Cost of flight loggers

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

> What a nonsense, Ian. In the ancient times, people
>
> wanting to get a badge needed to buy a barograph and
>
> a camera, and if I recall correctly, they weren't
>cheap -
> typically more expensive than a logger today.
> So, what changed is the technology, not the price
>tag.

But the comparison ought to be between the cost of
a logger that's approved, and one that isn't. To produce
a flight log, it isn't necessary to spend more than
a hundred dollars. The technology is available, and
it's cheap, but we aren't allowed to use it.

Jim Beckman (NJ)

[Bruce]

Not true - no-one said you can't use the $100 GPS for all the most useful
functions. (Navigation and flight analysis.) There are just restrictions on
using them for FAI awards where there is a higher standard of proof demanded.
Regrettably this is so because there have been documented cases of fraud in
badge and record claims. Proof that there is scum in every pond I suppose.

Now whether the design of IGC logger security is efective at preventing that is
another question.

Bruce

Jim Beckman wrote:
>> What a nonsense, Ian. In the ancient times, people
>>
>> wanting to get a badge needed to buy a barograph and
>>
>> a camera, and if I recall correctly, they weren't
>> cheap -
>> typically more expensive than a logger today.
>> So, what changed is the technology, not the price
>> tag.
>
> But the comparison ought to be between the cost of
> a logger that's approved, and one that isn't. To produce
> a flight log, it isn't necessary to spend more than
> a hundred dollars. The technology is available, and
> it's cheap, but we aren't allowed to use it.
>
> Jim Beckman (NJ)
>
>
>
>

[Fish]

CHeap??? Check this out!
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8301

cheers
FIsh

[Papa3]

On Feb 13, 12:19*am, Bruce > wrote:
> Not true - no-one said you can't use the $100 GPS for all the most useful
> functions. (Navigation and flight analysis.) There are just restrictions on
> using them for FAI awards where there is a higher standard of proof demanded.
> Regrettably this is so because there have been documented cases of fraud in
> badge and record claims. Proof that there is scum in every pond I suppose.
>
> Now whether the design of IGC logger security is efective at preventing that is
> another question.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> Jim Beckman wrote:
> >> What a nonsense, Ian. In the ancient times, people
>
> >> wanting to get a badge needed to buy a barograph and
>
> >> a camera, and if I recall correctly, they weren't
> >> cheap -
> >> typically more expensive than a logger today.
> >> So, what changed is the technology, not the price
> >> tag.
>
> > But the comparison ought to be between the cost of
> > a logger that's approved, and one that isn't. *To produce
> > a flight log, it isn't necessary to spend more than
> > a hundred dollars. *The technology is available, and
> > it's cheap, but we aren't allowed to use it.
>
> > Jim Beckman (NJ)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What seems to repeatedly get lost in the discussions is that the IGC
Approved logger STILL requires that you trust the OO. Once you've
made that conceptual leap, the case for COTS becomes clear. There
are simple and effective manual procedures which provide equivalent
security under a COTS scenario. So, statements that COTS somehow
inherently provides a lower level of security are just wrong. It IS
true that there are a few more manual procedures required, such as
sealing access to the data port, taking control of the recorder during
download and applying a little more scrutiny during flight analysis.
IF these procedures are followed, an equivalent level of security can
be achieved.

Why is the OO required for an IGC Approved logger? For example, I own
an LS8-18. I'm going to try for a record flight in Standard
Class. Who confirms that the glider was appropriately configured
for the flight claimed? The OO. Just one of dozens of
examples.

If anyone wants to understand this more, please see the below:

http://home.netcom.com/~pappa3/files/COTS/cots_security_draft.pdf

[mike]

On Feb 13, 1:50 am, Fish > wrote:
> CHeap??? Check this out!http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8301
>
> cheers
> FIsh

I wonder, what are the differences that makes the EW logger worth
nearly $1000.00 and the little GeoChron logger less than $150.00.
Anyone know?

thanks

Mike

[Wayne Paul]

"mike" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 13, 1:50 am, Fish > wrote:
>> CHeap??? Check this
>> out!http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8301
>>
>> cheers
>> FIsh
>
> I wonder, what are the differences that makes the EW logger worth
> nearly $1000.00 and the little GeoChron logger less than $150.00.
> Anyone know?
>

Mike,

Does the GeoChron record pressure altitude as well as GPS altitude? The
cost difference is mainly due to amortizing R&D, production overhead, etc.
over the limited number of units required by the soaring community.

About 15 years ago I purchase a new barograph for $400. At the time badges
required a time stamp on the turnpoint photo. I found a Fuji camera with
that capability for $150. (I didn't pay much for the EW Model D/Garmin 12
setup.)

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Flights/6F_Gold_Distance.html

[Tim Mara]

I agree absolutely....!
if someone wants to cheat they can...no question, no seal on a black box
will prevent this....
what is to stop me from handing a secure logger to some other pilot in an
ETA and letting them fly and turn in the log with my name on it and tell the
world the flight was in a K8...absolutely nothing...
The point is....Badges are personal..... it's more important to the holder
than to me or anyone else..if you can lie to yourself and be proud of it
then you have bigger issues than how the badge was claimed....
and ....not to make light of anyone's accomplishments...the ABC, Bronze,
Silver and even gold badges if you like could still be documented and
"officially observed" with a camera, barograph or a simple and cheap
handheld GPS, PDA or one of the many new personal data-loggers just as well
as they can be "proven" on an IGC "approved" data-logger..
Now especially for newer pilots who would like to get into the badge
thing...eliminating barographs and cameras as proof simply takes away one
more incentive for them to try...we have in our club and I'm sure nearly
every club has, someone who has an old barograph or camera they would make
available for free to help them make the attempts.. would it be so terrible
to let someone fly 5 hours in a club glider with a wind up barograph as
proof of their accomplishment? Would anyone feel cheated because they didn't
have to buy the badge with a $1000 logger?
And......there were quite literally Thousands! (plural) of barographs sold
through the years...they are still out there....and I bet Kodak sold more
than a dozen or so cameras too...
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Papa3" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 13, 12:19 am, Bruce > wrote:
> Not true - no-one said you can't use the $100 GPS for all the most useful
> functions. (Navigation and flight analysis.) There are just restrictions
> on
> using them for FAI awards where there is a higher standard of proof
> demanded.
> Regrettably this is so because there have been documented cases of fraud
> in
> badge and record claims. Proof that there is scum in every pond I suppose.
>
> Now whether the design of IGC logger security is efective at preventing
> that is
> another question.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> Jim Beckman wrote:
> >> What a nonsense, Ian. In the ancient times, people
>
> >> wanting to get a badge needed to buy a barograph and
>
> >> a camera, and if I recall correctly, they weren't
> >> cheap -
> >> typically more expensive than a logger today.
> >> So, what changed is the technology, not the price
> >> tag.
>
> > But the comparison ought to be between the cost of
> > a logger that's approved, and one that isn't. To produce
> > a flight log, it isn't necessary to spend more than
> > a hundred dollars. The technology is available, and
> > it's cheap, but we aren't allowed to use it.
>
> > Jim Beckman (NJ)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What seems to repeatedly get lost in the discussions is that the IGC
Approved logger STILL requires that you trust the OO. Once you've
made that conceptual leap, the case for COTS becomes clear. There
are simple and effective manual procedures which provide equivalent
security under a COTS scenario. So, statements that COTS somehow
inherently provides a lower level of security are just wrong. It IS
true that there are a few more manual procedures required, such as
sealing access to the data port, taking control of the recorder during
download and applying a little more scrutiny during flight analysis.
IF these procedures are followed, an equivalent level of security can
be achieved.

Why is the OO required for an IGC Approved logger? For example, I own
an LS8-18. I'm going to try for a record flight in Standard
Class. Who confirms that the glider was appropriately configured
for the flight claimed? The OO. Just one of dozens of
examples.

If anyone wants to understand this more, please see the below:

http://home.netcom.com/~pappa3/files/COTS/cots_security_draft.pdf

[Papa3]

On Feb 13, 12:19*am, Bruce > wrote:
> Not true - no-one said you can't use the $100 GPS for all the most useful
> functions. (Navigation and flight analysis.) There are just restrictions on
> using them for FAI awards where there is a higher standard of proof demanded.
> Regrettably this is so because there have been documented cases of fraud in
> badge and record claims. Proof that there is scum in every pond I suppose.
>
> Now whether the design of IGC logger security is efective at preventing that is
> another question.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> Jim Beckman wrote:
> >> What a nonsense, Ian. In the ancient times, people
>
> >> wanting to get a badge needed to buy a barograph and
>
> >> a camera, and if I recall correctly, they weren't
> >> cheap -
> >> typically more expensive than a logger today.
> >> So, what changed is the technology, not the price
> >> tag.
>
> > But the comparison ought to be between the cost of
> > a logger that's approved, and one that isn't. *To produce
> > a flight log, it isn't necessary to spend more than
> > a hundred dollars. *The technology is available, and
> > it's cheap, but we aren't allowed to use it.
>
> > Jim Beckman (NJ)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought this got posted earlier, so if this turn out to be a
duplicate, my apologies.

The oft repeated claim that a COTS solution is somehow inherently less
secure than the expensive IGC logger just doesn't hold water... IF you
agree that the OO is critical to either technology. So, do we trust
the OO?

The OO still matters in the IGC Approved logger context because there
are tasks that need to be performed outside of electronic security and
logging security. For example, I own an LS8-18. I'd like to go
after a state record in the Standard Class. Somebody has to make
sure that I didn't sneak around the course with the long wingtips -
ie. the OO. That's just one example.

In order to achieve equivalent security, COTS requires additional
manual steps which replace some of the costly technology. It's
definitely a tradeoff, but it's not a compromise.

Anyone who is interested in reading up on this, please see the
following:

http://home.netcom.com/~pappa3/files/COTS/cots_security_draft.pdf

Cheers,
Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3
Chair, SSA FAI Badges and Records Committee

[[email protected]]

Quoted from Tim Mara
" I'm sure nearly
every club has, someone who has an old barograph or camera they would
make
available for free to help them make the attempts.. would it be so
terrible
to let someone fly 5 hours in a club glider with a wind up barograph
as
proof of their accomplishment? Would anyone feel cheated because they
didn't
have to buy the badge with a $1000 logger? "

Tim, the same can be said for a IGC Logger, surely someone in your
club has a Colibri or EW or LX20 the could let you borrow! No
difference! " 2 of our wealthier clubmembers bought Colibri`s as
backup and make those available to someone who needs a logger for a
badge.

Bob

[Tim Mara]

actually....no.....in our smallish club with 20 or so members I know of only
one data-logger equipped glider (LX21) and it can't easily be just carried
along in any glider since it still requires external power connection and
the owner has the antenna more or less permanently mounted.....moving it
would not be a spur of the moment thing...and besides, if it's there the
owners there and wants to fly his glider (or he would stay home) and it runs
GPS data to his PDA ......we do however have at least 2-3 Replogel
barographs always on hand and nearly every other private owned glider (we
have at last count 14 gliders in the club all but 2 privately owned) has a
(I think we have 7 with this) PDA set-up with FlywithCE Navigator and simple
GPS (non-IGC type)....
so....loaning a logger isn't for us an option but loaning a PDA with GPS or
a Barograph is.....or would be unless these are not acceptable...
and in a situation like our club (many small clubs are just the same) not
many really care that much about badges beyond ABC and Silver and no one
here really has any interest in trying to set world records... but take away
any incentive to do the minor badges goes against trying to train new glider
pilots and give them some encouragement to try to step away from the home
field... there is a certain amount of bragging among students and new pilots
competing for these badges....but none of them would pay $1000 just to get
one line of print in Soaring magazine.
tim
" > wrote in message
...
> Quoted from Tim Mara
> " I'm sure nearly
> every club has, someone who has an old barograph or camera they would
> make
> available for free to help them make the attempts.. would it be so
> terrible
> to let someone fly 5 hours in a club glider with a wind up barograph
> as
> proof of their accomplishment? Would anyone feel cheated because they
> didn't
> have to buy the badge with a $1000 logger? "
>
> Tim, the same can be said for a IGC Logger, surely someone in your
> club has a Colibri or EW or LX20 the could let you borrow! No
> difference! " 2 of our wealthier clubmembers bought Colibri`s as
> backup and make those available to someone who needs a logger for a
> badge.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

[Papa3]

On Feb 14, 10:36*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> actually....no.....in our smallish club with 20 or so members I know of only
> one data-logger equipped glider (LX21) and it can't easily be just carried
> along in any glider since it still requires external power connection and
> the owner has the antenna more or less permanently mounted.....moving it
> would not be a spur of the moment thing...and besides, if it's there the
> owners there and wants to fly his glider (or he would stay home) and it runs
> GPS data to his PDA

Another key point that Tim raises. It's hard to explain to someone
who might be part of a large club that there are literally scores of
clubs out there without a single IGC approved logger in the existing
fleet. It's not as if rich members are out there being selfish;
there just isn't a single one in the fleet of either club-owned or
private ships. Couple that with the issue than many of the units are
installed in the panel or in other semi-permanent settings, it does
become an issue for those "grass roots" organizations which we need to
encourage to grow to the next level.

[Peter Purdie[_2_]]

How did we poor (my pay was around $10 per week, but
the armed forces do get cheap flying) pilots manage
nearly 50 years ago when I started gliding? The club
invested in a barograph from membership fees. Every
time anyone used it to claim a badge flight, they put
about $5 equivalent in a fund, and when it built up
enough bought another.

A simple (EW Microrecorder) is under $800. In todays
money, an extra $20 for a badge flight is less than
the round of beers you buy. 40 badge flights and you
can buy a second one. Pretty soon, you hold a club
meeting to decide what to buy next once there are enough
recorders.

Soaring is cheap compared to most other sports (if
you play golf too, how much did that bagful you tote
around cost? And as for boats.......)


At 21:48 14 February 2008, Papa3 wrote:
>On Feb 14, 10:36=A0am, 'Tim Mara' wrote:
>> actually....no.....in our smallish club with 20 or
>>so members I know of on=
>ly
>> one data-logger equipped glider (LX21) and it can't
>>easily be just carried=
>
>> along in any glider since it still requires external
>>power connection and
>> the owner has the antenna more or less permanently
>>mounted.....moving it
>> would not be a spur of the moment thing...and besides,
>>if it's there the
>> owners there and wants to fly his glider (or he would
>>stay home) and it ru=
>ns
>> GPS data to his PDA
>
>Another key point that Tim raises. It's hard to explain
>to someone
>who might be part of a large club that there are literally
>scores of
>clubs out there without a single IGC approved logger
>in the existing
>fleet. It's not as if rich members are out there
>being selfish;
>there just isn't a single one in the fleet of either
>club-owned or
>private ships. Couple that with the issue than many
>of the units are
>installed in the panel or in other semi-permanent settings,
>it does
>become an issue for those 'grass roots' organizations
>which we need to
>encourage to grow to the next level.
>

[Cats]

On Feb 14, 10:42*pm, Peter Purdie
> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Soaring is cheap compared to most other sports (if
> you play golf too, how much did that bagful you tote
> around cost? And as for boats.......)

<snip>

There are ways and ways of doing other sports. In the UK (and I
presume the US) dinghy sailing can be a very cheap sport - $1,000 to
buy a second-hand boat, $100 per year for club membership and
insurance, and if it's a plastic boat the maintenance costs are very
low. The same with golf in Scotland - lots of municipal courses which
are relatively cheap. They don't have to be swanning around in a 50'
ketch or playing the Old Course.

When I started I compared the costs to night-clubbing for a smoker (I
do neither) and I reckon a nigh-clubber who smokes spends more on that
per year than I do on gliding, despite EASA and the rest of it. And I
have an asset I can sell (the golider!) unlike the night-cluber - what
price a hang-over? :)

[Tony Burton]

I keep seeing reference to COTS units replacing the camera and barograph for Gold-and-under badges.
NO! It will only replaces the camera. GPS altitude is not going to be accepted for height
verification. Hold onto your Winters.