>gadgets whose
>reliability is proving to be less than acceptable to
>serious
>cross-country and competition pilots.
>
>At the end of the day, most of us are seeking the least
>expensive
>combination of reliable, highly functional, easy-to-use
>equipment that
>provides the most flexibility, compatibility, and redundancy.
>That
>shouldn't be so difficult, right? :)
>
>I don't have the answer, if indeed others think this
>is a problem. But
>I'd welcome other perspectives.
>
>Chip Bearden
>

[Fred Mueller]

I recently renovated my panel and in the course of doing so added a
backup logger.

I have become a recent convert to the SN10 and I supply that with a
NMEA feed from a Colibri logger. I also have kept the PDA in the
cockpit and feed that from a GPSNAV Model 20. Two separate navigation
and glide computer systems and 3 loggers that are run off the same
electrical system that also shares a common backup battery in the
tail. I gave serious thought to installing an additional battery to
power the PDA and Model 20 independent from the SN10 but the power
requirements don't demand it and I believe that I have adequately
addressed the true threat which is component failure rather than
circuit failure.

Fred





(Chip Bearden) wrote in message >...
> (from a related thread)
> > It worked fine but I could hear it on the radio. Puting the switch in a
> > metal box and grounding the box should help but it seems silly to me since
> > the Volkslogger and SN-10 both can log the flight and are both very
> > reliable. Of course the SN-10 log can't be used for badges or records but
> > it could probably be used as a backup if the Volkslogger failed (which is
> > not likely if reliable 12V power is assured).
>
> Forgive me if I cringe at words such as "very reliable" and "not
> likely." With all due respect to the technical wizards, these
> assurances are maddening for anyone who's lost a flight due to flight
> recorder or other electronic equipment failure.
>
> I've had two unrelated GPS flight recorder failures in the past 12
> months, neither caused by power problems. I know of several other
> logger failures at the Hobbs U.S. Standard Class Nationals this
> summer. Some folks had backups, some lost all points. Most serious
> contest pilots now carry a backup flight recorder which, at nearly
> $1,000 each, is an expensive form of insurance.
>
> My faithful LNAV is still crunching away 12 years after I bought it
> (albeit with a number of firmware upgrades) but takeoff grids and this
> newsgroup are buzzing with complaints about problems with expensive
> varios/flight computers. Most of us have backup varios but I've seen
> few redundant full-race systems.
>
> How frequently do these things fail? With the perspective of nearly 40
> years of soaring, my answer is "increasingly often."
>
> What appears to be a significant problem with flight recorder
> reliability is mirrored by the agonized howls I heard this summer with
> many of today's state-of-the-art vario/flight computers. The common
> thread to all of this is the growing complexity of modern electronic
> flight management systems and the small size of the soaring market
> exacerbated by the profusion of small companies playing in it. I'm a
> died-in-the-wool capitalist and I welcome the advances in
> functionality that competition brings. But the unfortunate side effect
> is that no single instrument or device is ever produced in sufficient
> quantity to wring all the bugs out of it.
>
> The ironic result is that many of us own spares for the cheap but
> highly reliable stuff like PDAs (low cost and reliability being the
> result of large non-soaring markets and high production volumes) but
> only one of the really expensive but more temperamental
> soaring-specific systems such as flight computers.
>
> Flight recorders are somewhere in between. They work most--but not
> all--the time, and they are sufficiently affordable to allow carrying
> a spare.
>
> I'm being simplistic here, obviously. I'm lumping together software,
> hardware, and power issues, and ignoring differences across brands.
> But I'm still troubled by the growing sense that "progress" is pushing
> us into greater and greater dependence on electronic gadgets whose
> reliability is proving to be less than acceptable to serious
> cross-country and competition pilots.
>
> At the end of the day, most of us are seeking the least expensive
> combination of reliable, highly functional, easy-to-use equipment that
> provides the most flexibility, compatibility, and redundancy. That
> shouldn't be so difficult, right? :)
>
> I don't have the answer, if indeed others think this is a problem. But
> I'd welcome other perspectives.
>
> Chip Bearden

[Erik mann]

Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
> How so many companies can compete in such a small market has always been
> a mystery to me. Off the top of my head: Borgelt, Cambridge, Ilec,
> Filser, Sage, Westerboer, Winter, Zander, ......, just amazing! Sorry if
> I left off your favorite vendor :-).
>
> Tony V "6N"
> http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Tony,

The answer is - they can't. Of the list you made above, at least 2
are in dire financial straits. This is just one of the reasons that
many of us have been lobbying the IGC to actively pursue a backup in
the form of commercially built recorders NOT designed expressly for
soaring. The market has headed that way on its own, with many
recreational pilots and several countries opting to forsake the
"IGC-approved" route to adapt to cheap, widely available units from
the likes of Garmin and Magellan. As a result, you will see that the
number of new units sold cannot support all of these manufacturers.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

[Robert Ehrlich]

John Sinclair wrote:
>
> Hi Chip,
> I was in the scoring office at Hobbs when a contestant
> was told there was no trace on his little black box.
> The guy was devastated, didn't go to the banquet and
> I'm told he drove till midnight, not saying a word
> to his wife.
> ...

This reaction is difficult to understand. Anyway there is
nothing to win in a contest, except the satisfaction of
having done the best you can and that the best you can is
comparable to or better than what the others did. The fact
that this is officially sanctionned by the rule of scoring
should be secondary, even if you don't get the place you
think you are deserving, you know that you made the flight
and what are your ranking compared to others. I agree that
it would be better if the official result shows that. But
this is the opinion of a non-competitor.