Navworx ADS-B Transceiver gets FCC Authorization

[Mike Schumann]

It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_id=100723epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. If
you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!

The down sides: No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
ADS-B mandates; Not visible to TCAS systems.

Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web at www.navworx.com.

--
Mike Schumann

[mattm[_2_]]

On Jul 23, 11:14*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>
> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. *If
> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>
> The down sides: *No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
> ADS-B mandates; *Not visible to TCAS systems.
>
> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

And unfortunately incompatible with current glider displays. It does
list
quite a few airplane displays, though. Well, aside from PowerFlarm
(which only receives ADS-B), that's true for all of the ADS-B
equipment.

-- Matt

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/23/2010 11:18 AM, mattm wrote:
> On Jul 23, 11:14 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>>
>> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
>> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. If
>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
>> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
>> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>>
>> The down sides: No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
>> ADS-B mandates; Not visible to TCAS systems.
>>
>> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> And unfortunately incompatible with current glider displays. It does
> list
> quite a few airplane displays, though. Well, aside from PowerFlarm
> (which only receives ADS-B), that's true for all of the ADS-B
> equipment.
>
> -- Matt

I suspect that could be fixed relatively easily if there was sufficient
interest generated in the soaring community.

--
Mike Schumann

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 23, 8:14*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>
> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. *If
> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>
> The down sides: *No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
> ADS-B mandates; *Not visible to TCAS systems.
>
> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
applications.

It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
their minds on that?

None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.

Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
just not practical for many glider installations.

Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
for a transponder. If there were no other issues with this device,
many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
want to add the price to a transponder to this system.

The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.

Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
from any vendors.

I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
install). Did you mean MRX? The more interesting comparison for many
reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
happen soon.

And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.


Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>>
>> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
>> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. If
>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
>> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
>> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>>
>> The down sides: No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
>> ADS-B mandates; Not visible to TCAS systems.
>>
>> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
> do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
> applications.
>
> It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
> getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
> software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
> is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
> their minds on that?
>
> None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
> are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>
> Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
> state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
> guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
> power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
> just not practical for many glider installations.
>
> Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
> for a transponder. If there were no other issues with this device,
> many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
> want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
> point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
> owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
> want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>
> The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
> needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
> a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>
> Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
> people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
> from any vendors.
>
> I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
> Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
> install). Did you mean MRX? The more interesting comparison for many
> reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
> Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
> the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
> work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
> integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
> warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
> traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
> PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
> 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
> all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
> happen soon.
>
> And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
> the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>
>
> Darryl

I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. On the
other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. It's
never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
virtually zero adoption rate in this country.

ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
within range of a ground station. TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
but ADS-B In equipped jets will. So will ATC. TCAS was always meant to
be a last line of defense against mid-airs. Instead, it is being used
as a 1st line. What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. This should be something that is at
the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.

Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
implement.

The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
initiate the interogation of transponders. If that doesn't happen, you
won't see the traffic. As a result, you are getting a false sense of
security when you are flying in remote areas. The only solution to this
is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
UAT. If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
we will never solve this issue.

--
Mike Schumann

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 23, 12:01*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>
> >>http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i....
>
> >> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
> >> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. *If
> >> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
> >> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
> >> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>
> >> The down sides: *No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
> >> ADS-B mandates; *Not visible to TCAS systems.
>
> >> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
> > do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
> > applications.
>
> > It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
> > getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
> > software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
> > is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
> > their minds on that?
>
> > None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
> > are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>
> > Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
> > state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
> > guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
> > power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
> > just not practical for many glider installations.
>
> > Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
> > for a transponder. *If there were no other issues with this device,
> > many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
> > want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
> > point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
> > owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
> > want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>
> > The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
> > needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
> > a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>
> > Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
> > people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
> > from any vendors.
>
> > I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
> > Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
> > install). Did you mean MRX? *The more interesting comparison for many
> > reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
> > Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
> > the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
> > work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
> > integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
> > warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
> > traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
> > PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
> > 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
> > all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
> > happen soon.
>
> > And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
> > the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>
> > Darryl
>
> I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. *On the
> other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. *It's
> never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
> virtually zero adoption rate in this country.
>
> ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
> within range of a ground station. *TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
> but ADS-B In equipped jets will. *So will ATC. *TCAS was always meant to
> be a last line of defense against mid-airs. *Instead, it is being used
> as a 1st line. *What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
> actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
> transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. *This should be something that is at
> the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.
>
> Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
> something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
> necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
> vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
> glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
> all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
> implement.
>
> The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
> rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
> initiate the interogation of transponders. *If that doesn't happen, you
> won't see the traffic. *As a result, you are getting a false sense of
> security when you are flying in remote areas. *The only solution to this
> is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
> UAT. *If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
> we will never solve this issue.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

If you do not want to discouraging people to adopt transponders maybe
you could stop leading discussions on UAT devices by comparing them
price and otherwise to transponders.

As for Flarm (specifically PowerFLARM in the USA) being a distraction.
I'm not sure how the only system that really effectively offers a
solution for glider-on-glider collision avoidance is a distraction. If
somebody was pushing Flarm at the expense of ADS-B products I'd be
worried but again as has been pointed out here before, Flarm or their
distributors are not encouraging adoption of a FLARM protocol only
device in the USA market. They are promoting a PowerFLARM device with
PCAS and 1090ES ADS-B data-in support which at least in my mind
provides a pretty good roadmap for future ADS-B usage.

I expect the PowerFLARM product to get significant traction in the
glider market in the USA and at least to do so more rapildy than any
stand-alone ADS-B product. Especially since it is the only product (in
the USA market) that really is capable of addressing glider-on-glider
collisions avoidance and is actually practical to install in glider
cockpits. There just is not a single other ADS-B data-in (or data-out/
in) product available or likely to be available soon that is practical
for our cockpits so I simply just do not see anything new happening
here except PowerFLARM adoption. And I'd like to see competing
products appear, I just don't see any ones coming for a significant
time. I know I am mixing issues of glide-on-glider and fast-jet/
airliner scenarios but here with PowerFLARM is a product that helps do
both (when used with a transponder, especially a Mode-S transponder
with 1090ES data-out) and that dual purpose I suspect will appeal to
many purchasers.

Costs for ADS-B via PowerFLARM+transponder or other ADS-B systems will
likely keep many people from installing those. However I would not be
surprised to see many contest pilots thinking about installing
PowerFLARM for its FLARM-FLARM protocol capability given recent mid-
air collisions in contests in the USA and overseas. And that it has a
1090ES capability for future is a nice thing. With World contests
heading this way I hope there is a plan underway to encourage use of
FLARM-FLARM devices in gliders flying those contests, where a
significant number of pilots will already be FLARM users, whether they
would use their own FLARM (adjusted for USA frequencies) or PowerFLARM
devices.

The PCAS part of PowerFLARM relies on external transponder
interrogations. The TIS-B part (when supported by their software) will
not. However TIS-B only provides traffic coverage where there is
currently SSR radar (or in some cases multilateration) coverage. This
means that even with TIS-B a PCAS capability may be the only warning a
glider pilots would get of a transponder equipped aircraft where there
is no SSR coverage but there is enough transponder interrogation for
PCAS. So even with TIS-B coverage that PCAS capability is kind of a
nice feature to have, not at the top of my list, but nice. And of
course in addition to being in an area of SSR coverage you also need
ADS-B ground station coverage to receive the TIS-B and ADS-R data for
any of these ADS-B devices.

There is not going to be any standardization on UAT for low-altitude/
GA traffic and hoping for that is really a waste of time. The FAA
finally got it's ADS-B mandate out, it's been a painful process.
Discussion over, there is no low-altitude standardization on UAT. As
I've pointed out before many GA aircraft will likely deploy 1090ES
data-out as its an easy upgrade to many Mode S transponders like the
Garmin GTX-33/330 family. Adding UAT data-out (and data-in) may be
appealing in other cases. So there will be a mix of nothing, Mode C,
Mode S, PCAS, UAT, 1090ES and Flarm (via PowerFLARM) in our USA glider
fleet and we all need to focus on how to deal with that reality.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 23, 1:05*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:01*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
> > > wrote:
> > >> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>
> > >>http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i....
>
> > >> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
> > >> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. *If
> > >> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
> > >> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
> > >> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>
> > >> The down sides: *No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
> > >> ADS-B mandates; *Not visible to TCAS systems.
>
> > >> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Mike Schumann
>
> > > While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
> > > do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
> > > applications.
>
> > > It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
> > > getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
> > > software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
> > > is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
> > > their minds on that?
>
> > > None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
> > > are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>
> > > Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
> > > state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
> > > guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
> > > power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
> > > just not practical for many glider installations.
>
> > > Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
> > > for a transponder. *If there were no other issues with this device,
> > > many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
> > > want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
> > > point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
> > > owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
> > > want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>
> > > The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
> > > needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
> > > a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>
> > > Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
> > > people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
> > > from any vendors.
>
> > > I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
> > > Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
> > > install). Did you mean MRX? *The more interesting comparison for many
> > > reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
> > > Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
> > > the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
> > > work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
> > > integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
> > > warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
> > > traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
> > > PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
> > > 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
> > > all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
> > > happen soon.
>
> > > And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
> > > the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. *On the
> > other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. *It's
> > never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
> > virtually zero adoption rate in this country.
>
> > ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
> > within range of a ground station. *TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
> > but ADS-B In equipped jets will. *So will ATC. *TCAS was always meant to
> > be a last line of defense against mid-airs. *Instead, it is being used
> > as a 1st line. *What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
> > actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
> > transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. *This should be something that is at
> > the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.
>
> > Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
> > something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
> > necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
> > vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
> > glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
> > all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
> > implement.
>
> > The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
> > rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
> > initiate the interogation of transponders. *If that doesn't happen, you
> > won't see the traffic. *As a result, you are getting a false sense of
> > security when you are flying in remote areas. *The only solution to this
> > is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
> > UAT. *If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
> > we will never solve this issue.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> If you do not want to discouraging people to adopt transponders maybe
> you could stop leading discussions on UAT devices by comparing them
> price and otherwise to transponders.
>
> As for Flarm (specifically PowerFLARM in the USA) being a distraction.
> I'm not sure how the only system that really effectively offers a
> solution for glider-on-glider collision avoidance is a distraction. If
> somebody was pushing Flarm at the expense of ADS-B products I'd be
> worried but again as has been pointed out here before, Flarm or their
> distributors are not encouraging adoption of a FLARM protocol only
> device in the USA market. They are promoting a PowerFLARM device with
> PCAS and 1090ES ADS-B data-in support which at least in my mind
> provides a pretty good roadmap for future ADS-B usage.
>
> I expect the PowerFLARM product to get significant traction in the
> glider market in the USA and at least to do so more rapildy than any
> stand-alone ADS-B product. Especially since it is the only product (in
> the USA market) that really is capable of addressing glider-on-glider
> collisions avoidance and is actually practical to install in glider
> cockpits. There just is not a single other ADS-B data-in (or data-out/
> in) product available or likely to be available soon that is practical
> for our cockpits so I simply just do not see anything new happening
> here except PowerFLARM adoption. And I'd like to see competing
> products appear, I just don't see any ones coming for a significant
> time. I know I am mixing issues of glide-on-glider and fast-jet/
> airliner scenarios but here with PowerFLARM is a product that helps do
> both (when used with a transponder, especially a Mode-S transponder
> with 1090ES data-out) and that dual purpose I suspect will appeal to
> many purchasers.
>
> Costs for ADS-B via PowerFLARM+transponder or other ADS-B systems will
> likely keep many people from installing those. However I would not be
> surprised to see many contest pilots thinking about installing
> PowerFLARM for its FLARM-FLARM protocol capability given recent mid-
> air collisions in contests in the USA and overseas. And that it has a
> 1090ES capability for future is a nice thing. With World contests
> heading this way I hope there is a plan underway to encourage use of
> FLARM-FLARM devices in gliders flying those contests, where a
> significant number of pilots will already be FLARM users, whether they
> would use their own FLARM (adjusted for USA frequencies) or PowerFLARM
> devices.
>
> The PCAS part of PowerFLARM relies on external transponder
> interrogations. The TIS-B part (when supported by their software) will
> not. However TIS-B only provides traffic coverage where there is
> currently SSR radar (or in some cases multilateration) coverage. This
> means that even with TIS-B a PCAS capability may be the only warning a
> glider pilots would get of a transponder equipped aircraft where there
> is no SSR coverage but there is enough transponder interrogation for
> PCAS. So even with TIS-B coverage that PCAS capability is kind of a
> nice feature to have, not at the top of my list, but nice. And of
> course in addition to being in an area of SSR coverage you also need
> ADS-B ground station coverage to receive the TIS-B and ADS-R data for
> any of these ADS-B devices.
>
> There is not going to be any standardization on UAT for low-altitude/
> GA traffic and hoping for that is really a waste of time. The FAA
> finally got it's ADS-B mandate out, it's been a painful process.
> Discussion over, there is no low-altitude standardization on UAT. As
> I've pointed out before many GA aircraft will likely deploy 1090ES
> data-out as its an easy upgrade to many Mode S transponders like the
> Garmin GTX-33/330 family. Adding UAT data-out (and data-in) may be
> appealing in other cases. *So there will be a mix of nothing, Mode C,
> Mode S, PCAS, UAT, 1090ES and Flarm (via PowerFLARM) in our USA glider
> fleet and we all need to focus on how to deal with that reality.
>
> Darryl

I want to clarify my comment on Flarm distraction since it did not
come out as I had intended. I agree that promoting Flarm only devices
vs. ADS-B would be a distraction. I am very happy that does not appear
to be happening in the USA. So people buying into the PowerFLARM story
have a roadmap to 1090ES which is a good thing. And given there are no
other practical ADS-B products for use in gliders in the USA I don't
really have a problem with that as long as people realize that long-
term there should be more and more reasons to adopt ADS-B. Given there
are no alternative options I'm just thinking a PowerFLARM is a
distraction, more I look at it as possibly the path that many glider
pilots will get to ADS-B though.

I think there are always "distraction" concerns around adoption of new
technology. e.g. any ADS-B product, including ADS-B receivers of any
type or UAT transceivers worry me if end-users think those devices
will replace trasponders in critical high density airline/fast-jet
traffic areas. In other low-traffic density areas I expect ADS-B by
itself can provide compelling benefits.

Another possible "distraction" with ADS-B receivers, including the
PowerFLARM, is if people do not understand the need for an ADS-B
transmitter for ATC or others to see you, (or likely more confusingly
to people) just for TIS-B and ADS-R to work properly. Many vendors are
less than clear about all ADS-B receivers needing an ADS-B
transmitter, which is one reason I liked Trig's marketing of their new
ADS-B 1090ES receiver even if it is really not suitable for glider
applications. The NavWorx product mentioned here (but not their other
products) is a transceiver so includes the transmitter. I hope that
the marketing of PowerFLARM in the USA is clear on the need for a
separate ADS-B data-out transmitter (e.g. a Trig TT21) for proper ADS-
B operation. This issue is largely USA specific. Of course the FLARM-
FLARM part works without anything else as long as both gliders have
PowerFLARM (or any mix of PowerFLARM and Flarm outside the USA).

Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/23/2010 3:05 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:01 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>>
>>>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>>
>>>> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
>>>> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. If
>>>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
>>>> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
>>>> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>>
>>>> The down sides: No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
>>>> ADS-B mandates; Not visible to TCAS systems.
>>
>>>> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
>>> do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
>>> applications.
>>
>>> It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
>>> getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
>>> software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
>>> is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
>>> their minds on that?
>>
>>> None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
>>> are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>>
>>> Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
>>> state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
>>> guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
>>> power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
>>> just not practical for many glider installations.
>>
>>> Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
>>> for a transponder. If there were no other issues with this device,
>>> many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
>>> want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
>>> point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
>>> owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
>>> want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>>
>>> The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
>>> needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
>>> a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>>
>>> Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
>>> people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
>>> from any vendors.
>>
>>> I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
>>> Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
>>> install). Did you mean MRX? The more interesting comparison for many
>>> reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
>>> Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
>>> the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
>>> work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
>>> integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
>>> warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
>>> traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
>>> PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
>>> 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
>>> all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
>>> happen soon.
>>
>>> And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
>>> the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. On the
>> other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. It's
>> never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
>> virtually zero adoption rate in this country.
>>
>> ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
>> within range of a ground station. TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
>> but ADS-B In equipped jets will. So will ATC. TCAS was always meant to
>> be a last line of defense against mid-airs. Instead, it is being used
>> as a 1st line. What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
>> actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
>> transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. This should be something that is at
>> the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.
>>
>> Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
>> something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
>> necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
>> vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
>> glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
>> all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
>> implement.
>>
>> The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
>> rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
>> initiate the interogation of transponders. If that doesn't happen, you
>> won't see the traffic. As a result, you are getting a false sense of
>> security when you are flying in remote areas. The only solution to this
>> is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
>> UAT. If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
>> we will never solve this issue.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> If you do not want to discouraging people to adopt transponders maybe
> you could stop leading discussions on UAT devices by comparing them
> price and otherwise to transponders.
>
> As for Flarm (specifically PowerFLARM in the USA) being a distraction.
> I'm not sure how the only system that really effectively offers a
> solution for glider-on-glider collision avoidance is a distraction. If
> somebody was pushing Flarm at the expense of ADS-B products I'd be
> worried but again as has been pointed out here before, Flarm or their
> distributors are not encouraging adoption of a FLARM protocol only
> device in the USA market. They are promoting a PowerFLARM device with
> PCAS and 1090ES ADS-B data-in support which at least in my mind
> provides a pretty good roadmap for future ADS-B usage.
>
> I expect the PowerFLARM product to get significant traction in the
> glider market in the USA and at least to do so more rapildy than any
> stand-alone ADS-B product. Especially since it is the only product (in
> the USA market) that really is capable of addressing glider-on-glider
> collisions avoidance and is actually practical to install in glider
> cockpits. There just is not a single other ADS-B data-in (or data-out/
> in) product available or likely to be available soon that is practical
> for our cockpits so I simply just do not see anything new happening
> here except PowerFLARM adoption. And I'd like to see competing
> products appear, I just don't see any ones coming for a significant
> time. I know I am mixing issues of glide-on-glider and fast-jet/
> airliner scenarios but here with PowerFLARM is a product that helps do
> both (when used with a transponder, especially a Mode-S transponder
> with 1090ES data-out) and that dual purpose I suspect will appeal to
> many purchasers.
>
> Costs for ADS-B via PowerFLARM+transponder or other ADS-B systems will
> likely keep many people from installing those. However I would not be
> surprised to see many contest pilots thinking about installing
> PowerFLARM for its FLARM-FLARM protocol capability given recent mid-
> air collisions in contests in the USA and overseas. And that it has a
> 1090ES capability for future is a nice thing. With World contests
> heading this way I hope there is a plan underway to encourage use of
> FLARM-FLARM devices in gliders flying those contests, where a
> significant number of pilots will already be FLARM users, whether they
> would use their own FLARM (adjusted for USA frequencies) or PowerFLARM
> devices.
>
> The PCAS part of PowerFLARM relies on external transponder
> interrogations. The TIS-B part (when supported by their software) will
> not. However TIS-B only provides traffic coverage where there is
> currently SSR radar (or in some cases multilateration) coverage. This
> means that even with TIS-B a PCAS capability may be the only warning a
> glider pilots would get of a transponder equipped aircraft where there
> is no SSR coverage but there is enough transponder interrogation for
> PCAS. So even with TIS-B coverage that PCAS capability is kind of a
> nice feature to have, not at the top of my list, but nice. And of
> course in addition to being in an area of SSR coverage you also need
> ADS-B ground station coverage to receive the TIS-B and ADS-R data for
> any of these ADS-B devices.
>
> There is not going to be any standardization on UAT for low-altitude/
> GA traffic and hoping for that is really a waste of time. The FAA
> finally got it's ADS-B mandate out, it's been a painful process.
> Discussion over, there is no low-altitude standardization on UAT. As
> I've pointed out before many GA aircraft will likely deploy 1090ES
> data-out as its an easy upgrade to many Mode S transponders like the
> Garmin GTX-33/330 family. Adding UAT data-out (and data-in) may be
> appealing in other cases. So there will be a mix of nothing, Mode C,
> Mode S, PCAS, UAT, 1090ES and Flarm (via PowerFLARM) in our USA glider
> fleet and we all need to focus on how to deal with that reality.
>
> Darryl

The majority of glider pilots in the US are not flying in contests.
Their primary collision threats are powered GA aircraft and airliners.
FLARM is never going to take hold in those markets in the US.

The idea that 1090ES is the only ADS-B option available for gliders may
have been true last week. The Navworx ADS-B UAT transceiver now provides
another option. The only hangup is that they don't currently interface
to the most popular glide computers.

Rather than bash the Navworx option, it would be much more productive to
make the glide computer vendors aware of this unit so they can interface
with it. I suspect that in the US, future ADS-B in devices (UAT and
1090ES) will use the Navworx interface, not FLARM, so that would be in
everyone's long term interest.


--
Mike Schumann

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/23/2010 3:05 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:01 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>>
>>>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>>
>>>> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
>>>> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. If
>>>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
>>>> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
>>>> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>>
>>>> The down sides: No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
>>>> ADS-B mandates; Not visible to TCAS systems.
>>
>>>> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
>>> do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
>>> applications.
>>
>>> It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
>>> getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
>>> software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
>>> is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
>>> their minds on that?
>>
>>> None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
>>> are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>>
>>> Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
>>> state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
>>> guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
>>> power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
>>> just not practical for many glider installations.
>>
>>> Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
>>> for a transponder. If there were no other issues with this device,
>>> many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
>>> want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
>>> point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
>>> owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
>>> want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>>
>>> The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
>>> needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
>>> a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>>
>>> Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
>>> people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
>>> from any vendors.
>>
>>> I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
>>> Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
>>> install). Did you mean MRX? The more interesting comparison for many
>>> reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
>>> Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
>>> the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
>>> work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
>>> integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
>>> warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
>>> traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
>>> PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
>>> 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
>>> all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
>>> happen soon.
>>
>>> And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
>>> the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. On the
>> other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. It's
>> never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
>> virtually zero adoption rate in this country.
>>
>> ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
>> within range of a ground station. TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
>> but ADS-B In equipped jets will. So will ATC. TCAS was always meant to
>> be a last line of defense against mid-airs. Instead, it is being used
>> as a 1st line. What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
>> actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
>> transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. This should be something that is at
>> the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.
>>
>> Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
>> something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
>> necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
>> vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
>> glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
>> all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
>> implement.
>>
>> The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
>> rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
>> initiate the interogation of transponders. If that doesn't happen, you
>> won't see the traffic. As a result, you are getting a false sense of
>> security when you are flying in remote areas. The only solution to this
>> is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
>> UAT. If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
>> we will never solve this issue.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> If you do not want to discouraging people to adopt transponders maybe
> you could stop leading discussions on UAT devices by comparing them
> price and otherwise to transponders.
>
> As for Flarm (specifically PowerFLARM in the USA) being a distraction.
> I'm not sure how the only system that really effectively offers a
> solution for glider-on-glider collision avoidance is a distraction. If
> somebody was pushing Flarm at the expense of ADS-B products I'd be
> worried but again as has been pointed out here before, Flarm or their
> distributors are not encouraging adoption of a FLARM protocol only
> device in the USA market. They are promoting a PowerFLARM device with
> PCAS and 1090ES ADS-B data-in support which at least in my mind
> provides a pretty good roadmap for future ADS-B usage.
>
> I expect the PowerFLARM product to get significant traction in the
> glider market in the USA and at least to do so more rapildy than any
> stand-alone ADS-B product. Especially since it is the only product (in
> the USA market) that really is capable of addressing glider-on-glider
> collisions avoidance and is actually practical to install in glider
> cockpits. There just is not a single other ADS-B data-in (or data-out/
> in) product available or likely to be available soon that is practical
> for our cockpits so I simply just do not see anything new happening
> here except PowerFLARM adoption. And I'd like to see competing
> products appear, I just don't see any ones coming for a significant
> time. I know I am mixing issues of glide-on-glider and fast-jet/
> airliner scenarios but here with PowerFLARM is a product that helps do
> both (when used with a transponder, especially a Mode-S transponder
> with 1090ES data-out) and that dual purpose I suspect will appeal to
> many purchasers.
>
> Costs for ADS-B via PowerFLARM+transponder or other ADS-B systems will
> likely keep many people from installing those. However I would not be
> surprised to see many contest pilots thinking about installing
> PowerFLARM for its FLARM-FLARM protocol capability given recent mid-
> air collisions in contests in the USA and overseas. And that it has a
> 1090ES capability for future is a nice thing. With World contests
> heading this way I hope there is a plan underway to encourage use of
> FLARM-FLARM devices in gliders flying those contests, where a
> significant number of pilots will already be FLARM users, whether they
> would use their own FLARM (adjusted for USA frequencies) or PowerFLARM
> devices.
>
> The PCAS part of PowerFLARM relies on external transponder
> interrogations. The TIS-B part (when supported by their software) will
> not. However TIS-B only provides traffic coverage where there is
> currently SSR radar (or in some cases multilateration) coverage. This
> means that even with TIS-B a PCAS capability may be the only warning a
> glider pilots would get of a transponder equipped aircraft where there
> is no SSR coverage but there is enough transponder interrogation for
> PCAS. So even with TIS-B coverage that PCAS capability is kind of a
> nice feature to have, not at the top of my list, but nice. And of
> course in addition to being in an area of SSR coverage you also need
> ADS-B ground station coverage to receive the TIS-B and ADS-R data for
> any of these ADS-B devices.
>
> There is not going to be any standardization on UAT for low-altitude/
> GA traffic and hoping for that is really a waste of time. The FAA
> finally got it's ADS-B mandate out, it's been a painful process.
> Discussion over, there is no low-altitude standardization on UAT. As
> I've pointed out before many GA aircraft will likely deploy 1090ES
> data-out as its an easy upgrade to many Mode S transponders like the
> Garmin GTX-33/330 family. Adding UAT data-out (and data-in) may be
> appealing in other cases. So there will be a mix of nothing, Mode C,
> Mode S, PCAS, UAT, 1090ES and Flarm (via PowerFLARM) in our USA glider
> fleet and we all need to focus on how to deal with that reality.
>
> Darryl

The majority of glider pilots in the US are not flying in contests.
Their primary collision threats are powered GA aircraft and airliners.
FLARM is never going to take hold in those markets in the US.

The idea that 1090ES is the only ADS-B option available for gliders may
have been true last week. The Navworx ADS-B UAT transceiver now provides
another option. The only hangup is that they don't currently interface
to the most popular glide computers.

Rather than bash the Navworx option, it would be much more productive to
make the glide computer vendors aware of this unit so they can interface
with it. I suspect that in the US, future ADS-B in devices (UAT and
1090ES) will use the Navworx interface, not FLARM, so that would be in
everyone's long term interest.


--
Mike Schumann

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 23, 7:19*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 3:05 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 12:01 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>
> >>>>http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i....
>
> >>>> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
> >>>> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. *If
> >>>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
> >>>> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
> >>>> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>
> >>>> The down sides: *No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
> >>>> ADS-B mandates; *Not visible to TCAS systems.
>
> >>>> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Mike Schumann
>
> >>> While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
> >>> do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
> >>> applications.
>
> >>> It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
> >>> getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
> >>> software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
> >>> is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
> >>> their minds on that?
>
> >>> None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
> >>> are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>
> >>> Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
> >>> state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
> >>> guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
> >>> power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
> >>> just not practical for many glider installations.
>
> >>> Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
> >>> for a transponder. *If there were no other issues with this device,
> >>> many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
> >>> want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
> >>> point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
> >>> owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
> >>> want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>
> >>> The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
> >>> needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
> >>> a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>
> >>> Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
> >>> people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
> >>> from any vendors.
>
> >>> I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
> >>> Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
> >>> install). Did you mean MRX? *The more interesting comparison for many
> >>> reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
> >>> Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
> >>> the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
> >>> work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
> >>> integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
> >>> warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
> >>> traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
> >>> PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
> >>> 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
> >>> all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
> >>> happen soon.
>
> >>> And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
> >>> the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>
> >>> Darryl
>
> >> I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. *On the
> >> other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. *It's
> >> never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
> >> virtually zero adoption rate in this country.
>
> >> ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
> >> within range of a ground station. *TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
> >> but ADS-B In equipped jets will. *So will ATC. *TCAS was always meant to
> >> be a last line of defense against mid-airs. *Instead, it is being used
> >> as a 1st line. *What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
> >> actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
> >> transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. *This should be something that is at
> >> the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.
>
> >> Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
> >> something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
> >> necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
> >> vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
> >> glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
> >> all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
> >> implement.
>
> >> The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
> >> rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
> >> initiate the interogation of transponders. *If that doesn't happen, you
> >> won't see the traffic. *As a result, you are getting a false sense of
> >> security when you are flying in remote areas. *The only solution to this
> >> is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
> >> UAT. *If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
> >> we will never solve this issue.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> > If you do not want to discouraging people to adopt transponders maybe
> > you could stop leading discussions on UAT devices by comparing them
> > price and otherwise to transponders.
>
> > As for Flarm (specifically PowerFLARM in the USA) being a distraction.
> > I'm not sure how the only system that really effectively offers a
> > solution for glider-on-glider collision avoidance is a distraction. If
> > somebody was pushing Flarm at the expense of ADS-B products I'd be
> > worried but again as has been pointed out here before, Flarm or their
> > distributors are not encouraging adoption of a FLARM protocol only
> > device in the USA market. They are promoting a PowerFLARM device with
> > PCAS and 1090ES ADS-B data-in support which at least in my mind
> > provides a pretty good roadmap for future ADS-B usage.
>
> > I expect the PowerFLARM product to get significant traction in the
> > glider market in the USA and at least to do so more rapildy than any
> > stand-alone ADS-B product. Especially since it is the only product (in
> > the USA market) that really is capable of addressing glider-on-glider
> > collisions avoidance and is actually practical to install in glider
> > cockpits. There just is not a single other ADS-B data-in (or data-out/
> > in) product available or likely to be available soon that is practical
> > for our cockpits so I simply just do not see anything new happening
> > here except PowerFLARM adoption. And I'd like to see competing
> > products appear, I just don't see any ones coming for a significant
> > time. I know I am mixing issues of glide-on-glider and fast-jet/
> > airliner scenarios but here with PowerFLARM is a product that helps do
> > both (when used with a transponder, especially a Mode-S transponder
> > with 1090ES data-out) and that dual purpose I suspect will appeal to
> > many purchasers.
>
> > Costs for ADS-B via PowerFLARM+transponder or other ADS-B systems will
> > likely keep many people from installing those. However I would not be
> > surprised to see many contest pilots thinking about installing
> > PowerFLARM for its FLARM-FLARM protocol capability given recent mid-
> > air collisions in contests in the USA and overseas. And that it has a
> > 1090ES capability for future is a nice thing. With World contests
> > heading this way I hope there is a plan underway to encourage use of
> > FLARM-FLARM devices in gliders flying those contests, where a
> > significant number of pilots will already be FLARM users, whether they
> > would use their own FLARM (adjusted for USA frequencies) or PowerFLARM
> > devices.
>
> > The PCAS part of PowerFLARM relies on external transponder
> > interrogations. The TIS-B part (when supported by their software) will
> > not. However TIS-B only provides traffic coverage where there is
> > currently SSR radar (or in some cases multilateration) coverage. This
> > means that even with TIS-B a PCAS capability may be the only warning a
> > glider pilots would get of a transponder equipped aircraft where there
> > is no SSR coverage but there is enough transponder interrogation for
> > PCAS. So even with TIS-B coverage that PCAS capability is kind of a
> > nice feature to have, not at the top of my list, but nice. And of
> > course in addition to being in an area of SSR coverage you also need
> > ADS-B ground station coverage to receive the TIS-B and ADS-R data for
> > any of these ADS-B devices.
>
> > There is not going to be any standardization on UAT for low-altitude/
> > GA traffic and hoping for that is really a waste of time. The FAA
> > finally got it's ADS-B mandate out, it's been a painful process.
> > Discussion over, there is no low-altitude standardization on UAT. As
> > I've pointed out before many GA aircraft will likely deploy 1090ES
> > data-out as its an easy upgrade to many Mode S transponders like the
> > Garmin GTX-33/330 family. Adding UAT data-out (and data-in) may be
> > appealing in other cases. *So there will be a mix of nothing, Mode C,
> > Mode S, PCAS, UAT, 1090ES and Flarm (via PowerFLARM) in our USA glider
> > fleet and we all need to focus on how to deal with that reality.
>
> > Darryl
>
> The majority of glider pilots in the US are not flying in contests.
> Their primary collision threats are powered GA aircraft and airliners.
> FLARM is never going to take hold in those markets in the US.
>
> The idea that 1090ES is the only ADS-B option available for gliders may
> have been true last week. The Navworx ADS-B UAT transceiver now provides
> another option. *The only hangup is that they don't currently interface
> to the most popular glide computers.
>
> Rather than bash the Navworx option, it would be much more productive to
> make the glide computer vendors aware of this unit so they can interface
> with it. *I suspect that in the US, future ADS-B in devices (UAT and
> 1090ES) will use the Navworx interface, not FLARM, so that would be in
> everyone's long term interest.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann


The NavWorx just does not seem a viable option for gliders and I'm
just not following why you keep trying to position it as one. If you
did not try to hard to position it as one I guess I'd not be trying to
point out the issues with it... And it is not just a single issue or
display support... $2,500 without a display, No FLARM serial display
support, no glider-optimized collision warning, what seems like 0.8 A
(!) power consumption @ 12V, and a vendor who seems to have decided
the glider market is not interesting.

I've tried to encourage some of the soaring product vendors to support
Garmin TIS protocol and similar in future for ADS-B data-in. I've
worked to connect soaring software and hardware vendors in that space.
I've tried to see whether NavWorx has any interesting in adding Flarm
protocol support. So I'm not exactly naive about what needs to happen
here to get something to be usable. I'd love to see ADS-B products
(UAT and/or 1090ES) that fit our needs but this just ain't one of
them.

The NavWorx transciever deserves mention as the first new UAT
transceiver for the GA market--since the Garmin/UPS product that was
really built for the Alaska trials. And the NavWorx has a much better
packaging and price point that that, although it still needs TSO
approval. And if they get it TSO'ed it will fit a need in the GA
market especially for aircraft with older panels and non-Mode S
transponders that cannot be upgraded to 1090ES data-out, and for
NavWorx I suspect that market is a good target for them. To the extent
it shows some movement in the ADS-B market that is good, and worth
pointing out on r.a.s to glider pilots, but as a product we would
actually use it is just not a good fit. And I'm not just picking on
the NavWorx, I've also pointed out the Trig 1090ES receiver product,
also an interesting product for the GA market, but has some of the
same issues as I've pointed out above for us.

Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/23/2010 10:42 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:19 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 7/23/2010 3:05 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 12:01 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/23/2010 11:57 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 23, 8:14 am, Mike >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> It looks like the low cost ADS-B UAT logjam has been broken:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100721navworx.html?WT.mc_i...
>>
>>>>>> While the price is somewhat higher than I would like to see, it's
>>>>>> competitive with buying a transponder coupled with a Zaon PCAS XRX. If
>>>>>> you are within range of an ADS-B ground station, you get much more
>>>>>> accurate and reliable position data for conflicting traffic, free
>>>>>> weather, lower power consumption, plus you are visible to ATC!!!!
>>
>>>>>> The down sides: No TSO, so the unit will not currently meet the 2020
>>>>>> ADS-B mandates; Not visible to TCAS systems.
>>
>>>>>> Check them out at Oshkosh or on the web atwww.navworx.com.
>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>>>> While it is great to see ADS-B products appearing for the GA market I
>>>>> do not see this being a practical ADS-B product for glider
>>>>> applications.
>>
>>>>> It does not support FLARM serial protocol so there is no way of
>>>>> getting traffic display or audible alerts via most popular soaring
>>>>> software or flight computers. My understanding from the manufacturer
>>>>> is they don't have any interest in supporting this. Has they changed
>>>>> their minds on that?
>>
>>>>> None of the third party traffic warning systems that it interfaces to
>>>>> are tuned/optimized for glider-on-glider situations.
>>
>>>>> Low power consumption? Are their published specs wrong? Those specs
>>>>> state a power draw of 0.7A @ 14VDC. If that is accurate then lets
>>>>> guess 0.8 A at 12 V, plus most installations will need to add the
>>>>> power requirements for a dedicated traffic display. That power draw is
>>>>> just not practical for many glider installations.
>>
>>>>> Yet again I am dissapointed to see you position ADS-B as a replacement
>>>>> for a transponder. If there were no other issues with this device,
>>>>> many glider pilots in high density airline/fast-jet traffic areas will
>>>>> want/need to keep using a transponder. So I am not sure about the
>>>>> point of comparing the price to a transponder based system, those
>>>>> owners (who presumably are the ones buying transponders today) would
>>>>> want to add the price to a transponder to this system.
>>
>>>>> The $2,500 price point plus the cost of whatever display system is
>>>>> needed to make this work, plus in some case where needed, the cost of
>>>>> a trasnponder, will disappoint many people.
>>
>>>>> Unfortunately there are just no "low-cost" (well not as low as many
>>>>> people seem to have been expecting) ADS-B solutions for gliders now
>>>>> from any vendors.
>>
>>>>> I am not sure of the point of conparing the cost of a transponder plus
>>>>> Zaon XRX (which nobody uses in gliders - I am aware of one test
>>>>> install). Did you mean MRX? The more interesting comparison for many
>>>>> reasons, not just cost, is to a PowerFLARM (with 1090ES data-in) +
>>>>> Trig TT21. That combination will be in the rough same cost range as
>>>>> the NavWorx ADS-B system plus the seperate display needed to make that
>>>>> work. But at least there you get full transponder functionality,
>>>>> integrated traffic display, FLARMs glider-on-glider optimized traffic
>>>>> warnings (as noted elsewhere you have to wait a while for TIS-B
>>>>> traffic support) and FLARM-FLARM radio compatibly with other
>>>>> PowerFLARM devices should they become popular in the USA. But this
>>>>> 1090ES based system would not provide FIS-B (weather etc.) data. Maybe
>>>>> all these prices will fall some over time but I'd not expect that to
>>>>> happen soon.
>>
>>>>> And as a reminder to other folks gliders currently do not need to meet
>>>>> the 2020 ADS-B mandate. I am hoping that does not change.
>>
>>>>> Darryl
>>
>>>> I am not discouraging people from investing in transponders. On the
>>>> other hand, FLARM is a huge distraction for people in the US. It's
>>>> never going to be a viable collision avoidance technology, given its
>>>> virtually zero adoption rate in this country.
>>
>>>> ADS-B, on the other hand, does have promise in those areas where you are
>>>> within range of a ground station. TCAS equipped jets will not see you,
>>>> but ADS-B In equipped jets will. So will ATC. TCAS was always meant to
>>>> be a last line of defense against mid-airs. Instead, it is being used
>>>> as a 1st line. What we need is a change in attitude in the FAA to
>>>> actively vector IFR traffic around all visible GA targets, whether
>>>> transponder or ADS-B UAT equipped. This should be something that is at
>>>> the top of the SSA and AOPA's priority list.
>>
>>>> Interfacing the Navworx or other ADS-B units to glide computers is
>>>> something that should not be a big issue if we can generate the
>>>> necessary interest in the soaring community to make this worth the
>>>> vendors' time. This can either be done by NAVWORX emulating FLARM or the
>>>> glide computer vendors supporting the ADS-B / Mode S TIS formats that
>>>> all of the other GPS displays that are supported by ZAON and Navworx
>>>> implement.
>>
>>>> The problem with PowerFLARM and Zaon, is that both of these technologies
>>>> rely on other users (TCAS equipped aircraft or ground radars) to
>>>> initiate the interogation of transponders. If that doesn't happen, you
>>>> won't see the traffic. As a result, you are getting a false sense of
>>>> security when you are flying in remote areas. The only solution to this
>>>> is for all low altitude aircraft (gliders, etc.) to standardize on ADS-B
>>>> UAT. If we end up with a mixture of PowerFLARM Zaon PCAS, 1090ES, etc.,
>>>> we will never solve this issue.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann
>>
>>> If you do not want to discouraging people to adopt transponders maybe
>>> you could stop leading discussions on UAT devices by comparing them
>>> price and otherwise to transponders.
>>
>>> As for Flarm (specifically PowerFLARM in the USA) being a distraction.
>>> I'm not sure how the only system that really effectively offers a
>>> solution for glider-on-glider collision avoidance is a distraction. If
>>> somebody was pushing Flarm at the expense of ADS-B products I'd be
>>> worried but again as has been pointed out here before, Flarm or their
>>> distributors are not encouraging adoption of a FLARM protocol only
>>> device in the USA market. They are promoting a PowerFLARM device with
>>> PCAS and 1090ES ADS-B data-in support which at least in my mind
>>> provides a pretty good roadmap for future ADS-B usage.
>>
>>> I expect the PowerFLARM product to get significant traction in the
>>> glider market in the USA and at least to do so more rapildy than any
>>> stand-alone ADS-B product. Especially since it is the only product (in
>>> the USA market) that really is capable of addressing glider-on-glider
>>> collisions avoidance and is actually practical to install in glider
>>> cockpits. There just is not a single other ADS-B data-in (or data-out/
>>> in) product available or likely to be available soon that is practical
>>> for our cockpits so I simply just do not see anything new happening
>>> here except PowerFLARM adoption. And I'd like to see competing
>>> products appear, I just don't see any ones coming for a significant
>>> time. I know I am mixing issues of glide-on-glider and fast-jet/
>>> airliner scenarios but here with PowerFLARM is a product that helps do
>>> both (when used with a transponder, especially a Mode-S transponder
>>> with 1090ES data-out) and that dual purpose I suspect will appeal to
>>> many purchasers.
>>
>>> Costs for ADS-B via PowerFLARM+transponder or other ADS-B systems will
>>> likely keep many people from installing those. However I would not be
>>> surprised to see many contest pilots thinking about installing
>>> PowerFLARM for its FLARM-FLARM protocol capability given recent mid-
>>> air collisions in contests in the USA and overseas. And that it has a
>>> 1090ES capability for future is a nice thing. With World contests
>>> heading this way I hope there is a plan underway to encourage use of
>>> FLARM-FLARM devices in gliders flying those contests, where a
>>> significant number of pilots will already be FLARM users, whether they
>>> would use their own FLARM (adjusted for USA frequencies) or PowerFLARM
>>> devices.
>>
>>> The PCAS part of PowerFLARM relies on external transponder
>>> interrogations. The TIS-B part (when supported by their software) will
>>> not. However TIS-B only provides traffic coverage where there is
>>> currently SSR radar (or in some cases multilateration) coverage. This
>>> means that even with TIS-B a PCAS capability may be the only warning a
>>> glider pilots would get of a transponder equipped aircraft where there
>>> is no SSR coverage but there is enough transponder interrogation for
>>> PCAS. So even with TIS-B coverage that PCAS capability is kind of a
>>> nice feature to have, not at the top of my list, but nice. And of
>>> course in addition to being in an area of SSR coverage you also need
>>> ADS-B ground station coverage to receive the TIS-B and ADS-R data for
>>> any of these ADS-B devices.
>>
>>> There is not going to be any standardization on UAT for low-altitude/
>>> GA traffic and hoping for that is really a waste of time. The FAA
>>> finally got it's ADS-B mandate out, it's been a painful process.
>>> Discussion over, there is no low-altitude standardization on UAT. As
>>> I've pointed out before many GA aircraft will likely deploy 1090ES
>>> data-out as its an easy upgrade to many Mode S transponders like the
>>> Garmin GTX-33/330 family. Adding UAT data-out (and data-in) may be
>>> appealing in other cases. So there will be a mix of nothing, Mode C,
>>> Mode S, PCAS, UAT, 1090ES and Flarm (via PowerFLARM) in our USA glider
>>> fleet and we all need to focus on how to deal with that reality.
>>
>>> Darryl
>>
>> The majority of glider pilots in the US are not flying in contests.
>> Their primary collision threats are powered GA aircraft and airliners.
>> FLARM is never going to take hold in those markets in the US.
>>
>> The idea that 1090ES is the only ADS-B option available for gliders may
>> have been true last week. The Navworx ADS-B UAT transceiver now provides
>> another option. The only hangup is that they don't currently interface
>> to the most popular glide computers.
>>
>> Rather than bash the Navworx option, it would be much more productive to
>> make the glide computer vendors aware of this unit so they can interface
>> with it. I suspect that in the US, future ADS-B in devices (UAT and
>> 1090ES) will use the Navworx interface, not FLARM, so that would be in
>> everyone's long term interest.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
>
> The NavWorx just does not seem a viable option for gliders and I'm
> just not following why you keep trying to position it as one. If you
> did not try to hard to position it as one I guess I'd not be trying to
> point out the issues with it... And it is not just a single issue or
> display support... $2,500 without a display, No FLARM serial display
> support, no glider-optimized collision warning, what seems like 0.8 A
> (!) power consumption @ 12V, and a vendor who seems to have decided
> the glider market is not interesting.
>
> I've tried to encourage some of the soaring product vendors to support
> Garmin TIS protocol and similar in future for ADS-B data-in. I've
> worked to connect soaring software and hardware vendors in that space.
> I've tried to see whether NavWorx has any interesting in adding Flarm
> protocol support. So I'm not exactly naive about what needs to happen
> here to get something to be usable. I'd love to see ADS-B products
> (UAT and/or 1090ES) that fit our needs but this just ain't one of
> them.
>
> The NavWorx transciever deserves mention as the first new UAT
> transceiver for the GA market--since the Garmin/UPS product that was
> really built for the Alaska trials. And the NavWorx has a much better
> packaging and price point that that, although it still needs TSO
> approval. And if they get it TSO'ed it will fit a need in the GA
> market especially for aircraft with older panels and non-Mode S
> transponders that cannot be upgraded to 1090ES data-out, and for
> NavWorx I suspect that market is a good target for them. To the extent
> it shows some movement in the ADS-B market that is good, and worth
> pointing out on r.a.s to glider pilots, but as a product we would
> actually use it is just not a good fit. And I'm not just picking on
> the NavWorx, I've also pointed out the Trig 1090ES receiver product,
> also an interesting product for the GA market, but has some of the
> same issues as I've pointed out above for us.
>
> Darryl

Please explain exactly why the Navworx product is not suitable for
gliders? This unit is similar in size and design to the prototypes that
MITRE is testing in conjunction with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA. Is the
MITRE unit also unsuitable in your opinion?

--
Mike Schumann

[Eric Greenwell]

On 7/23/2010 8:51 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>> The NavWorx transciever deserves mention as the first new UAT
>> transceiver for the GA market--since the Garmin/UPS product that was
>> really built for the Alaska trials. And the NavWorx has a much better
>> packaging and price point that that, although it still needs TSO
>> approval. And if they get it TSO'ed it will fit a need in the GA
>> market especially for aircraft with older panels and non-Mode S
>> transponders that cannot be upgraded to 1090ES data-out, and for
>> NavWorx I suspect that market is a good target for them. To the extent
>> it shows some movement in the ADS-B market that is good, and worth
>> pointing out on r.a.s to glider pilots, but as a product we would
>> actually use it is just not a good fit. And I'm not just picking on
>> the NavWorx, I've also pointed out the Trig 1090ES receiver product,
>> also an interesting product for the GA market, but has some of the
>> same issues as I've pointed out above for us.
>>
>> Darryl
> Please explain exactly why the Navworx product is not suitable for
> gliders? This unit is similar in size and design to the prototypes
> that MITRE is testing in conjunction with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA.
> Is the MITRE unit also unsuitable in your opinion?
For me, that 0.8 amps seems like a lot. My current setup, with radio,
transponder, vario, gps, mrx, PDA takes 0.8 amps, so this would double
it to 1.6 amps. Fly 8 hours, that's 12.8 amp hours. Not so bad for me
since I have an 18 ah battery, but I'd need to charge it every day, and
be careful in cold weather I don't run out. How many glider pilots are
prepared for that kind of drain? Look at all the whining over just 0.4
amps for a transponder.

The other thing is the $2500, while people keep talking about $1000 for
the Mitre unit being about right. I think that extra $1500 is going to
stop a lot of pilots from considering it, or they'll say "shoot, I'll
just put in a Trig for $2000, and I don't need to double my battery
size; the airliners will see me and so will the big-bucks pilots that
put the Navworx in their ship".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net 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

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/24/2010 12:04 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 7/23/2010 8:51 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>>
>>> The NavWorx transciever deserves mention as the first new UAT
>>> transceiver for the GA market--since the Garmin/UPS product that was
>>> really built for the Alaska trials. And the NavWorx has a much better
>>> packaging and price point that that, although it still needs TSO
>>> approval. And if they get it TSO'ed it will fit a need in the GA
>>> market especially for aircraft with older panels and non-Mode S
>>> transponders that cannot be upgraded to 1090ES data-out, and for
>>> NavWorx I suspect that market is a good target for them. To the extent
>>> it shows some movement in the ADS-B market that is good, and worth
>>> pointing out on r.a.s to glider pilots, but as a product we would
>>> actually use it is just not a good fit. And I'm not just picking on
>>> the NavWorx, I've also pointed out the Trig 1090ES receiver product,
>>> also an interesting product for the GA market, but has some of the
>>> same issues as I've pointed out above for us.
>>>
>>> Darryl
>> Please explain exactly why the Navworx product is not suitable for
>> gliders? This unit is similar in size and design to the prototypes
>> that MITRE is testing in conjunction with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA.
>> Is the MITRE unit also unsuitable in your opinion?
> For me, that 0.8 amps seems like a lot. My current setup, with radio,
> transponder, vario, gps, mrx, PDA takes 0.8 amps, so this would double
> it to 1.6 amps. Fly 8 hours, that's 12.8 amp hours. Not so bad for me
> since I have an 18 ah battery, but I'd need to charge it every day, and
> be careful in cold weather I don't run out. How many glider pilots are
> prepared for that kind of drain? Look at all the whining over just 0.4
> amps for a transponder.
>
> The other thing is the $2500, while people keep talking about $1000 for
> the Mitre unit being about right. I think that extra $1500 is going to
> stop a lot of pilots from considering it, or they'll say "shoot, I'll
> just put in a Trig for $2000, and I don't need to double my battery
> size; the airliners will see me and so will the big-bucks pilots that
> put the Navworx in their ship".
>

There's no question that a lower price point would help. Hopefully we
will see prices come down as there is more competition.

As far as power consumption goes, has anyone looked at using solar cells
to augment battery power?

--
Mike Schumann

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 23, 10:53*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 7/24/2010 12:04 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/23/2010 8:51 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> >>> The NavWorx transciever deserves mention as the first new UAT
> >>> transceiver for the GA market--since the Garmin/UPS product that was
> >>> really built for the Alaska trials. And the NavWorx has a much better
> >>> packaging and price point that that, although it still needs TSO
> >>> approval. And if they get it TSO'ed it will fit a need in the GA
> >>> market especially for aircraft with older panels and non-Mode S
> >>> transponders that cannot be upgraded to 1090ES data-out, and for
> >>> NavWorx I suspect that market is a good target for them. To the extent
> >>> it shows some movement in the ADS-B market that is good, and worth
> >>> pointing out on r.a.s to glider pilots, but as a product we would
> >>> actually use it is just not a good fit. And I'm not just picking on
> >>> the NavWorx, I've also pointed out the Trig 1090ES receiver product,
> >>> also an interesting product for the GA market, but has some of the
> >>> same issues as I've pointed out above for us.
>
> >>> Darryl
> >> Please explain exactly why the Navworx product is not suitable for
> >> gliders? This unit is similar in size and design to the prototypes
> >> that MITRE is testing in conjunction with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA.
> >> Is the MITRE unit also unsuitable in your opinion?
> > For me, that 0.8 amps seems like a lot. My current setup, with radio,
> > transponder, vario, gps, mrx, PDA takes 0.8 amps, so this would double
> > it to 1.6 amps. Fly 8 hours, that's 12.8 amp hours. Not so bad for me
> > since I have an 18 ah battery, but I'd need to charge it every day, and
> > be careful in cold weather I don't run out. How many glider pilots are
> > prepared for that kind of drain? Look at all the whining over just 0.4
> > amps for a transponder.
>
> > The other thing is the $2500, while people keep talking about $1000 for
> > the Mitre unit being about right. I think that extra $1500 is going to
> > stop a lot of pilots from considering it, or they'll say "shoot, I'll
> > just put in a Trig for $2000, and I don't need to double my battery
> > size; the airliners will see me and so will the big-bucks pilots that
> > put the Navworx in their ship".
>
> There's no question that a lower price point would help. *Hopefully we
> will see prices come down as there is more competition.
>
> As far as power consumption goes, has anyone looked at using solar cells
> to augment battery power?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

For several more thousand dollars more you can install a 30 W Strobl
solar panel on your glider and given typical efficiency this will help
with some installations. (I have the largest panels Strobl make
installed one my motorglider). But you can't rely on the solar always
working. You will still need a large battery (likely at least 12Ah and
likely more for folks with long flights and other equipment). Now we
are somewhere around $5k for the UAT installation and we still don't
have a traffic display usable in a glider cockpit. (c'mon it's so
awful somebody just tell me this power spec is just plain wrong).

But don't surrender now. Your defense of this UAT box is entertaining.

Darryl

[Mike Schumann]

On 7/24/2010 1:46 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:53 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 7/24/2010 12:04 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/23/2010 8:51 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>
>>>>> The NavWorx transciever deserves mention as the first new UAT
>>>>> transceiver for the GA market--since the Garmin/UPS product that was
>>>>> really built for the Alaska trials. And the NavWorx has a much better
>>>>> packaging and price point that that, although it still needs TSO
>>>>> approval. And if they get it TSO'ed it will fit a need in the GA
>>>>> market especially for aircraft with older panels and non-Mode S
>>>>> transponders that cannot be upgraded to 1090ES data-out, and for
>>>>> NavWorx I suspect that market is a good target for them. To the extent
>>>>> it shows some movement in the ADS-B market that is good, and worth
>>>>> pointing out on r.a.s to glider pilots, but as a product we would
>>>>> actually use it is just not a good fit. And I'm not just picking on
>>>>> the NavWorx, I've also pointed out the Trig 1090ES receiver product,
>>>>> also an interesting product for the GA market, but has some of the
>>>>> same issues as I've pointed out above for us.
>>
>>>>> Darryl
>>>> Please explain exactly why the Navworx product is not suitable for
>>>> gliders? This unit is similar in size and design to the prototypes
>>>> that MITRE is testing in conjunction with the SSA, AOPA, and the FAA.
>>>> Is the MITRE unit also unsuitable in your opinion?
>>> For me, that 0.8 amps seems like a lot. My current setup, with radio,
>>> transponder, vario, gps, mrx, PDA takes 0.8 amps, so this would double
>>> it to 1.6 amps. Fly 8 hours, that's 12.8 amp hours. Not so bad for me
>>> since I have an 18 ah battery, but I'd need to charge it every day, and
>>> be careful in cold weather I don't run out. How many glider pilots are
>>> prepared for that kind of drain? Look at all the whining over just 0.4
>>> amps for a transponder.
>>
>>> The other thing is the $2500, while people keep talking about $1000 for
>>> the Mitre unit being about right. I think that extra $1500 is going to
>>> stop a lot of pilots from considering it, or they'll say "shoot, I'll
>>> just put in a Trig for $2000, and I don't need to double my battery
>>> size; the airliners will see me and so will the big-bucks pilots that
>>> put the Navworx in their ship".
>>
>> There's no question that a lower price point would help. Hopefully we
>> will see prices come down as there is more competition.
>>
>> As far as power consumption goes, has anyone looked at using solar cells
>> to augment battery power?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> For several more thousand dollars more you can install a 30 W Strobl
> solar panel on your glider and given typical efficiency this will help
> with some installations. (I have the largest panels Strobl make
> installed one my motorglider). But you can't rely on the solar always
> working. You will still need a large battery (likely at least 12Ah and
> likely more for folks with long flights and other equipment). Now we
> are somewhere around $5k for the UAT installation and we still don't
> have a traffic display usable in a glider cockpit. (c'mon it's so
> awful somebody just tell me this power spec is just plain wrong).
>
> But don't surrender now. Your defense of this UAT box is entertaining.
>
> Darryl

I am baffled by your negativism. The Navworx unit may not be perfect.
What is significant is not necessarily this box, but the fact that this
unit has been FCC approved, which will hopefully permit other,
competitive units to also be commercialized.

Now that these types of units are starting to come to the market, there
will be a reason for See-You Mobile and other glide computers to provide
the necessary interfaces. This is just a question of time and user demand.

--
Mike Schumann

[cfinn]

I agree the NavWorx is a good indicator of things to come. There's
another product that's out as an ADSB IN only UAT reciever that's
small and ties into an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch. The receiver is
$1,200. The software is free for 30 days and $39/year. True, it's not
a soaring package, but it looks like a good aviation package. Here's a
link: http://www.skyscope.net/skyscope-receiver/receiver-overview.html.
I don't know anything about it except what I've read.

One way to interface the UAT In information to the current soaring
devices may be to write a device driver to translate the ADSB data
stream to the Flarm data stream. I've written several device drivers
for PC's nd several Windows CE/Mobile programs. However, I've never
written drivers for Windows Mobile. Maybe it's not as easy as I think.

Charlie

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 24, 6:47*am, cfinn > wrote:
> I agree the NavWorx is a good indicator of things to come. There's
> another product that's out as an ADSB IN only UAT reciever that's
> small and ties into an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch. The receiver is
> $1,200. The software is free for 30 days and $39/year. True, it's not
> a soaring package, but it looks like a good aviation package. Here's a
> link:http://www.skyscope.net/skyscope-receiver/receiver-overview.html.
> I don't know anything about it except what I've read.
>
> One way to interface the UAT In information to the current soaring
> devices may be to write a device driver to translate the ADSB data
> stream to the Flarm data stream. I've written several device drivers
> for PC's nd several Windows CE/Mobile programs. However, I've never
> written drivers for Windows Mobile. Maybe it's not as easy as I think.
>
> Charlie

The SkyRadar receiver requires an ADS-B transmitter for its UAT
receiver to work properly for traffic (e.g. to receive TIS-B and ADS-
R). It is one of the venodors which started emphasizing more the
weather reception capability over FIS-B (which does not require you
have a ADS-B transmitter). The SkyRadar is one of the more interesting
of several UAT receivers for GA applications. I like the iPAD
integration for FIS-B for example. I'm aware of an author for a GA
aviation magazine evaluating the SkyRadar and I'm interested in how he
will find the unit and hope he does a write up on it.

To do some actual comparisons for use in gliders...

This SkyRadar receiver lists at $1,200 but has a current promotion
running that reduces that $120. It specs at drawing about 0.4 A. You
need to add an iPhone/iPod Touch or iPad or a Mountain Scope display
today. As there is no current stand-along UAT transmitter the likely
path to having this in a usable traffic display systems would be
something like a Trig TT-21 with 1090ES data-out. I expect many glider
pilots would prefer the more expensive but more glider-oriented
PowerFLARM at ($1,495 into price in the USA and $1,695 list).

So for comparison with what the SkyRadar does not offer: PowerFLARM
has a buit-in display, offers serial FLARM protocol support for
display on PDAs etc., glider tuned collision warnings, FLARM-to-FLARM
radio protocol, built-in audible traffic warnins, PCAS transponder
detection, IGC logger up through diamond badge, the option to power
off internal batteries. However the PowerFLARM will not receive FIS-B,
and won't have TIS-B support until a software update. So that all is
not intended to bash the SkyRadar but to show a comparison to products
for use in the glider cockpit.

The comment of doing a protocol translating device driver could be
capable of addressing some of this display compatibility issue. But in
some cases there still needs to be a NMEA stream to drive the PDA
soaring software or flight computer etc.

The commonly used Garmin TIS serial port display protocol does not
know anything about GPS data since the old Mode S TIS at its core just
transmits relative positions from your aircraft to the threat
aircraft. Many devices use the Garmin TIS protocol or a variant for
traffic data, but some may be quite different.

There may be an issue of running out of serial ports in some PDA/PNA
installations if you require separate serial ports for traffic data
and NMEA. You could build an outboard hardware box that combines the
functions of serial port merging and protocol translation (and I am
aware of one person who may well be playing with building their own
such box for a similar application). The other issue is the way FLARM
works is the the Flarm or PowerFLARM box does the threat assesment and
uses glider-optimized algorithms to detect possible collisions and
issue warnings. That's likely critically important in avoding a large
number of false positive warnings in gaggles and other situations. So
just to point out there is likely more work required to do this well
than just adding a traffic display.

Darryl