Being able to re-use the architecture does blur the line...but what is the numeric cutoff between "non-consumer" and "consumer"?
Alas poor VOR I knew ye well?
- Thread starter AdamZ
- Start date
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
It is not a number it is a market definition. Maybe I am not understanding what you are asking. But a non-consumer market is a closed market like selling radios to the FAA or military. Whereas the consumer market is an open market of people with a specific need. For instance there are versions of video cameras. Some for the consumer market and some for the TV broadcaster market, the latter is a smaller market than the consumer market. That some of the architecture of the TV broadcaster market can be reused in the consumer market keeps the costs lower with better profit margins for all.
Last edited:
Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
Maybe even less than Boehner's tanning bill!
The potential consequences of a failure or intentional disruption of the GPS system are large, and not just to aviation. And when you look at our very limited ability these days to lauch either payloads or repair crews into space, it makes sense to have a contingency plan. Maybe DoD has one that we don't know about? I sure hope so, but...
I think I'd vote for keeping the VORs though, since the installed base in aircraft is greater. Along the lines of an annuity, I wonder how many of us would be willing to contribute to a trust fund to keep the VOR system running?
Trapper John
Exocetid
Pre-takeoff checklist
You didn't get out in time, did you?
A guy on a different venue than POA posted that his LORAN wasn't working anymore, the day after they shut the signal down! Jeez, talk about a lack of situational awareness
Exocetid
Pre-takeoff checklist
It would be interesting (NOTE: I said interesting, not that I want it to happen) to know how much price increase could be added to AVGAS to keep VOR alive. The cost to maintain the system is known and the revenue estimates on the AVGAS tax could be backed out of the current issues before the Congress. Who wants to calculate?
Meh.
It's not as if I was going to sell the box for a grand or anything like that.
---
I also have reasonable experience the economies of manufacturing. Garmin (or Kng or whomever) could add the Loran functionality to the navigator for an amount which would be trivial to the overall cost of the unit.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I thought we already were.
Exocetid
Pre-takeoff checklist
Sorry, that was mean. The reality is that the complexity of government is pretty much beyond us all, even those who are in it...and don't get me started on corporations (like Garmin, whose stock is up BTW)...
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,018
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I can't see any point in additional taxation of AvGas to keep VORs and/or LORAN working, even though AvGas accounts for a small fraction of the fuel used in aviation, and a lot of commercial operators with older planes are still /A or /U. Just ask Teller about his 1900 time, and I've seen a number of 135 planes that are minus a GPS, or sometimes have a VFR GPS but no IFR. 100LL makes up such a small amount of the total fuel produced that it is considered a "specialty chemical" by the fuel companies.
I've had far more problems with VORs than with GPS, but I do think it's important to have a backup, especially for IFR use. Presently, LORAN isn't in enough aircraft for it to make sense as far as I'm concerned. Even if it's cheap to operate, if only a handful of people use it then its cost per user is extraordinarily high. GPS may have a high cost, but it's very heavily used. I suspect there's something in between that would make sense. What that is, I don't know, but as much as I like having multiple options for navigation, I also don't see why the government needs to spend the money on keeping ADFs, LORAN, VORs, and GPS all functioning. That's just not an effective use of money (nor is Nancy Pelosi's jet, but that's another matter). Poor spending habits in one area do not justify the same in another.
My only point was, Ted, that Loran is already built, proven, operational. According to the government's own figures, the cost of decommissioning it is similar to the cost of operating it, and we are still obliged to operate some of the Loran system anyway, by virtue of treaty obligations.
All academic now anyway, as the baby-laden bathwater's in the drain already.
All academic now anyway, as the baby-laden bathwater's in the drain already.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
That is true but it also was not the whole story. There LORAN-C was considered obsolete and there was a projected to build next generation LORAN.
eLORAN was to be the next big thing in terrestrial wide area navigation and had the LORAN system been funded to stay operational, there would have been the additional cost associated with the development, deployment, and operation of eLORAN.
It was my understanding that the UK was looking at continuing eLORAN development and deployment with operation to continue until 2022. But that info is at least six months old and I do not know how the termination of the US LORAN system will affect any commitment by the UK to follow through with their plans.
Exocetid
Pre-takeoff checklist
Well put (LORAN), but not yet true for VOR.
Exocetid
Pre-takeoff checklist
They are, in the end, trying to streamline things and save money. They will not compromise safety to do it. The "big goal" if you read between the lines is to give ATC, in dark little rooms with very few towers, the ability to track you through every moment of your flight, at any location or altitude. This has incredible potential for very, very accurate, safe and energy efficient flight as well as a somewhat ominous side that includes reducing the commercial pilot to nothing more than a train conductor as well as eating away at free spirit flying. It's a yin and yang thing and as the airways get more congested, it is something that has to happen.
You are absolutely correct in this regard, and therein lies my principal concern for the system; ADS-B in/out promises a comprehensive traffic management system, easing many of the shortcomings of the radar-centric system. But, bad with the good, if we become dependent upon a system which in turn relies upon a functioning RNAV infrastructure (as ADS-B does, on GPS), then the eggs are all in the GPS basket. GPS' eggs are pretty thin-shelled.
Again, water under the bridge, I think.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I really seriously doubt a $.03 per unit increase on a Garmin 430W that can suddenly do Loran is going to bust the bank. There aren't too many units sold in the first place.
Put LORAN back in service, make a 430WL that can handle it, you could increase the consumer cost by 20%. Given the option to purchase a 430W for $X or a 430WL for X + 20%..I bet most would go with the 430WL. I really doubt you'd need to even add 20% to the cost.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
The incremental cost to add eLoran to a GNS430W is probably in the $10-20 range but that's not including the antenna which is probably close to double that. Still that would bring the total to something in the $30-60 range which I would think would be easily be absorbed by the market. There would of course be significant certification costs which when amortized over a couple years production might be a lot more than the manufacturing cost increase.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. I'm sure the certification costs would bite you. You'd probably want to time it with other changes.
Either way. I'm fairly convinced that it could have been done with Garmin turning the same profit while still maintaining their market share (probably growing it).
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
There is more to it than just the incremental cost of the component. In subsequent posts to the one you quoted I got more into the details. In short the cost to integrate, certify, validate, etc. all add up. The ability to recover these costs is usually amortized over a short period of time. Granted Garmin product lines are longer than normal consumer devices and this will help them especially with common architectures. If you look at a single market vendor like King, you see that they keep their products out for a very long time. much of that is to amortize the costs and then to finally realize the profits.
Adding the extra component can affect manufacturing as well. When having to chose components in one's designs for large run devices there are significant pressures to limit the diversity of component values. That is to say that the one component could end up having results of having to track additional purchases, forecasting stocks, extra machines to place the component, etc. These micro-prices add up pretty quickly. The pricing of CE devices is really a very complex undertaking.
In the specific case of Garmin adding LORAN, I am not convinced that people would pay extra for a capability that they are not convinced they need. I think pilots would need to be a whole lot more worried about not having GPS coverage. With the newer GPS systems going up adding redundancy to the US GPS system. Along with Garmin moving operations and their HQ to Switzerland I am willing to bet that future devices from them will be handling two different GPS systems.
Last edited:
chucky
Line Up and Wait
There have been a number of statements in this thread that the GPS system is fragile. I'm curious why people think that.
Because GPS signals, gossamer-like wispy things that they are, are easily jammed.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Have there been actual instances of GPS jamming? Are they harder to jam than VORs?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,018
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
In my experience with certification, that is the most expensive part to add to the deal. A $10-20 hardware change can turn into $50-$100,000 worth of certification testing, potentially more (also potentially less, depending), not to mention a lot of time. The big thing is passing DO-160 testing (a bunch of hardware tests for electronics installed in aircraft). You end up with a very durable unit, but very costly since there aren't many that are sold.
If you timed it with another revision that was occurring anyway the cost would be less, but it would decrease the probability of being able to bypass any tests on the basis of similarity. I would suspect that the price differential would be similar as that between a 430 and 430W. If I had the option, I would buy it to have the backup. However I'm also not in the market for buying a 430, being very happy with my KLN94.
Last edited:
Re: Jamming - see this: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/gpsnotices/GPS_Interference.pdf
Also, this: http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182754-1.html
Or this: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/07/intentional_gps_jamming.html
Also, this: http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182754-1.html
Or this: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/07/intentional_gps_jamming.html
Last edited:
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Does anyone have any idea how many 430W Garmin has sold to date?
I was thinking about the market size for avionics and it seems really small compared to other types of devices. The prices tend to bear that out too.
I was thinking about the market size for avionics and it seems really small compared to other types of devices. The prices tend to bear that out too.
Exocetid
Pre-takeoff checklist
Disturbing--I had no idea.