I think that it is time that someone at IGC take in consideration what
pilots say, and not only what IGC approved manufacturers want and say.


Everyone involved at the IGC is very firmly connected to gliding and,
knowing more than one or two of them, I can say all of them have the
sports best interests at heart. Trying to make things workable on a
global scale and still have some level of security when an OO is not
about was a very difficult task. With 20:20 hindsight it may be easy
to say they did not get it perfect but they came up with a workable
system.

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.

I agree that the communication to and consultation with the membership
appears to be very poor at times but I don't see too many people
sticking their heads above the parapet to try to change that. Perhaps
they are all too aware they they will become targets for bored pilots!