Pilots have been flying in Uvalde and feedback is positive, see
postings on R.A.S and other locations e.g. John Cochrane:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/msg/788ec3b10c70618a?hl=en

Nevertheless there are some issues which require our attention:

FLARM range
Some of the pilots have reported a very short range on the FLARM
transmissions (<0.2nm). This is of course too little, as an effective
collision warning requires 1.5nm of minimum range.
Our R&D reacted quickly (not all of Europe is on vacation in August)
and sent out a firmware update which records FLARM range, battery
level, internal temperature and many other parameters into a
diagnostic file.
With the help of some of the affected pilots we were able to acquire
data and defective devices, which have been analyzed.
We have tracked the issue to a batch of defective FLARM RF antennas.
Shipments are on hold while we exchange these antennas, but should
resume after Labor Day.
Existing customers should hold on to their units while we set up a
diagnosis and repair program.

Battery
Runtimes as little as three hours have been reported. This was caused
by the very high temperatures at Uvalde, the PowerFLARM internal
temperature sensor measured up to 160 degree Fahrenheit inside the
housing. Rechargeable Ni-MH batteries deliver less than half their
capacity at those temperatures. Runtimes in 'normal' temperatures have
been confirmed at 6h+

The following recommendations will extend battery life:

1) Reduce Display Brightness
The PowerFLARM LCD display is 'transflective' which means that the
brightness is dominated by how much light falls onto the display. In
fact the brightness setting (of the backlight) makes no difference in
full sunlight.
Reducing the 'Brightness' setting (in Settings/Brightness) can extend
battery life by up to 15%

2) Use alkaline batteries in hot environments
In high temperatures, Alkaline batteries do not degrade as much as the
consumer Ni-MH rechargeables.
High temperature rechargeable batteries are available, we are in the
process of testing.
We will work with dealers and the rental program to make rechargeable
batteries and chargers ? suitable for high temperatures available.

3) Power from aircrafts 12V supply
But make sure no alkaline batteries are inserted when applying
external power!

4) Reduction in power consumption
We will implement firmware improvements which will further reduce the
power consumption of PowerFLARM.


The FLARM Team
August 27, 2011

On Aug 28, 1:45*pm, ursus > wrote:
> Pilots have been flying in Uvalde and feedback is positive, see
> postings on R.A.S and other locations e.g. John Cochrane:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.soaring/msg/788ec3b10c706...
>
> Nevertheless there are some issues which require our attention:
>
> FLARM range
> Some of the pilots have reported a very short range on the FLARM
> transmissions (<0.2nm). This is of course too little, as an effective
> collision warning requires 1.5nm of minimum range.
> Our R&D reacted quickly (not all of Europe is on vacation in August)
> and sent out a firmware update which records FLARM range, battery
> level, internal temperature and many other parameters into a
> diagnostic file.
> With the help of some of the affected pilots we were able to acquire
> data and defective devices, which have been analyzed.
> We have tracked the issue to a batch of defective FLARM RF antennas.
> Shipments are on hold while we exchange these antennas, but should
> resume after Labor Day.
> Existing customers should hold on to their units while we set up a
> diagnosis and repair program.
>
> Battery
> Runtimes as little as three hours have been reported. This was caused
> by the very high temperatures at Uvalde, the PowerFLARM internal
> temperature sensor measured up to 160 degree Fahrenheit inside the
> housing. Rechargeable Ni-MH batteries deliver less than half their
> capacity at those temperatures. Runtimes in 'normal' temperatures have
> been confirmed at 6h+
>
> The following recommendations will extend battery life:
>
> 1) Reduce Display Brightness
> The PowerFLARM LCD display is 'transflective' which means that the
> brightness is dominated by how much light falls onto the display. In
> fact the brightness setting (of the backlight) makes no difference in
> full sunlight.
> Reducing the 'Brightness' setting (in Settings/Brightness) can extend
> battery life by up to 15%
>
> 2) Use alkaline batteries in hot environments
> In high temperatures, Alkaline batteries do not degrade as much as the
> consumer Ni-MH rechargeables.
> High temperature rechargeable batteries are available, we are in the
> process of testing.
> We will work with dealers and the rental program to make rechargeable
> batteries and chargers ? suitable for high temperatures available.
>
> 3) Power from aircrafts 12V supply
> But make sure no alkaline batteries are inserted when applying
> external power!
>
> 4) Reduction in power consumption
> We will implement firmware improvements which will further reduce the
> power consumption of PowerFLARM.
>
> The FLARM Team
> August 27, 2011

Thanks Urs. I wasn't at Uvalde, but heard about all those issues via
"jungle telegraph". Glad you are on it.

What is the design range for PowerFlarm?

What is typical current draw from a 12V system?

Any update on PCAS or logger functions?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

First, thank you for these updates as they go a long way towards
helping us understand the challenges involved and keeping the
customers in the loop.

Second, after flying with the PFLARM in Uvalde I have grown to
appreciate what a majority of the rest of the soaring world already
knew, FLARM works. There are times when the unit displays multiple
threats in a big tight gaggle but it mostly stays quite except when
there is a real potential of collision. After seeing the device in
action on several occasions during Uvalde I was impressed with the
accuracy of the threat detection.

On one day a PFLARM equipped glider had to take a relight and overflew
the 15/18 meter grid to land. You could hear the FLARM alerts starting
at the back of the grid rolling forward as the glider passed overhead.
The landing gliders FLARM never went off as a testimony to the threat
detection. He could have hit us but we could never have hit him.

I never thought I would be happy about adding a brick to my glider.

John Seaborn

Alpha Eight > wrote:
> First, thank you for these updates as they go a long way towards
> helping us understand the challenges involved and keeping the
> customers in the loop.
>
> Second, after flying with the PFLARM in Uvalde I have grown to
> appreciate what a majority of the rest of the soaring world already
> knew, FLARM works. There are times when the unit displays multiple
> threats in a big tight gaggle but it mostly stays quite except when
> there is a real potential of collision. After seeing the device in
> action on several occasions during Uvalde I was impressed with the
> accuracy of the threat detection.
>
> On one day a PFLARM equipped glider had to take a relight and overflew
> the 15/18 meter grid to land. You could hear the FLARM alerts starting
> at the back of the grid rolling forward as the glider passed overhead.
> The landing gliders FLARM never went off as a testimony to the threat
> detection. He could have hit us but we could never have hit him.
>
> I never thought I would be happy about adding a brick to my glider.
>
> John Seaborn
>
>
>

BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not warn of threats as
stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit signals.
I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want to
distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an all
round impressive system.

Darryl

On Aug 29, 8:48*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not *warn of threats as
> stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit signals.
> I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want to
> distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an all
> round impressive system.
>
> Darryl

The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
pilot too much.
Urs

On Aug 29, 11:54*am, ursus > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 8:48*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not *warn of threats as
> > stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit signals..
> > I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want to
> > distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an all
> > round impressive system.
>
> > Darryl
>
> The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
> are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
> pilot too much.
> Urs

Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? I'd certinly
like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
a tug.

Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 11:54 am, ursus > wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> >
> > > BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not warn of threats as
> > > stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
> > > signals.
> > > I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
> > > to
> > > distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
> > > all
> > > round impressive system.
> >
> > > Darryl
> >
> > The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
> > are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
> > pilot too much.
> > Urs
>
> Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? I'd certinly
> like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
> a tug.
>

They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
exact details of what counts as on the ground. I've had similar
comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
Sigh.

Darryl

On Aug 29, 7:09*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> Andy > wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 11:54 am, ursus > wrote:
> > > On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not *warn of threats as
> > > > stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
> > > > signals.
> > > > I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
> > > > to
> > > > distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
> > > > all
> > > > round impressive system.
>
> > > > Darryl
>
> > > The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
> > > are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
> > > pilot too much.
> > > Urs
>
> > Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? *I'd certinly
> > like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
> > a tug.
>
> They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
> exact details of what counts as on the ground. *I've had similar
> comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
> explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
> Sigh.
>
> Darryl

Sounds like it can tell whether the target is moving or not. The ships
on the ground are probably indicating speed = zero in the flarm radio
packets. If that's the case, this device is not meant for
helicopters. :o)

On 8/29/2011 7:26 PM, Westbender wrote:
> On Aug 29, 7:09 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 11:54 am, > wrote:
>>>> On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl > wrote:
>>
>>>>> BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not warn of threats as
>>>>> stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
>>>>> signals.
>>>>> I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
>>>>> to
>>>>> distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
>>>>> all
>>>>> round impressive system.
>>
>>>>> Darryl
>>
>>>> The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
>>>> are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
>>>> pilot too much.
>>>> Urs
>>
>>> Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? I'd certinly
>>> like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
>>> a tug.
>>
>> They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
>> exact details of what counts as on the ground. I've had similar
>> comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
>> explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Darryl
>
> Sounds like it can tell whether the target is moving or not. The ships
> on the ground are probably indicating speed = zero in the flarm radio
> packets. If that's the case, this device is not meant for
> helicopters. :o)
That's an interesting question. A couple of years ago I almost had a
midair with a helicopter that was hoovering 5' off the ground at the
arrival end of the runway. Never saw him until we turned base and were
committed to landing.

If the helicopter were FLARM equipped, would he have shown up as an
alarm? Would he show up as a target on a display with a FLARM
interface, so we could have seen him before we entered the pattern (even
more important that generating an alarm at the last moment)?

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/29/2011 6:38 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On 8/29/2011 7:26 PM, Westbender wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 7:09 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Aug 29, 11:54 am, > wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not warn of threats as
>>>>>> stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>> I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> round impressive system.
>>>
>>>>>> Darryl
>>>
>>>>> The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
>>>>> are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
>>>>> pilot too much.
>>>>> Urs
>>>
>>>> Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? I'd certinly
>>>> like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
>>>> a tug.
>>>
>>> They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
>>> exact details of what counts as on the ground. I've had similar
>>> comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
>>> explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> Sounds like it can tell whether the target is moving or not. The ships
>> on the ground are probably indicating speed = zero in the flarm radio
>> packets. If that's the case, this device is not meant for
>> helicopters. :o)
> That's an interesting question. A couple of years ago I almost had a
> midair with a helicopter that was hoovering 5' off the ground at the
> arrival end of the runway. Never saw him until we turned base and were
> committed to landing.
>
> If the helicopter were FLARM equipped, would he have shown up as an
> alarm? Would he show up as a target on a display with a FLARM interface,
> so we could have seen him before we entered the pattern (even more
> important that generating an alarm at the last moment)?
>
One of the config settings in PowerFLARM is aircraft type. Choices are:
Unknown
Glider
Towplane
Helicopter
Parachute
Drop plane
Hang glider
Paraglider
Motorplane
Jet aircraft
UFO
Balloon
Airship
UAV

Flarm is widely used by helicopters especially in the European Alps
(e.g. all Swiss SAR helicopter use it). It does't just work for
avoiding collisions with another Flarm equiped aircraft, it also has
an extensive obstacle database that will alert you of a potential
collision with e.g. a high voltage power line, radio tower or cable
car cable (all of which pose a very significant risk in the Alps).

Markus

On Aug 29, 5:38*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/29/2011 7:26 PM, Westbender wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 7:09 pm, Darryl > *wrote:
> >> > *wrote:
> >>> On Aug 29, 11:54 am, > *wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl > *wrote:
>
> >>>>> BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not *warn of threats as
> >>>>> stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
> >>>>> signals.
> >>>>> I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
> >>>>> all
> >>>>> round impressive system.
>
> >>>>> Darryl
>
> >>>> The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
> >>>> are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
> >>>> pilot too much.
> >>>> Urs
>
> >>> Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? *I'd certinly
> >>> like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
> >>> a tug.
>
> >> They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
> >> exact details of what counts as on the ground. *I've had similar
> >> comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
> >> explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
> >> Sigh.
>
> >> Darryl
>
> > Sounds like it can tell whether the target is moving or not. The ships
> > on the ground are probably indicating speed = zero in the flarm radio
> > packets. If that's the case, this device is not meant for
> > helicopters. *:o)
>
> That's an interesting question. *A couple of years ago I almost had a
> midair with a helicopter that was hoovering 5' off the ground at the
> arrival end of the runway. *Never saw him until we turned base and were
> committed to landing.
>
> If the helicopter were FLARM equipped, would he have shown up as an
> alarm? *Would he show up as a target on a display with a FLARM
> interface, so we could have seen him before we entered the pattern (even
> more important that generating an alarm at the last moment)?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

The FLARM version for helicopters has a 'hover detection' based on
ambient noise level and accelerations / vibrations.
http://www.triadis.ch/index.php?floice
The sending unit decides on its state and broadcasts it. So the
receiving unit does *not* decide based on ground speed of the sender.

On 8/30/2011 5:14 PM, ursus wrote:
> On Aug 29, 5:38 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/29/2011 7:26 PM, Westbender wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 29, 7:09 pm, Darryl > wrote:
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 29, 11:54 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not warn of threats as
>>>>>>> stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
>>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>> I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> round impressive system.
>>
>>>>>>> Darryl
>>
>>>>>> The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
>>>>>> are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
>>>>>> pilot too much.
>>>>>> Urs
>>
>>>>> Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? I'd certinly
>>>>> like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
>>>>> a tug.
>>
>>>> They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
>>>> exact details of what counts as on the ground. I've had similar
>>>> comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
>>>> explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
>>>> Sigh.
>>
>>>> Darryl
>>
>>> Sounds like it can tell whether the target is moving or not. The ships
>>> on the ground are probably indicating speed = zero in the flarm radio
>>> packets. If that's the case, this device is not meant for
>>> helicopters. :o)
>>
>> That's an interesting question. A couple of years ago I almost had a
>> midair with a helicopter that was hoovering 5' off the ground at the
>> arrival end of the runway. Never saw him until we turned base and were
>> committed to landing.
>>
>> If the helicopter were FLARM equipped, would he have shown up as an
>> alarm? Would he show up as a target on a display with a FLARM
>> interface, so we could have seen him before we entered the pattern (even
>> more important that generating an alarm at the last moment)?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> The FLARM version for helicopters has a 'hover detection' based on
> ambient noise level and accelerations / vibrations.
> http://www.triadis.ch/index.php?floice
> The sending unit decides on its state and broadcasts it. So the
> receiving unit does *not* decide based on ground speed of the sender.
Is a FLARM equiped hoovering helicopter visible on a GPS display
connected to a FLARM unit in a glider if there is not an imminent threat
of a collision?

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 30, 4:06*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/30/2011 5:14 PM, ursus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 5:38 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/29/2011 7:26 PM, Westbender wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 29, 7:09 pm, Darryl > * *wrote:
> >>>> > * *wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 29, 11:54 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On Aug 29, 8:48 am, Darryl > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> BTW the landing glider's PowerFLARM did not *warn of threats as
> >>>>>>> stationary/on the ground FLARM/PowerFLARM units do not transmit
> >>>>>>> signals.
> >>>>>>> I suspect this is done for many reasons including you do not want
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> distract pilots when they are landing. Just another example of an
> >>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>> round impressive system.
>
> >>>>>>> Darryl
>
> >>>>>> The aircraft on the ground actually do transmit a signal, but alarms
> >>>>>> are being suppressed for landing gliders as it would distract the
> >>>>>> pilot too much.
> >>>>>> Urs
>
> >>>>> Under what "landing" conditions are alarms suppressed? *I'd certinly
> >>>>> like to be alerted to an opposite base head on with another glider or
> >>>>> a tug.
>
> >>>> They are suppressed if the other glider is on the ground. Don't know the
> >>>> exact details of what counts as on the ground. *I've had similar
> >>>> comments from folks at other busy fields how well this works and Urs
> >>>> explained it to me at a seminar, and I still got it backward. Sorry.
> >>>> Sigh.
>
> >>>> Darryl
>
> >>> Sounds like it can tell whether the target is moving or not. The ships
> >>> on the ground are probably indicating speed = zero in the flarm radio
> >>> packets. If that's the case, this device is not meant for
> >>> helicopters. *:o)
>
> >> That's an interesting question. *A couple of years ago I almost had a
> >> midair with a helicopter that was hoovering 5' off the ground at the
> >> arrival end of the runway. *Never saw him until we turned base and were
> >> committed to landing.
>
> >> If the helicopter were FLARM equipped, would he have shown up as an
> >> alarm? *Would he show up as a target on a display with a FLARM
> >> interface, so we could have seen him before we entered the pattern (even
> >> more important that generating an alarm at the last moment)?
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > The FLARM version for helicopters has a 'hover detection' based on
> > ambient noise level and accelerations / vibrations.
> >http://www.triadis.ch/index.php?floice
> > The sending unit decides on its state and broadcasts it. So the
> > receiving unit does *not* decide based on ground speed of the sender.
>
> Is a FLARM equiped hoovering helicopter visible on a GPS display
> connected to a FLARM unit in a glider if there is not an imminent threat
> of a collision?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Assuming that by 'GPS display' you mean other manufacturers moving map
solutions, such as SeeYou Mobile, Pocket Strepla, ClearNav, Garmin and
many others:
The protocol by which FLARM sends out all received data over its
serial port is available publicly from our webpage. We therefore have
no control over how the data is used and presented to the pilots by
others.
However, I can not imagine anyone suppressing any 'in flight' objects.

Hi Urs
Thank you very much for the status update that started this thread.
Good info.
Unfortunately this thread is going off on a tangent again that is not
too usefull for me (and I think for many others)

What would be much more helpful for me, would be if you could provide
a status update on the brick development.
Last weekend I heard the first guys on the radio in my area
(California Sierras), testing their PowerFlarm.
So, I am getting very anxious now.

Part of my decision for the brick was to avoid these heat problem when
baking the portable on top of the glare shield.
With respect to power consumption and power savings, that should not
be any issue in any sailplane with a half-ways decent battery capacity
and power bus.
(No need to start another discussion on that topic here). I would say:
a low priority item.

With respect to the rechargeable batteries, I surely hope that the
Flarm team is not diverting development resources away from the brick
development to engineer a new "high temperature rechargeable"
solution. For the users that cannot afford the alkalines, maybe a
battery support program can be set up next to the rental program.

Next to the essential bugfixing, PLEEEEAAZE give us the brick as soon
as possible.

Hans Van Weersch.