Why so expensive (flight recorders)

No they can't, and they never have been hacked in 10 years. There's a huge
business on Garmin for travelling. While all navigators like tomtom, MIO,
etc. have been hacked (and you can upload maps to them and even change the
operating system- like for MIO) there has never been a single unique case of
someone that could break Garmin's algorithms for uploading a stupid map to
the device (their maps of course. there are also public maps).

Anything can be done of course. Even swapping the internal hardware with
another thing. But then you can also build a fake LX Colibrì as well.
There are more reasons to hack a garmin than to hack an LX, believe me.
Garmin maps costs hundreds of dollars. It's a huge business and you will not
find a single hacked map on the whole internet. If you can't upload a garmin
map without their code I let you imagine how difficult it is to hack the
firmware. The fact that they haven't been hacked is simply because it is
too difficult, and that's something going on since the end of the 90s! (To
be precise, there exists a software that allows you to change the welcome
text screen, and that's all).

Garmin's policy is that for each device you have to buy separately new maps,
or better a new unlock code for each device, at the full price. Europe's
maps costs more than a TomTom hardware+maps ! People nevertheless buy also
Garmin because they are simply the best around.

I compiled custom "extra" maps for garmin devices, topo maps, airports,
airspace etc for the Alps, making a Garmin screen more or less similar to
SeeYou mobile moving map using the "unofficial" cgpsmapper software (which I
paid for) so though I don't consider myself an expert on their firmware, at
least I can say that I spent some hundreds hours working on those devices.




"nimbusgb" ha scritto nel messaggio
...


I fly with Garmin 76S and 76CSX. Like all Garmin models they cannot be
hacked.

Yes they can. Garmin tends to use industry standard processors and
components in their units so there's no reason why they couldnt be
hacked if there was something in it for someone.They use flash memory
for their code, they have serial uploaders to facilitate flashing new
updates. The fact that they haven't been hacked is simply because
there is no reason to hack them!

One of the restrictions on the use of COTS units for Silver and Gold badge flights (assuming that
their use is approved at the upcoming IGC annual meeting), is that units that have a dead reckoning
function on loss of signal may be used unless the function can be disabled. I have been hold that
Garmin units have this function but that it cannot be disabled, which would disqualify them. Does
anyone have any facts on this?

Tony this is something I also heard of.
I use Garmins and when signal is lost it says "signal lost". That's it. When
I enter a tunnel it says "signal lost" within 3 seconds.
Same happens on SirfIII chipsets. Even if a device interpolates a signal
between two known points in a period of a few second, that's a straight line
and I can't see what kind of advantage it could hold. I say "a few seconds",
cause after a few seconds if signal is lost it is lost! And that's for sure.
Garmin and modern GPS chipsets are much more accurate and reliable then
older chipset used inside (f.i.) LX.
I have seen (and can demonstrate) logs by LX-20 that show a standard Cirrus
flying at almost 800km/h (like a Boeing 737).
Expecially while banking at 45 degrees these devices (old chipsets) tend to
loose signal and the firmware (gps firmware) sends incorrect data. This is a
statement, it's logged. You can see a glider jumping like a rabbit with
10-15km steps!
So what is the point with interpolation on a straight line (if at all it is
done, I do not any evidence of this) in 2-3 seconds?
At least a Garmin will always report correct coordinates. I suspect many old
LX do not in certain circumstances. Fact is that IGC is not declaring these
devices unreliable. (clearly I talk about LX but generally I guess any
other device with some 8-10 years life).
So if it is not important that official loggers are precise, I can't
understand why a COTS should - given the fact that all evidences show that
newer chipsets are times more accurate then older.

The only issue should be that a garmin can be "tampered" (theoretically),
while an official flight recorder cannot.
So use a COTS under supervision of an officer and that's all (just like with
cameras).

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.



"Tony Burton" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
One of the restrictions on the use of COTS units for Silver and Gold badge
flights (assuming that
their use is approved at the upcoming IGC annual meeting), is that units
that have a dead reckoning
function on loss of signal may be used unless the function can be
disabled. I have been hold that
Garmin units have this function but that it cannot be disabled, which
would disqualify them. Does
anyone have any facts on this?

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!

I agree with you, but I would like to point that 1993 is 15 years ago.
Technology has changed a lot, so the methodology has to be
adapted a little bit.
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.

No one would buy a flight recorder so expensive, that's why. People on this
group claim that loggers are already too expensive.
If you see a logger from the specs point of view, and the investments they
did in order to fulfill these specs, they are not too expensive. If you
instead look at their mere functionalities, then it looks like they are way
too expensive.

After all, it's just a matter of considering a COTS gps just like a camera
and revise the checking procedures and the supervision duties.
Actually it all comes down to the point that an approved GPS cannot be
modified and reports the truth. Let's leave it like that.
Let's at the same point replace the old cameras with COTS.
Mainly because a COTS gps is useful for flying and not only for recording
data.

In any case, if there is no supervision (an officer, or whatever) it's clear
that the only choice is (for me) a nice Colibri by LX, which works like a
charm.




"nimbusgb" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

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!

On Feb 20, 3:39*pm, nimbusgb wrote:

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!


A very rational post. I have to admit that I was one of the folks who
was a strident (if under-informed) critic of folks on the GFAC when I
first got involved in the issue. I personally feel badly about that,
and I would hope that most of us now realize it's a thankless job.
In large part, I agree that the IGC and GFAC got it about right,
especially the part about establishing standard record formats which
allow us to speak the same language when it comes to log file analysis
and the like. Many commercial industries continue to struggle with
this even today.

OTOH, I have to at least suggest that the GFAC has tended (if
unintentionally) to represent the views of certain regions where the
conduct of gliding is highly organized and revolves around reasonably
well equipped clubs. The sense of frustration felt by the grass
roots in other locations seems irrational to them; a sort of
cognitive-dissonance if you will. Couple that with the fact that
communication has not always been especially open, consistent or
complete (in today's world we'd use the buzz-word "transparent") and
it's not hard to understand why there have been some harsh critics.

If you look at COTS, it would have been nice if the attitude going in
had been "how can we make this work" as opposed to "why won't this
work". Just that change in mindset would have quickly led to a
solution-driven approach which would have moved the entire effort
along much faster. Couple that with a more open/transparent
communication plan (think along the lines of an open-source movement
with issues being identified and then addressed by the community), and
I'm convinced we would already be using COTS equipment successfully
for badge flights. So, if anything, it may be that poor governance
has been the issue, and it's not too late to change that.

Respectfully,
Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

Papa3 wrote:
OTOH, I have to at least suggest that the GFAC has tended (if
unintentionally) to represent the views of certain regions where the
conduct of gliding is highly organized and revolves around reasonably
well equipped clubs. The sense of frustration felt by the grass
roots in other locations seems irrational to them; a sort of
cognitive-dissonance if you will. Couple that with the fact that
communication has not always been especially open, consistent or
complete (in today's world we'd use the buzz-word "transparent") and
it's not hard to understand why there have been some harsh critics.

The "grass roots" view is certainly represented, I've never been a
member of a highly organized, well-equipped club.

I'm not sure how much more transparent GFAC can be, ask a question here,
or send a private email to one of the members, and you'll get an answer.
You may not like the answer, but that is a different issue.
Obviously, we deal with manufacturer proprietary information during the
approval process, and that can't be publicly discussed. But, everything
else is open, and always has been.

If you look at COTS, it would have been nice if the attitude going in
had been "how can we make this work" as opposed to "why won't this
work". Just that change in mindset would have quickly led to a
solution-driven approach which would have moved the entire effort
along much faster. Couple that with a more open/transparent
communication plan (think along the lines of an open-source movement
with issues being identified and then addressed by the community), and
I'm convinced we would already be using COTS equipment successfully
for badge flights. So, if anything, it may be that poor governance
has been the issue, and it's not too late to change that.

GFAC is a technical committee, not a policy or rules committee. There
are those of us (like myself) who believe allowing COTS GPS would be
good policy under the right circumstances, and those who don't. But,
from a technical standpoint, there are certain things we have to point
out, like the lack of pressure altitude recording capability, and the
significant differences in functionality, performance, and security
provided by units from various manufacturers.

The IGC (not GFAC) has always been the appropriate place to initiate
this proposal. The fact that the last proposal submitted to the IGC did
a rather poor job of addressing certain important technical and policy
issues is what slowed down the process.

At the next IGC Plenary Meeting (29 February through 1 March), there
will be a specific proposal from the IGC Sporting Code Committee to
change SC3 to allow use of COTS GPS in conjunction with barographs for
Silver and Gold badges. May I, once again, suggest that you contact
your IGC delegate to make your viewpoint known?

Marc

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:42:11 +0000, Marc Ramsey wrote:

At the next IGC Plenary Meeting (29 February through 1 March), there
will be a specific proposal from the IGC Sporting Code Committee to
change SC3 to allow use of COTS GPS in conjunction with barographs for
Silver and Gold badges. May I, once again, suggest that you contact
your IGC delegate to make your viewpoint known?

Why bother with the barographs?

For the purposes of establishing that the pilot met the requirements for
a silver or gold height gain, surely GPS altitude is adequate?
(Particularly now that "SA" has been discontinued). On OLC there are
many, many log files with both GPS and barometric altitude. The GPS
altitudes are different, but they are not unreasonable and they are not
consistently "less accurate" than pressure altitudes.

Yes, they are different - GPS alitude is a different parameter to
pressure altitude. Yes the current Sporting Code requires us to measure
altitude with pressure instruments, but that is a legacy from a time when
we had no alternative.

If a pilot has achieved a height gain of 1000m or 3000m as measured with
a COTS GPS altitude (controlled by an OO), can we not acknowledge that he
as accomplished a significant achievement, give him a pat on the back and
pin a badge on his chest? This is the 21st century after all if you going
to change the rules, then lets do it properly.

If you are worried about "rogue" GPS readings (as might be caused by GPS
failure, poor reception or jamming), give the OO or the national body the
option of throwing out any GPS points that are totally unrealistic.

I presume that GPS altitude will be accepted for proving the requirement
of flight continuity on distance flights - please don't tell me that this
is not true - surely there is no valid reason to turn this down.

Far too many badges have gone unclaimed simply because aspiring pilots
have been frustrated by the requirement to borrow or buy the dinosaur
equipment required by the IGC to verify the performance.

Yes, secure flight records have their place. But for too long, the few
pilots who actually need them have been subsidized by forcing many whose
sporting objectives are more modest help pay for the R&D.

Our sport is slowly dying, not at the top levels, but at the grass root
levels. Why? Because there are so many obstacles to frustrate upcoming
pilots - it is just not as much fun for today's youth as it was for the
many of us first took up the sport 25 years ago. Now there is a chance to
get rid of one of those obstacles, lets ditch the barographs!


Ian

Ian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:42:11 +0000, Marc Ramsey wrote:

At the next IGC Plenary Meeting (29 February through 1 March), there
will be a specific proposal from the IGC Sporting Code Committee to
change SC3 to allow use of COTS GPS in conjunction with barographs for
Silver and Gold badges. May I, once again, suggest that you contact
your IGC delegate to make your viewpoint known?

Why bother with the barographs?

It's rather simple, GPS altitude is not currently an IGC recognized
means of measuring altitude in soaring performances, and changing that
is far more complex than adding COTS GPS as an alternate means of
documenting position evidence.

Marc

On Feb 21, 6:25 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:42:11 +0000, Marc Ramsey wrote:

At the next IGC Plenary Meeting (29 February through 1 March), there
will be a specific proposal from the IGC Sporting Code Committee to
change SC3 to allow use of COTS GPS in conjunction with barographs for
Silver and Gold badges. May I, once again, suggest that you contact
your IGC delegate to make your viewpoint known?

Why bother with the barographs?

It's rather simple, GPS altitude is not currently an IGC recognized
means of measuring altitude in soaring performances, and changing that
is far more complex than adding COTS GPS as an alternate means of
documenting position evidence.

Marc

And what is so complicated in adding GPS altitiude as an IGC
recognized measurement ? Especially since GPS lat,lon is a
recognized. I am serious, please tell me.

Todd Smith
3S