The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf

For the committee,

John Godfrey (QT)
USA Rules Committee

On Nov 16, 6:14*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
> decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
> contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf
>
> For the committee,
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> USA Rules Committee

Well done. Thanks guys. We appreciate the detail.

-Evan Ludeman / T8 (...hoping to be flying with PowerFlarm at Perry)

On Nov 16, 6:14*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
> decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
> contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf
>
> For the committee,
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> USA Rules Committee

Again, thanks and well done,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

Well done.

Paul Remde

"John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in message
...
> The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
> decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
> contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf
>
> For the committee,
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> USA Rules Committee

Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
committee!

Mike

On Nov 16, 9:29*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
> committee!
>
> Mike

Outbreak of common sense.. ok I would like to entertain the idea of
the SSA doing something for all the SSA members. I noticed there is a
discount for group buying of the new USA FLARMS. Why is it that the
SSA Director has not conducted negotiations with the FLARM
manufacturer and created an opportunity for all the SSA members to
receive a discount through an "SSA FLARM GROUP PURCHASE" ? Seems to
me that might be a real win win for all involved. Members might be
able to purchase the units for $1,000 or so...

But I might be expecting too much of the SSA. So as a member of a
small club I'll have to decide if the cost is worth it...

Oh I do intend to purchase a FLARM myself.

Steve
S9

On 11/16/2010 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:29 pm, Mike the > wrote:
>
>> Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
>> committee!
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Outbreak of common sense.. ok I would like to entertain the idea of
> the SSA doing something for all the SSA members. I noticed there is a
> discount for group buying of the new USA FLARMS. Why is it that the
> SSA Director has not conducted negotiations with the FLARM
> manufacturer and created an opportunity for all the SSA members to
> receive a discount through an "SSA FLARM GROUP PURCHASE" ? Seems to
> me that might be a real win win for all involved. Members might be
> able to purchase the units for $1,000 or so...
>
> But I might be expecting too much of the SSA. So as a member of a
> small club I'll have to decide if the cost is worth it...
>
> Oh I do intend to purchase a FLARM myself.
>
I suggest you ask your Regional director. It might be something simple
like "The PowerFlarm company won't do it that way". From the Craggy Aero
site, the group purchase requirements are...

* A group does not need to be an officially sanctioned club by the SSA.
* Generally, a local club operating on an airfield is our model.
* **The group needs to be based at one airfield* *so that the
benefit is appreciated by the participants.


Regardless, your director will know the answer or can easily get it for you.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Am 17.11.2010 04:55, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 9:29 pm, Mike the > wrote:
>>> Wow - a severe outbreak of common sense seems to have overtaken the
>>> committee!
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Outbreak of common sense.. ok I would like to entertain the idea of
>> the SSA doing something for all the SSA members. I noticed there is a
>> discount for group buying of the new USA FLARMS. Why is it that the
>> SSA Director has not conducted negotiations with the FLARM
>> manufacturer and created an opportunity for all the SSA members to
>> receive a discount through an "SSA FLARM GROUP PURCHASE" ? Seems to
>> me that might be a real win win for all involved. Members might be
>> able to purchase the units for $1,000 or so...
>>
>> But I might be expecting too much of the SSA. So as a member of a
>> small club I'll have to decide if the cost is worth it...
>>
>> Oh I do intend to purchase a FLARM myself.
> I suggest you ask your Regional director. It might be something simple
> like "The PowerFlarm company won't do it that way". From the Craggy Aero
> site, the group purchase requirements are...
>
> * A group does not need to be an officially sanctioned club by the SSA.
> * Generally, a local club operating on an airfield is our model.
> * **The group needs to be based at one airfield* *so that the
> benefit is appreciated by the participants.
>
>
> Regardless, your director will know the answer or can easily get it for
> you.
>
In Germany we get rebates of 5% / 10% / 15% for group orders of 6+ / 10+
/ 20+ FLARM units. You don't have to be a formal group like a club, an
informal group of individuals will do fine.

Normally, someone puts a small ad on the website of segeflug.de, seeking
for other people wanting to join in to get a better rebate.

This works well since several years, and by this method I got my FLARM
for my newly purchased glider for a reasonable price.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
>Well done.
>
>Paul Remde
>
>"John Godfrey (QT)" wrote in message
...
>> The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
>> decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
>> contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:
>>
>> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf
>>
>> For the committee,
>>
>> John Godfrey (QT)
>> USA Rules Committee
>
While I am not directly concerned as I am a competition director in the UK
I am concerned with one aspect of FLARM in competitions;

4. Stealth or other restrictions. We are not imposing stealth or other
restrictions at this time. We may impose restrictions later, and may do so
on a contest by contest basis.

Current UK rules do require stealth restrictions during competitions and
as a director I am uncomfortable with this on two main grounds.
The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.
The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
be made.
Personally I prefer the route you have taken at the moment, accept that
those with FLARM may receive an advantage from it's use. This alone may
encourage pilots to fit FLARM and if everyone has it the playing field is
at least level. In my opinion it would be unwise, given the nature of your
courts, to mandate the use of stealth mode.

On Nov 16, 4:14*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> The USA Rules Committee has published a document detailing the
> decisions taken and background relating to Flarm usage in 2011 USA
> contests. The document can be accessed via the link below:
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2011FlarmUSA.pdf
>
> For the committee,
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> USA Rules Committee

Thanks to all of you that took the time to consider this and to
prepare the report.

Andy (GY)

Peter said:

> In Germany we get rebates of 5% / 10% / 15% for group orders of 6+ / 10+
> / 20+ FLARM units. You don't have to be *a formal group like a club, an
> informal group of individuals will do fine.
>
> Normally, someone puts a small ad on the website of segeflug.de, seeking
> for other people wanting to join in to get a better rebate.
>
> This works well since several years, and by this method I got my FLARM
> for my newly purchased glider for a reasonable price.

The FLARM company recognizes the device only works best when all
gliders in a group (club) are equipped with the device. A small
percentage of gliders and towplanes equipped with FLARM defeats the
intended anti-collision safety features. In order to encourage as many
aircraft as possible within a local group to be equipped with FLARM,
they offer a graduated discount for the group. Groups should consider
FLARM as a "safety system" to help prevent collisions in the flying
space where they fly the most.

As a FLARM dealer, I am trying to encourage as many individuals to
equip with FLARM so they are protected when they fly at our soaring
site (lots of gliders flying from different soaring sites on our
ridges.) These same FLARM equipped aircraft fly the most hours at
their local club, and for many (most?) this means in thermal
conditions. Thermalling is another midair high risk arena, and gliders
as well as towplanes will benefit - probably during more flying hours
each year than when visiting a ridge/wave site, or flying in contests
during the year.

FLARM dealers will have no way to enforce the intent of the company
policy, however, those who are trying to save what amounts to only a
few dollars, should consider the goals of the anti-collision "system."
The largest discount incentive is to place your order before the first
of the year, and we dealers are encouraged by the number of pilots who
are placing their orders now.

Tom Knauff

wow! ... very nicely done!

.... I have not heard (or maybe missed) discussion on the use of FLARM
feedback for practical thermal leeching. That should be an
interesting debate ... curious how much more "heads-down" would result
from monitoring nearby pilot climb rates .. ie. "should I go to that
thermal? or that one?"

Curt Lewis - 95

"Don Johnstone" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
>>Well done.
>>
> The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
> instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
> for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
> uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
> safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
> view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
> personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
> finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
the PDA output is degraded.
But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
nearby traffic. It is well thought.

> The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
> open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
> in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
> carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
> is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
> non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
> be made.

Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. No US company
will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
is about your safety.
A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.

paolo

On Nov 17, 5:05*pm, "PCool" > wrote:
> "Don Johnstone" > ha scritto nel et...
>
> > At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
> >>Well done.
>
> > The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of an
> > instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is fine
> > for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
> > uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
> > safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very dim
> > view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find me
> > personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
> > finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.

Paulo explains this is not correct below. In the case of powerFlarm
some of that data normally shown on a PDA is shown on the display and
that is also dithered in the same way (or it would make no sense- and
the Flarm folks are not stupid). One observation is there also seems
to be lots of confusion about Stealth, Contest, Nearest and Collision
modes. The best thing to do there is to read the operation manual for
a current Flarm unit on Flarm's website (http://www.flarm.com/support/
index_en.html) and see their guide for contests as well.

> No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
> the PDA output is degraded.
> But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
> nearby traffic. It is well thought.
>
> > The other concern is that the requirement is un-enforcable. FLARM is an
> > open technology and while it is possible to check an instrument installed
> > in the glider it is not possible to check and undeclared FLARM unit
> > carried by the pilot, searching pilots before they get into their glider
> > is not likely to ever be acceptable. It is comparatively easy to have a
> > non--stealth unit available. A rule that cannot be enforced should never
> > be made.

And that undeclared non-stealth unit would be visible to and recorded
by nearby Flarm units. So one possibility is just the risk of
detection would be enough to prevent carrying one. We do not strip
search pilots today at contests so I am not sure enforcement like that
would ever be needed. But again it is a non issue now as the rules
seem to be let's just see how things go without any stealth
requirement. And all this is a concern about something we just do not
have to face at the moment.

The major problem with all this is there is really nothing to complain
about :-) The USA rules commitee has actually looked at the issues,
looked at the technology coming in PowerFLARM and actually made a very
sensible decision given where we are and they took the time to explain
their thoughts. Thanks guys.

> Flarm is not open technology. It is proprietary technology, and no company
> except FLARM in switzerland can do it.
> All other companies on the market bought licences from flarm. *No US company
> will be allowed to market its own traffic advisor,
> unless they buy it from flarm. It is called monopoly , and in this case it
> is about *your safety.
> A couple of years ago, the IGC had decided to adopt a public protocol for
> traffic informations, but nothing happened so far.
>
> paolo

Related muddled thinking around UAT technology by the SSA has probably
helped Flarm feel less than excited about entering the USA market.
Luckily PowerFLARM is not too far away...

Darryl

From my crystal ball.

A picture says a thousand words:

http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg

Dale Kramer
No Title anymore

On Nov 17, 7:08*pm, DaleKramer > wrote:
> From my crystal ball.
>
> A picture says a thousand words:
>
> http://www.bmapper.com/VIRA.jpg
>
> Dale Kramer
> No Title anymore

Dale

I am not sure why you seem pessimistic that contest pilots won't rent
PowerFLARM if available--especially to help make up their own minds
how well this technology works and whether they should purchase a unit
(should be pretty convincing).

I would hope that especially with rental units available then
preserving one's own ass, and if that fails then peer pressure, would
achieve a very high adoption rate. And even if that does not work then
trying that route before approaching this as something that needs to
be mandated seems to make a lot of sense. The contest community will
have vast amounts of experience with this by next year and able to
have a much more informed discussion--which might well change things.
And if things need a push or an experiment makes sense then the option
is still open to make a contest Flarm mandatory.

Darryl

Choice 1: Rental FLARMs left on the ground while we have FLARMless
gliders in the air = ??% FLARM usage in contests
Choice 2: Require FLARM usage if they are available = 100% FLARM usage
in contests

Choice 1 was chosen by the Rules Committee.

I will not take that chance so I will not participate, this has been a
very steadfast position I have taken all along.

This leaves a situation where I can only hope that I am wrong while
the RC can only hope that they are right.

Dale

On Nov 17, 8:50*pm, DaleKramer > wrote:
> Choice 1: Rental FLARMs left on the ground while we have FLARMless
> gliders in the air = ??% FLARM usage in contests
> Choice 2: Require FLARM usage if they are available = 100% FLARM usage
> in contests
>
> Choice 1 was chosen by the Rules Committee.
>
> I will not take that chance so I will not participate, this has been a
> very steadfast position I have taken all along.
>
> This leaves a situation where I can only hope that I am wrong while
> the RC can only hope that they are right.
>
> Dale

Dale,

Not sure why you are so upset. You were asking the rules committee to
require the use of vapor-ware without any trial period. If the
SuperFLARM units arrive in time for the next contest season and they
work properly I would guess we will see them required in 2012. It is
a stretch to require something that is continually pushed back on
delivery dates and has not been tested yet.

I would guess that if we have a rental set in the country we will see
them used during the 2011 contest season. I look forward to using it
in the future.

Tim

We can argue all day about how vapor-ware they really are but that
does not matter.

When they come, they will work or the plan was that they would not
have been offered for rent.

There was no reason NOT to have the rule in place prior to that time.

Dale

At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:
>
>"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>> At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
>>>Well done.
>>>
>> The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
an
>> instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
fine
>> for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
>> uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
>> safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
dim
>> view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
me
>> personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
>> finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.
>
>No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only

>the PDA output is degraded.
>But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
>nearby traffic. It is well thought.
>

See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf

The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?

On Nov 17, 11:14*pm, DaleKramer > wrote:

> There was no reason NOT to have the rule in place prior to that time.
>
> Dale

Other than the fact that you cannot herd cats.

I'm okay with the RC position. Clearly, so are others.

The rental idea and the support you've gotten for it is brilliant. I
could be wrong on this, but I don't think the support was exclusively
based on MIRA. Before you go scorched earth, I hope you give someone
else the opportunity to take over the project.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Hi Don,

I agree.

Paul Remde

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:
>>
>>"Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>>> At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
>>>>Well done.
>>>>
>>> The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
> an
>>> instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
> fine
>>> for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
>>> uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
>>> safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
> dim
>>> view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
> me
>>> personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
>>> finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.
>>
>>No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
>
>>the PDA output is degraded.
>>But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
>>nearby traffic. It is well thought.
>>
>
> See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
> The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
> warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
> document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
> documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
> received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
> glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
> pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
> unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
> themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
> organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
> aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
> favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?
>

Am 18.11.2010 11:45, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 01:05 18 November 2010, PCool wrote:
>>
>> "Don Johnstone" ha scritto nel messaggio
>> ...
>>> At 03:18 17 November 2010, Paul Remde wrote:
>>>> Well done.
>>>>
>>> The first is that the use of STEALTH mode degrades the performance of
> an
>>> instrument which is designed to enhance flight safety. While it is
> fine
>>> for an individual pilot to make a decision to do that I am extremely
>>> uncomfortable with requiring someone to degrade a unit and therefore
>>> safety. I am pretty sure that even a British court would take a very
> dim
>>> view of that were there to be an accident. Whether a court would find
> me
>>> personally liable I have no way of knowing and given the only way of
>>> finding out I prefer to remain ignorant.
>>
>> No, FLARM units are always transmitting correct position each other. Only
>
>> the PDA output is degraded.
>> But if you are close each other, output is no more degraded concerning
>> nearby traffic. It is well thought.
>>
>
> See http://www.flarm.com/support/Flarm_Competitions.pdf
>
> The warnings you may receive, and the data transmitted giving others
> warning are degraded, maybe not by much but they are degraded. The
> document above talks about 2 seconds. Would a jury understand this? The
> documentation accepts that the warnings that might be transmitted and
> received are degraded with some information unavailable. While we as
> glider pilots might understand that the effect is small a non glider
> pilot, especially a lawyer, might argue that any degredation is
> unacceptable. While individual pilots might make the decision by
> themselves, mandating a requirement puts the responsibility on the
> organisation/directors of competitions. Having a unit designed as a safety
> aid and then deliberately restricting it is any way is not likely to win
> favour in legal circles. Who is going to get sued if it all goes wrong?
>

Don,
there is a difference between "Competition Mode" and "Stealth Mode". I
guess the wording could be better, but fact is that only Stealth Mode
was in question to be mandatory in competitions. Stealth mode has in
fact effects not only on your FLARM unit but also on others in
obfuscating your height and climb rate, except for warnings.

Competition Mode on the other hand is a setting that only affects the
FLARM unit where it is set, resulting in less (and/or later) alarms. It
only affects the pilot that choose to set that mode, either via
FLARM-Tool Software or via the config file on th SD-Card. Alternativly
you could turn the sound off or down if you get annoyed by too many
alarm signals.

I tried this mode during some days in a competition, but then turned it
off again in favour of reducing the warning level when a gaggle
situation lead to too many signals that were not a real threat.

I can assure you that much of the confusion will go away once you have
flown with FLARM for several days in different situation. In fact I am
sure most of you will love it. It is a great enhancement for security.
--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Evan,

Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
the earth to scorch. I would never do that anyway.

I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
no longer support the direction that this has taken.

I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
everything that has happened.

The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.

Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
volunteer can easily proceed.

I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.

Dale

Give us a break. What do you expect when you try shoving Flarm down our
throats and want it to be mandatory immediately. The RC made several
good points. Give us time to aborb the issue and gain experience with
Flarm
once it gets here.
GL






At Ll13:54 18 November 2010, DaleKramer wrote:
>Evan,
>
>Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
>the earth to scorch. I would never do that anyway.
>
>I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
>no longer support the direction that this has taken.
>
>I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
>everything that has happened.
>
>The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
>agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.
>
>Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
>volunteer can easily proceed.
>
>I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.
>
>Dale
>
>
>

On Nov 18, 6:54*am, DaleKramer > wrote:
> Evan,
>
> Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
> the earth to scorch. *I would never do that anyway.
>
> I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
> no longer support the direction that this has taken.
>
> I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
> everything that has happened.
>
> The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
> agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.
>
> Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
> volunteer can easily proceed.
>
> I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.
>
> Dale

Like virtually all US competition glider pilots, I think the
introduction of PowerFlarm will result in a significant improvement in
safety and I look forward to getting one myself. Even though I live in
free-wheeling regulation-free Arizona, where I can drive a motorcycle
without a helmet and carry a concealed firearm without a permit, I
encourage colleagues here also to acquire a PowerFlarm.

However, on mandatory use in 2011 I am with the committee on this
one. To mandate the use of a device which has yet to be fully tested
and receive FCC approval is premature. All complex electronic devices
like this require a learning curve in their introduction and usage and
a period of time to eliminate glitches and upgrade firmware. I would
be extremely surprised if the first units to arrive work seamlessly
from the get-go. I'll buy mine from the second batch to arrive here
after my colleagues have done the trouble-shooting!

I also have some concerns about a rental program requiring the
temporary installation of a unit. I like stuff bolted to my panel and
I like to be fully familiar with electronics before I fly in a
demanding contest. I am not sure that having a significant number of
pilots in a contest with a loose device Velcroed or duck-taped to the
glider and having them read the user manual in a gaggle is the best
way to proceed.

No criticism intended to those who tried to get the program going -
just my perspective on a difficult issue.

Mike

Hi,

I applaud Dale for his efforts to get a rental fleet of FLARMs going. I'm
sorry to hear that due to the decisions of the contest committee he has
decided to completely abandon the idea. It would be wonderful to have
rental units available so that people could try them before buying them. Or
pay a reasonable rental fee for the one week of the year they need it the
most.

However, I must admit that I had my doubts that a rental system could work.
I envisioned it requiring hundreds of hours per year of volunteer work to
ship units, take in rental fees, receive units back, replace missing or
damaged parts, make phone calls and send e-mails begging people to please
return their rental unit soon, etc. While it would be extremely nice to
have them, I wouldn't volunteer to do the job.

As a soaring related business owner I imagine I would need to charge
$495/week to make it profitable. I don't think too many pilots that are
undecided about the usefulness of FLARM would pay that much. And that rate
would assume that I didn't have to pay for the inventory - that people would
donate units to the cause. But I should clarify that I'm not volunteering
to do this.

I'd much rather see people jump in and buy one and get to know it well
before they come to a contest - and use it every time they fly at the home
gliderport as well.

But of course, I'm biased because I sell them.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

"DaleKramer" > wrote in message
...
> Evan,
>
> Because I have acted on this report so quickly, there is nothing on
> the earth to scorch. I would never do that anyway.
>
> I have done the honorable thing and withdrawn when I feel that I can
> no longer support the direction that this has taken.
>
> I have been completely up front and open about my intentions and
> everything that has happened.
>
> The only thing withheld has been the specific terms of the tentative
> agreement with FLARM Technology at their request.
>
> Everything relevant to the program has been published and the next
> volunteer can easily proceed.
>
> I wish everyone the best but I choose not to participate.
>
> Dale
>
>

Mike,

See the mount design I came up with at http://www.FlarmFund.org/flarm_fund_003.htm

Dale

Greg,

That is exactly what I am giving you, a break.

Please do not let this thread deteriorate further, it is too
important.

Dale

Paule,

I am aware that the scope of what I volunteered to do was enormous.

I think the level of support that I received was partly because enough
people knew that I would have been able to accomplish what I started
if I had just received the RC support the way that I received popular
support from the silent majority.

Dale

Some of us will have multiple FLARM units for gliders and tow planes.
There will be times when I do not need my FLARM unit and will be
willing to loan it to a pilot for a contest.

A loaner list can be provided by the RC so a pilot without FLARM can
make the contacts to procure a unit for a contest.

Assuming FLARM meets expectations, most serious, safety-minded pilots
will have one in the future.

Seems simple.

If I understand it correctly, we are telling our customers they would
only need to have an extra display (butterfly?) to move the FLARM unit
from one aircraft to another. Many glider pilots will want to move the
FLARM from their glider to their power plane.

Tom Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies

On Nov 18, 11:09*am, Tom > wrote:
> If I understand it correctly, we are telling our customers they would
> only need to have an extra display (butterfly?) to move the FLARM unit
> from one aircraft to another. Many glider pilots will want to move the
> FLARM from their glider to their power plane.

Loaner units will be portable PowerFLARM,
which includes a display. 2nd picture here:
http://www.gliderpilot.org/Flarm-WhatIsIt

Best Regards, Dave

On Nov 18, 8:09*am, Tom > wrote:
> Some of us will have multiple FLARM units for gliders and tow planes.
> There will be times when I do not need my FLARM unit and will be
> willing to loan it to a pilot for a contest.
>
> A loaner list can be provided by the RC so a pilot without FLARM can
> make the contacts to procure a unit for a contest.
>
> Assuming FLARM meets expectations, most serious, safety-minded pilots
> will have one in the future.
>
> Seems simple.
>
> If I understand it correctly, we are telling our customers they would
> only need to have an extra display (butterfly?) to move the FLARM unit
> from one aircraft to another. Many glider pilots will want to move the
> FLARM from their glider to their power plane.
>
> Tom Knauff
> Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies

You are talking about the remote mounted brick and not the portable
unit? (or why is an external display needed at all?)

Planning on moving a brick does not seem a good idea at all. It will
involve removing two SMA antenna connections (not exactly known for
their durability), the power connector, the display RJ45 connector,
undoing whatever way you have the brick mounted etc. And reconnecting
all this on the other aircraft. Where do you easily install the brick
on a typical power aircraft?

If owners want to move the device get a portable unit. If they want an
installed look they need to purchase two bricks. Two separate units
also avoids hassles with resetting ICAO ID and other information.

Darryl

On Nov 18, 8:51*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:09*am, Tom > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Some of us will have multiple FLARM units for gliders and tow planes.
> > There will be times when I do not need my FLARM unit and will be
> > willing to loan it to a pilot for a contest.
>
> > A loaner list can be provided by the RC so a pilot without FLARM can
> > make the contacts to procure a unit for a contest.
>
> > Assuming FLARM meets expectations, most serious, safety-minded pilots
> > will have one in the future.
>
> > Seems simple.
>
> > If I understand it correctly, we are telling our customers they would
> > only need to have an extra display (butterfly?) to move the FLARM unit
> > from one aircraft to another. Many glider pilots will want to move the
> > FLARM from their glider to their power plane.
>
> > Tom Knauff
> > Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
>
> You are talking about the remote mounted brick and not the portable
> unit? (or why is an external display needed at all?)
>
> Planning on moving a brick does not seem a good idea at all. It will
> involve removing two SMA antenna connections (not exactly known for
> their durability), the power connector, the display RJ45 connector,
> undoing whatever way you have the brick mounted etc. And reconnecting
> all this on the other aircraft. Where do you easily install the brick
> on a typical power aircraft?
>
> If owners want to move the device get a portable unit. If they want an
> installed look they need to purchase two bricks. Two separate units
> also avoids hassles with resetting ICAO ID and other information.
>
> Darryl

Sigh, I'll try again... this would involve removing

3 (not 2) SMA connectors - Flarm antenna, 1090ES antenna and the GPS
antenna.
The USB cable for the USB memory stick
The power connector
The display RJ-45 connector
Unfastening the brick itself

Reverse at the other end.

On the power aircraft you may want to have a connector pre-wired in to
attach the PowerFLARM audio out to the audio panel or to the aux in of
the headset if it has an aux in.

Moving the portable unit would involve unscrewing it or lifting it off
the 3M "mushroom" tape. Removing the external power connector if one
was used and removing the audio connection if one was used (in a power
aircraft or motorglider).

Darryl

Hi Dale,

I did not mean to imply that you did not understand the scope of it. I
applaud what you were offering.

I'm sorry to hear that you backed-out of your offer due to the lack of
support of your specific agenda - but I don't blame you for backing out at
all.

But I do agree with the contest committee.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"DaleKramer" > wrote in message
...
> Paule,
>
> I am aware that the scope of what I volunteered to do was enormous.
>
> I think the level of support that I received was partly because enough
> people knew that I would have been able to accomplish what I started
> if I had just received the RC support the way that I received popular
> support from the silent majority.
>
> Dale

On 11/18/2010 6:43 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
> I also have some concerns about a rental program requiring the
> temporary installation of a unit. I like stuff bolted to my panel and
> I like to be fully familiar with electronics before I fly in a
> demanding contest. I am not sure that having a significant number of
> pilots in a contest with a loose device Velcroed or duck-taped to the
> glider and having them read the user manual in a gaggle is the best
> way to proceed.
>

Don't worry about the device being "loose": the 3M "mushroom" tape is
fully capable of keeping the unit in place under 20 G+ forces, based on
the testing of my SPOT mounting, which uses less than 2 sq. inches of
the stuff. Note that Mountain High has supplied the stuff for over a
decade to mount their oxygen controllers of similar weight and size,
with no problems I'm aware of, including the two EDS units I've used
over 15 years now.

Come'on - reading a manual in the cockpit? I haven't used Flarm, but
since it's not required for flying the glider or for performing the
task, it'll be "turn it on and forget about it till it squawks". If it
squawks too much, the pilot will just turn if off (or mute it) and
continue like he has for years, no more safety risk than before, and
then educate himself after he's landed.

These are not primary contest devices, like the flight computer!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Nov 18, 12:33*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 6:43 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>
>
> > I also have some concerns about a rental program requiring the
> > temporary installation of a unit. *I
>
> Don't worry about the device being "loose": the 3M "mushroom" tape is
> fully capable of keeping the unit in place under 20 G+ forces, based on
> the testing of my SPOT mounting,

My latest info is that there will be some nifty easy mounting devices
for the regular Power Flarm. Among others, a L shaped bracket that
uses this super-velcro to hook to the canopy rail, and a suction-cup
system like Cambridge provided with the model 20. And more on the way.
They seem to get the idea that installation is important!

John Cochrane

On Nov 18, 10:33*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 6:43 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>
>
> > I also have some concerns about a rental program requiring the
> > temporary installation of a unit. *I like stuff bolted to my panel and
> > I like to be fully familiar with electronics before I fly in a
> > demanding contest. *I am not sure that having a significant number of
> > pilots in a contest with a loose device Velcroed or duck-taped to the
> > glider and having them read the user manual in a gaggle is the best
> > way to proceed.
>
> Don't worry about the device being "loose": the 3M "mushroom" tape is
> fully capable of keeping the unit in place under 20 G+ forces, based on
> the testing of my SPOT mounting, which uses less than 2 sq. inches of
> the stuff. Note that Mountain High has supplied the stuff for over a
> decade to mount their oxygen controllers of similar weight and size,
> with no problems I'm aware of, including the two EDS units I've used
> over 15 years now.
>
> Come'on - reading a manual in the cockpit? I haven't used Flarm, but
> since it's not required for flying the glider or for performing the
> task, it'll be "turn it on and forget about it till it squawks". If it
> squawks too much, the pilot will just turn if off (or mute it) and
> continue like he has for years, no more safety risk than before, and
> then educate himself after he's landed.
>
> These are not primary contest devices, like the flight computer!
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

I disagree. There will need to be training/study for use of a
PowerFLARM and the last thing I would want a contest pilot trying to
do is sort all this out on a contest day - Dale I believe understands
this and was planning appropriate assistance/training etc. (now moot I
guess). e.g. you better worry about the different types of warnings,
how to dismiss nuisance alerts (e.g. PCAS in a gaggle) and not others.
What the different symbols on the map screen mean. Whether to put the
device in Nearest, Contest, etc. mode. How to confirm it is working
correctly, has a GPS signal, etc. How to register on FLARMnet and load
a FLARMnet database. How to correctly set ICAO address and other
information, (especially if you also have a Mode S transponder to help
with other pilot's PowerFLARM do PCAS/Flarm deduplication) and other
information etc. Butterfly may be emphasizing the ease of use of
PowerFLARM and I expect them to do a good job making these relatively
easy to use but I get very worried when I see comments like it will be
"turn it on and forget until it squawks" type device--that thinking
could lead to dangerous situations.

I hope pilots, especially contest pilots will add PowerFLARM items to
their pre-contest/flight checklist. Over the years I've added things
like "GPS OK/acquired" and "task entered and declared (if needed)" to
my pre-flight (i.e. before your are in the cockpit) checklist.

Darryl

Having been a Flarm user for years I can tell you it is a install and
forget device. The portable device(for initial contest use) will
probably not be integrated into your PDA so you would just make sure
you have good batteries, mount it with the EZ-lock or what ever and
turn it on. It will see other Flarm units in the area, and it will
give you collision avoidence alerts when you go flying. Pretty much
right out of the box. Yes, setting the ICAO address is good but in the
rental contest situation it is not necessary. Don't make this harder
than it has to be. Get the rental units to the Contest staff (along
with lots of EZ-lock strips and batteries) and have them hand them
out. Have a safety meeting with training on what to expect from the
Flarm unit and how to install/operate and go fly.

The first time I saw Flarm was when it was installed in a club plane I
was flying. Did a winch launch, got a warning, looked at the display
(for probably a second) and then looked out to see the glider that the
Flarm was warning me about. SOLD! I would have seen this plane but
Flarm saw it first. From that point forward I will not fly without a
working Flarm unit.
Some lessons here:
Flarm works and alerts you to Flarm equipped planes you have not seen
(yet).
I hadn't been "trained" on Flarm but when I saw the display I knew
where to look.
I have yet to meet a glider pilot who does not "Get" the Flarm concept
after flying with Flarm. (of course some still haven't bought a unit
yet but I don't know anybody who doesn't fly with one) PEER PRESSURE
WORKS WELL.

Get the Flarms into the contests, get them into club planes, then
you'll get them into the other planes.

You may not (ok, probably don't) agree with all of this but until you
fly with Flarm you don't know what your missing! Litterally! Ask
anyone who has flown with Flarm. John Cochrane?

Bob

On 11/18/2010 11:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Nov 18, 10:33 am, Eric > wrote:
>
>>
>> Come'on - reading a manual in the cockpit? I haven't used Flarm, but
>> since it's not required for flying the glider or for performing the
>> task, it'll be "turn it on and forget about it till it squawks". If it
>> squawks too much, the pilot will just turn if off (or mute it) and
>> continue like he has for years, no more safety risk than before, and
>> then educate himself after he's landed.
>>
>> These are not primary contest devices, like the flight computer!
>>
> I disagree. There will need to be training/study for use of a
> PowerFLARM and the last thing I would want a contest pilot trying to
> do is sort all this out on a contest day - Dale I believe understands
> this and was planning appropriate assistance/training etc. (now moot I
> guess). e.g. you better worry about the different types of warnings,
> how to dismiss nuisance alerts (e.g. PCAS in a gaggle) and not others.
> What the different symbols on the map screen mean. Whether to put the
> device in Nearest, Contest, etc. mode. How to confirm it is working
> correctly, has a GPS signal, etc. How to register on FLARMnet and load
> a FLARMnet database. How to correctly set ICAO address and other
> information, (especially if you also have a Mode S transponder to help
> with other pilot's PowerFLARM do PCAS/Flarm deduplication) and other
> information etc. Butterfly may be emphasizing the ease of use of
> PowerFLARM and I expect them to do a good job making these relatively
> easy to use but I get very worried when I see comments like it will be
> "turn it on and forget until it squawks" type device--that thinking
> could lead to dangerous situations.
>
> I hope pilots, especially contest pilots will add PowerFLARM items to
> their pre-contest/flight checklist. Over the years I've added things
> like "GPS OK/acquired" and "task entered and declared (if needed)" to
> my pre-flight (i.e. before your are in the cockpit) checklist.
>
> Darryl
>
I agree completely that a pilot should learn how to use it while on the
ground to get full use out of the unit, but my impression is somebody
can be handed one, given a 5 minute basic introduction, then go flying.
He'll know enough to turn the unit on/off, to mute it, and to be to know
where to look when the unit signals a conflict with another glider.
That's just for the first flight. He'll know more before the next
flight, and so on.

I just don't see any reason to think pilots will be so involved in the
unit, they will be less safe during the course of the first few flights
than without it, and I still think it's nonsense to talk about "reading
the manual" in flight. It's not a flight computer! You are not trying to
navigate with it, not trying optimize your turn within a turnpoint area,
not trying to locate and center lift, not distracting yourself by
talking on the radio. It just sits there, like my MRX pcas unit, until
there is a potential problem. I'm just parroting what the guys that use
them tell us. Why not believe them?

All the other stuff - Flarmnet, database, ADS-B, ICAO address - is that
necessary for it to provide it's primary function in a contest, which is
to warn pilots of potential conflicts with other gliders?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

On Nov 18, 12:27*pm, Bob > wrote:
> Having been a Flarm user for years I can tell you it is a install and
> forget device. The portable device(for initial contest use) will
> probably not be integrated into your PDA so you would just make sure
> you have good batteries, mount it with the EZ-lock or what ever and
> turn it on. It will see other Flarm units in the area, and it will
> give you collision avoidence alerts when you go flying. Pretty much
> right out of the box. Yes, setting the ICAO address is good but in the
> rental contest situation it is not necessary. Don't make this harder
> than it has to be. Get the rental units to the Contest staff (along
> with lots of EZ-lock strips and batteries) and have them hand them
> out. Have a safety meeting with training on what to expect from the
> Flarm unit and how to install/operate and go fly.
>
> The first time I saw Flarm was when it was installed in a club plane I
> was flying. Did a winch launch, got a warning, looked at the display
> (for probably a second) and then looked out to see the glider that the
> Flarm was warning me about. SOLD! I would have seen this plane but
> Flarm saw it first. From that point forward I will not fly without a
> working Flarm unit.
> Some lessons here:
> Flarm works and alerts you to Flarm equipped planes you have not seen
> (yet).
> I hadn't been "trained" on Flarm but when I saw the display I knew
> where to look.
> I have yet to meet a glider pilot who does not "Get" the Flarm concept
> after flying with Flarm. (of course some still haven't bought a unit
> yet but I don't know anybody who doesn't fly with one) PEER PRESSURE
> WORKS WELL.
>
> Get the Flarms into the contests, get them into club planes, then
> you'll get them into the other planes.
>
> You may not (ok, probably don't) agree with all of this but until you
> fly with Flarm you don't know what your missing! Litterally! Ask
> anyone who has flown with Flarm. John Cochrane?
>
> Bob

Many of us have PowerFLARM on order and are eager to use them when
they arrive.

And none of this is rocket science. But the PowerFLARM being discussed
is inherently a bit more complex than the Flarm you are used to. e.g.
with the issue of excess PCAS alarms--an we have relatively more
gliders here transponder equipped than in Europe. Pilots will need to
now how to handle that (if only to set up the device appropriately
before flight). None of this is hard, in fact it can be *simple*. But
it is just too much OTOH to set the expectation that you just toss
them in the cockpit and go.

We had contest pilots at a major contest taking SPOT messenger devices
and putting them into the side pocket in their cockpit and then
surprised why they do not work. Especially with rental PowerFLARM
units some careful thought needs to be used to make this as pain free
and successful as possible.


Darryl

On Nov 18, 12:42*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 11:24 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 10:33 am, Eric > *wrote:
>
> >> Come'on - reading a manual in the cockpit? I haven't used Flarm, but
> >> since it's not required for flying the glider or for performing the
> >> task, it'll be "turn it on and forget about it till it squawks". If it
> >> squawks too much, the pilot will just turn if off (or mute it) and
> >> continue like he has for years, no more safety risk than before, and
> >> then educate himself after he's landed.
>
> >> These are not primary contest devices, like the flight computer!
>
> > I disagree. There will need to be training/study for use of a
> > PowerFLARM and the last thing I would want a contest pilot trying to
> > do is sort all this out on a contest day - Dale I believe understands
> > this and was planning appropriate assistance/training etc. (now moot I
> > guess). e.g. you better worry about the different types of warnings,
> > how to dismiss nuisance alerts (e.g. PCAS in a gaggle) and not others.
> > What the different symbols on the map screen mean. Whether to put the
> > device in Nearest, Contest, etc. mode. How to confirm it is working
> > correctly, has a GPS signal, etc. How to register on FLARMnet and load
> > a FLARMnet database. *How to correctly set ICAO address *and other
> > information, (especially if you also have a Mode S transponder to help
> > with other pilot's PowerFLARM do PCAS/Flarm deduplication) and other
> > information etc. Butterfly may be emphasizing the ease of use of
> > PowerFLARM and I expect them to do a good job making these relatively
> > easy to use but I get very worried when I see comments like it will be
> > "turn it on and forget until it squawks" type device--that thinking
> > could lead to dangerous situations.
>
> > I hope pilots, especially contest pilots will add PowerFLARM items to
> > their pre-contest/flight checklist. Over the years I've added things
> > like "GPS OK/acquired" and "task entered and declared (if needed)" to
> > my pre-flight (i.e. before your are in the cockpit) checklist.
>
> > Darryl
>
> I agree completely that a pilot should learn how to use it while on the
> ground to get full use out of the unit, but my impression is somebody
> can be handed one, given a 5 minute basic introduction, then go flying.
> He'll know enough to turn the unit on/off, to mute it, and to be to know
> where to look when the unit signals a conflict with another glider.
> That's just for the first flight. He'll know more before the next
> flight, and so on.
>
> I just don't see any reason to think pilots will be so involved in the
> unit, they will be less safe during the course of the first few flights
> than without it, and I still think it's nonsense to talk about "reading
> the manual" in flight. It's not a flight computer! You are not trying to
> navigate with it, not trying optimize your turn within a turnpoint area,
> not trying to locate and center lift, not distracting yourself by
> talking on the radio. It just sits there, like my MRX pcas unit, until
> there is a potential problem. I'm just parroting what the guys that use
> them tell us. Why not believe them?
>
> All the other stuff - Flarmnet, database, ADS-B, ICAO address - is that
> necessary for it to provide it's primary function in a contest, which is
> to warn pilots of potential conflicts with other gliders?

A proper configured ICAO address (if you also have a Mode S
transponder) helps other PowerFLARM users not see you as PCAS nuisance
alert so is useful for the primary reason of having a useful (low
false alarm rate) traffic collision avoidance tool.

If you have a magic way of making sure that pilots will not look at
the traffic display to see other glider climb rates etc. then great,
we can ignore everything else and just focus on the Flarm "primary
use". I however think there is likely to be some interest in the other
PowerFLARM capabilities. So in addition to the simple easy to
understand traffic warnigns I am concerned about pilots potentially
being more heads down at times looking at the Flarm traffic map to see
what other gliders are doing. I don't think it is a good idea for
anybody to be trying to sort out what the symbols etc. mean, how to
change the range, etc. for the first time while in flight. All those
things should be understood before the flight.

I don't think we are disagreeing too much. This stuff is not complex,
it should take a brief simple explanation/demo and maybe a bit of hand
holding on first setup - but I think positioning PowerFLARM as just
plug and go has the danger of increasing people's frustration with the
new technology, and possibly decreasing saftey from what it could be.

Darryl

> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

On Nov 18, 12:42*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> I agree completely that a pilot should learn how to use it while on the
> ground to get full use out of the unit, but my impression is somebody
> can be handed one, given a 5 minute basic introduction, then go flying.

I second Eric's thoughts on this.

IF there are setup requirements to get the FLARM system operating in a
"dumb" mode, that can be done by the folks providing the rental
service. Seriously, we do this in the IT world all the time - like
setting up a bunch of PCs to be identical in an office environment and
taking away some of the more powerful/troublsome features &
applications. Or provisioning PDAs and SmartPhones with certain
settings already configured.

And rental places for bikes, kyaks, and other equipment do this same
sort of thing. Renters *shouldn't* have to figure out how to
configure the darned unit as if it came out of the box. They should
be handed a unit that's basically "ready to mount", and as Eric says -
turn it on, turn it off, and _maybe_ know how to mute it.

If my job situation were a little more stable, I'd take the money in
my savings account and buy 30 PowerFLARMs right now, for this
purpose. The problem is that - by my calcs - it would take 3-4 years
to pay off the initial investment (renting each unit out 3 times a
year for about $150 - $250 per contest). I just can't have that money
tied up for that long of a period... but I *have* given it some
thought (I could write some of my flying off as a business expense -
wahoo)!

--Noel

On Nov 18, 12:58*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:42*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > I agree completely that a pilot should learn how to use it while on the
> > ground to get full use out of the unit, but my impression is somebody
> > can be handed one, given a 5 minute basic introduction, then go flying.
>
> I second Eric's thoughts on this.
>
> IF there are setup requirements to get the FLARM system operating in a
> "dumb" mode, that can be done by the folks providing the rental
> service. *Seriously, we do this in the IT world all the time - like
> setting up a bunch of PCs to be identical in an office environment and
> taking away some of the more powerful/troublsome features &
> applications. *Or provisioning PDAs and SmartPhones with certain
> settings already configured.
>
> And rental places for bikes, kyaks, and other equipment do this same
> sort of thing. *Renters *shouldn't* have to figure out how to
> configure the darned unit as if it came out of the box. *They should
> be handed a unit that's basically "ready to mount", and as Eric says -
> turn it on, turn it off, and _maybe_ know how to mute it.
>
> If my job situation were a little more stable, I'd take the money in
> my savings account and buy 30 PowerFLARMs right now, for this
> purpose. *The problem is that - by my calcs - it would take 3-4 years
> to pay off the initial investment (renting each unit out 3 times a
> year for about $150 - $250 per contest). *I just can't have that money
> tied up for that long of a period... but I *have* given it some
> thought (I could write some of my flying off as a business expense -
> wahoo)!
>
> --Noel

I think the rental price would need to be more like $50-75 to keep the
penny-pinching set to cave to peer pressure. There's a fair amount of
complaining about entry fees already. So your 3-4 year payback is a
bit longer. With an operationally well-designed rental program you
might get the number of contests up to maybe 5-6 per year. The rub is
that under a voluntary program you don't really know how many units to
ship to each contest and as a consequence you don't really know how
many units to buy to clear the market. You're really guessing.

The good news is that Dale did a great job getting a bunch of us to
volunteer to buy units and donate them so it's not really an economic
hurdle to pay back the investment. If someone were willing to pick up
the management/logistics of shipping and caring for the units - and
doing a little work to set up a 501 3(c) for the tax deduction, we
could carry this forward. As for me, I'd be willing to let them keep
the $50/unit/contest rental fees in order to facilitate shipping,
maintenance, replacements, etc. Perhaps one of our fine soaring
retailers would take it on as they have some infrastructure to do it?

9B