Another FLARM thread

[Andy[_1_]]

The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
start a new one.

I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
report again. I had read it when it was first published but since
FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
It's worth a read:

http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf

I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
were implemented. I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
heading referenced display was ever developed.

The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
situation. It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
and alerts.

That thread can be found at

http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=

Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
with it?

How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? Do all FLARM
manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
given situation be manufacturer dependent? So far I'm only aware of
one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
other FLARM systems.

Andy

[Darryl Ramm]

On Aug 13, 11:00*am, Andy > wrote:
> The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
> start a new one.
>
> I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
> report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
> FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
> It's worth a read:
>
> http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf
>
> I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
> sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
> update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
> were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
> heading referenced display was ever developed.
>
> The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
> heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
> situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
> there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
> and alerts.
>
> That thread can be found at
>
> http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=
>
> Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> with it?
>
> How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
> manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
> given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
> one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
> to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
> other FLARM *systems.
>
> Andy

All manufactures use the same core Flarm technology/protocol versions
etc. and will issue the same alerts. Flarm even has a fancy system
that will expire all firmware on a certain date, effectively allowing
them to update over-the-air protocols etc.

I think that reading that report is a good reminder in general that
even with a well designed simple UI that these systems are the sort of
things that at a minimum pilots need to spend time getting used to.

(And sorry to twist this thread as well but...) One thing missing in
that "other thread" is that if we are worried about mid-air collisions
in contests then Flarm has an important feature of being able to
disable "spying" on your competitors but still provides traffic alert
warnings. Even PCAS can help by looking at climb rates of nearby
gliders (yes I'm talking about you Ramy! :-)). Flarm and ADS-B could
potentially allow you to see all nearby gliders, their altitudes,
climb rates etc. And a UAT could receive FIS-B weather information.
All good stuff in many situations but some of that is going to be a
headache for contest rules folks and contest organizers in future. At
least Flarm devices with their contest mode handles the Flarm side of
that well today, although it will be interesting to see what happens
if some gliders have ADS-B data-out. I pity the poor guys on the rule
committee dealing with all this.

Darryl

[Grider Pirate]

On Aug 13, 11:35*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 11:00*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
> > start a new one.
>
> > I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
> > report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
> > FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
> > It's worth a read:
>
> >http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf
>
> > I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
> > sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
> > update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
> > were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
> > heading referenced display was ever developed.
>
> > The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
> > heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
> > situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
> > there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
> > and alerts.
>
> > That thread can be found at
>
> >http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=
>
> > Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> > in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> > with it?
>
> > How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
> > manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
> > given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
> > one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
> > to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
> > other FLARM *systems.
>
> > Andy
>
> All manufactures use the same core Flarm technology/protocol versions
> etc. and will issue the same alerts. Flarm even has a fancy system
> that will expire all firmware on a certain date, effectively allowing
> them to update over-the-air protocols etc.
>
> I think that reading that report is a good reminder in general that
> even with a well designed simple UI that these systems are the sort of
> things that at a minimum pilots need to spend time getting used to.
>
> (And sorry to twist this thread as well but...) One thing missing in
> that "other thread" is that if we are worried about mid-air collisions
> in contests then Flarm has an important feature of being able to
> disable "spying" on your competitors but still provides traffic alert
> warnings. Even PCAS can help by looking at climb rates of nearby
> gliders (yes I'm talking about you Ramy! :-)). Flarm and ADS-B could
> potentially allow you to see all nearby gliders, their altitudes,
> climb rates etc. And a UAT could receive FIS-B weather information.
> All good stuff in many situations but some of that is going to be a
> headache for contest rules folks and contest organizers in future. At
> least Flarm devices with their contest mode handles the Flarm side of
> that well today, although it will be interesting to see what happens
> if some gliders have ADS-B data-out. I pity the poor guys on the rule
> committee dealing with all this.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Soooo, aside from first needing to be anywhere NEAR Ramy, what is it I
need to 'spy' on him??

[johngalloway[_2_]]

On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy > wrote:
> The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
> start a new one.
>
> I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
> report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
> FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
> It's worth a read:
>
> http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf
>
> I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
> sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
> update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
> were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
> heading referenced display was ever developed.
>
> The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
> heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
> situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
> there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
> and alerts.
>
> That thread can be found at
>
> http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=
>
> Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> with it?
>
> How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
> manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
> given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
> one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
> to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
> other FLARM *systems.
>
> Andy

Andy,

We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
the direction of the alert display from track to heading. In practice
the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. It rarely shows in thermal
soaring.

I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.

There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
equipped gliders.

There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
functionality under license. As Darryl explains, they all use the
same algorithm. Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
the other does not.

I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
because whatever hardware platform is used a single common predictive
algorithm is essential. Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
make far more sense.

As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
alerts, the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
and avoid. The alert tone is far more important to me than the
directional display. In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
around. If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
that you can acquire visually very quickly. If not then a quick
glance at the display is helpful. If the the other glider is in our
blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
best action. When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
manual points out.

As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. All, I think, of
the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
equipped.

John Galloway

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Aug 13, 3:04*pm, johngalloway > wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
> > start a new one.
>
> > I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
> > report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
> > FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
> > It's worth a read:
>
> >http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf
>
> > I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
> > sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
> > update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
> > were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
> > heading referenced display was ever developed.
>
> > The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
> > heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
> > situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
> > there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
> > and alerts.
>
> > That thread can be found at
>
> >http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=
>
> > Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> > in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> > with it?
>
> > How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
> > manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
> > given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
> > one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
> > to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
> > other FLARM *systems.
>
> > Andy
>
> Andy,
>
> We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
> has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
> the direction of the alert display from track to heading. *In practice
> the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
> significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
> low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. * It rarely shows in thermal
> soaring.
>
> I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
> difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
> subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.
>
> There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
> Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
> have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
> equipped gliders.
>
> There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
> functionality under license. *As Darryl explains, they all use the
> same algorithm. * Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
> and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
> different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
> arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
> the other does not.
>
> I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
> software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
> because whatever hardware platform is used a *single common predictive
> algorithm is essential. *Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
> include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
> would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
> algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
> expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
> make far more sense.
>
> As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
> alerts, *the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
> and avoid. *The alert tone is far more important to me than the
> directional display. *In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
> around. *If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
> that you can acquire visually very quickly. *If not then a quick
> glance at the display is helpful. *If the the other glider is in our
> blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
> according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
> best action. * When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
> Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
> looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
> manual points out.
>
> As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
> I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
> proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
> magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
> specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. *All, I think, of
> the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
> have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
> circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
> gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
> equipped.
>
> John Galloway

A question, to John or anyone who knows-
FLARM has skipped the US but now we hope PowerFlarm will come (I have
one on order). For some the cost of PowerFlarm will be too much but
the cost of Flarm only (no mode c detection) would make it more likely
to get bought/installed. Do we think Flarm only is a coming soon? I
see that Butterfly makes them.

Brian

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 13, 3:04*pm, johngalloway > wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
> > start a new one.
>
> > I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
> > report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
> > FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
> > It's worth a read:
>
> >http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf
>
> > I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
> > sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
> > update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
> > were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
> > heading referenced display was ever developed.
>
> > The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
> > heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
> > situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
> > there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
> > and alerts.
>
> > That thread can be found at
>
> >http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=
>
> > Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> > in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> > with it?
>
> > How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
> > manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
> > given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
> > one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
> > to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
> > other FLARM *systems.
>
> > Andy
>
> Andy,
>
> We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
> has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
> the direction of the alert display from track to heading. *In practice
> the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
> significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
> low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. * It rarely shows in thermal
> soaring.
>
> I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
> difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
> subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.
>
> There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
> Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
> have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
> equipped gliders.
>
> There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
> functionality under license. *As Darryl explains, they all use the
> same algorithm. * Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
> and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
> different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
> arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
> the other does not.
>
> I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
> software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
> because whatever hardware platform is used a *single common predictive
> algorithm is essential. *Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
> include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
> would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
> algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
> expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
> make far more sense.
>
> As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
> alerts, *the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
> and avoid. *The alert tone is far more important to me than the
> directional display. *In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
> around. *If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
> that you can acquire visually very quickly. *If not then a quick
> glance at the display is helpful. *If the the other glider is in our
> blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
> according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
> best action. * When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
> Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
> looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
> manual points out.
>
> As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
> I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
> proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
> magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
> specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. *All, I think, of
> the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
> have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
> circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
> gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
> equipped.
>
> John Galloway

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 13, 3:04*pm, johngalloway > wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 19:00, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The FLARM in US thread has taken so may twist and turns I decided to
> > start a new one.
>
> > I was prompted by a discussion on u.r.a.s to read the SGU FLARM trial
> > report again. *I had read it when it was first published but since
> > FLARM was not available in US at that time I quicky forgot about it.
> > It's worth a read:
>
> >http://flarm.net/news/SGU_Flarm_Report.pdf
>
> > I know that John, one of the trial participants, drops in on ras
> > sometimes and would ask him to comment whether there has been an
> > update to this report or whether any of the suggested software changes
> > were implemented. *I'm particularly interested in whether a usable
> > heading referenced display was ever developed.
>
> > The uras thread that brought me back to the SGU trial report was a
> > heated discussion on what to do when FLARM alerts to a head on
> > situation. * It seems that, despite the increased use of FLARM in UK,
> > there is no standardized training in how to respond to its indications
> > and alerts.
>
> > That thread can be found at
>
> >http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=30079&vt=
>
> > Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> > in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> > with it?
>
> > How many manufacturers have a current FLARM product? *Do all FLARM
> > manufacturers use the same algorithms or will the system response in a
> > given situation be manufacturer dependent? *So far I'm only aware of
> > one manufacturer interested in the US market but it may be important
> > to know the answer when referencing reports of user experience with
> > other FLARM *systems.
>
> > Andy
>
> Andy,
>
> We have not published any follow up to the 2007 SGU trial and there
> has been no modification to the Flarm software or hardware to correct
> the direction of the alert display from track to heading. *In practice
> the track versus heading issue that we identified is only a
> significant problem when the crabbing angle is very noticeable such as
> low airspeed ridge or wave soaring. * It rarely shows in thermal
> soaring.
>
> I think that the 2007 trial report is still valid - the main
> difference is that Version 4.** software, released later, seems to be
> subtly better in terms of appropriateness of alerts.
>
> There is as yet no formalised training in the UK for Flarm users.
> Some of us think that this is very important - especially as we now
> have a generation of ab initios who are learning to fly in Flarm
> equipped gliders.
>
> There are several manufacturers who sell equipment that includes Flarm
> functionality under license. *As Darryl explains, they all use the
> same algorithm. * Given the close proximity that gliders operate in
> and their distinctive modes of flight it would make no sense to use
> different algorithms within one region otherwise there could easily
> arise the situation that one unit predicts a collision risk whereas
> the other does not.
>
> I see Flarm as primarily being the glider-optimised collision alert
> software and the discussions of "Flarm versus ADSB" as a red herring
> because whatever hardware platform is used a *single common predictive
> algorithm is essential. *Any ADSB manufacturer/s that wished to
> include an effective glider anti-collision system alternative to Flarm
> would have to arrange between manufacturers to write and agree common
> algorithms ( could they do that and would they have the gliding
> expertise?) or use the Flarm algorithm under license - which would
> make far more sense.
>
> As regards the u.r.a.s. debate about how to respond to head on
> alerts, *the main thing to emphasise is that Flarm is an aid to see
> and avoid. *The alert tone is far more important to me than the
> directional display. *In the cruise when an alert sounds look out and
> around. *If the alert is from ahead it will usually be from a glider
> that you can acquire visually very quickly. *If not then a quick
> glance at the display is helpful. *If the the other glider is in our
> blind spot then my personal view is that a small but early correction
> according to the internationally recognised rules of the air is the
> best action. * When thermalling with other Flarm equipped gliders the
> Flarm audio alert mainly serves as an intermittent warning to keep
> looking out and the visual display is of limited use - as the Flarm
> manual points out.
>
> As regards the view that Flarm is no use unless all gliders have one,
> I don't think that is entirely true - the value is basically in
> proportion to the fraction of gliders that have it, but that value is
> magnified for an individual if he tends to fly in the company of
> specific other gliders that are also Flarm equipped. *All, I think, of
> the gliders at our club that I am likely to fly cross country with
> have Flarms as do all the club two seaters - the most intensive
> circuit fliers. So although there are still many non-Flarmed glides
> gliders the ones that I am most likely to encounter are Flarm
> equipped.
>
> John Galloway

This thread further confirms for me that the most appropriate path for
sailplanes in the US is Flarm-based solutions - this is particularly
the case for contest scenarios, but also any situation where glider-
glider collisions are the biggest threat. While General Aviation
implementations of ADS-B should be useful for avoiding collisions with
General Aviation or commercial aircraft, the unique characteristics of
soaring flight paths make solutions customized to that environment far
more useful in the glider-glider scenario.

I fly out of Minden, NV where there is moderate glider traffic, a busy
international airport to the north and plenty of GA and corporate jet
operations. By far the most conflicting traffic I observe is other
gliders (and I would argue that gliders are harder rather than easier
to pick up in a visual scan). The false positive issues associated
with high density glider operations for non-glider-optimized
solutions, especially contests, ridge environments, cloud streets,
etc. make technology optimized for solving the glider-glider problem
far more attractive to me. I don't want a solution that overwhelms me
with false alerts at exactly the moment I need it the most.

It's also pretty clear to me that few, if any, non-glider focused
manufacturers are going to go to the trouble of solving the glider-
glider problem well - not soon, probably not ever. Therefore I think
the best path forward is to put support around a standard solution
that solves the glider-glider problem first and layers on the other
scenarios as practical. PowerFlarm seems like that solution. Waiting
for ADS-B UAT as an alternative will take too long and in the end not
solve the highest priority problem, unless a Flarm licensee does it,
in which case endorsing Flarm now as the most critical standard is
still the right thing to do.

9B

[John Cochrane]

I'm still trying to track down two flarm questions. Maybe r.a.s.
readers know the answers.

1. Does the Power-Flarm include a flight recorder? If so are there
plans to make it ICG approved? Obviously, the fact that regular flarm
also serves as an igc flight recorder is a big plus for pilots. The
various websites are silent on this issue, leading me to suspect power
flarm does not have any recorder capability. But I can't imagine they
would leave that out, or at least a non-igc recorder that can produce
an igc file.

2. What is the status for the US of the various LX flarm products? The
LX website lists all sorts of interesting licensed flarm products
http://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.html
including the "mini box" the "red box", the colibri/flarm, and
displays. There are also the full fledged computers with integrated
flarm. Are these for sale in the US? Will they be? How are they
affected by FCC certification of power flarm and its frequency?

I've gotten various answers to both questions. Does anybody know?

John Cochrane

[JS]

The only unit I've actually owned so far was the OZFLARM. It was
easily updated with Flarmtool. The pilot and glider info can be
changed, and the frequency could be selected for use in different
countries.
Any of the FLARMs that I have used will create an IGC file. Some
have full IGC certification for use on records, etc. On most, there is
no ENL recorded but some have an ENL option. They also output NMEA
data to a PDA or other flight display or computer.
There are various systems available, including "black box" types for
use with your PDA software (SeeYou, XCSoar, WinPilot, etc) or with
external display easily mounted in the panel. Some have USB
connections for downloading the log or updating firmware.
There is an audio module available for traffic alerts: "Traffic 1
o'clock 300' higher" etc.
Even in the USA I have seen LX8000 advertised for sale with internal
FLARM.
On the last day of a contest, one entry (a self-launcher) lost
communication with his GPS as he was warming up, couldn't fix it and
was going to scrub the day. I was running the grid... Had him close
the engine bay, taped and signed it, told him to take a tow. He used
the igc file from his (non-ENL) OZFLARM and won the day.
The one time my FLARM screamed at me unexpectedly, I was grateful
for the input:
Under a cloud street, head-on, within 200' horizontally and
vertically, high cruise speeds. Timely and accurate information.
Jim

Links...
Original Swiss FLARM:
http://www.flarm.com/

Butterfly Aero:
http://www.butterfly.aero/powerflarm/fly/

LX Avionics:
http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/power-flarm.htm

Triadis Speech Alert:
http://www.swiftavionics.com.au/product_detail/22/Triadis%20Speech%20Alert%20System/

One US dealer for PowerFLARM:
http://www.craggyaero.com/powerflarm.htm

One US dealer for LX:
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/lx.htm#LX8000

Version 4 update details:
http://www.flarm.com/support/updates/index_en.html

[Andy[_10_]]

On Aug 14, 8:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I'm still trying to track down two flarm questions. Maybe r.a.s.
> readers know the answers.
>
> 1. Does the Power-Flarm include a flight recorder? If so are there
> plans to make it ICG approved? Obviously, the fact that regular flarm
> also serves as an igc flight recorder is a big plus for pilots. The
> various websites are silent on this issue, leading me to suspect power
> flarm does not have any recorder capability. But I can't imagine they
> would leave that out, or at least a non-igc recorder that can produce
> an igc file.
>
> 2. What is the status for the US of the various LX flarm products? The
> LX website lists all sorts of interesting licensed flarm productshttp://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.html
> including the "mini box" the "red box", the colibri/flarm, and
> displays. There are also the full fledged computers with integrated
> flarm. Are these for sale in the US? Will they be? How are they
> affected by FCC certification of power flarm and its frequency?
>
> I've gotten various answers to both questions. Does anybody know?
>
> John Cochrane

I'm 90% sure that the PowerFlarm distributor for the US told me that
the unit includes an IGC logger - otherwise you wouldn't be able to
determine what mode the pilot was using in a contest. The idea would
be that you would be required to submit the PowerFlarm log. It does
raise a question about what happens if the PowerFlarm logger fails to
produce a good file. The rules would need to deal with how to handle
the use of backup logs that don't have whatever Flarm uses to validate
the mode of operation.

I don't know about IGC approval. It seems like the units are pretty
new, so they may not even be submitted yet - if approval is part of
the plan.

9B

[T8]

On Aug 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> I'm still trying to track down two flarm questions.

Here's another one that was raised by a friend of mine at the field
yesterday. What do accident statistics show in regions where Flarm
has been widely deployed?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Ian[_2_]]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:00:32 -0700, Andy wrote:

> Do FLARM user in other counties have any sort of standardized training
> in FLARM use or is it generally a case of read the manual and go fly
> with it?

Our club adopted Flarm back in 2005. We have them in most of the club
ships and most of the privately owned single seaters, including my
syndicate LS3a, which has one of the very first Swiss Flarm units.

The default mode is for the Flarm to light up and silently to indicate
the position of the "nearest traffic", which can be up to 1km away. The
Flarm display quickly becomes part of your scan - "see the indication on
the panel" - "see the aircraft outside of the window" (but not
necessarily in that order). Obviously this must not be to the exclusion
of the rest of the panel, nor to the exclusion of other non Flarm traffic
visible outside. It also quickly confirms that your Flarm is working and
that the other aircraft is (or is not) Flarm equipped.

With this exercise you probably have a better awareness of what is going
on around you then would be the case without Flarm. At least if you loose
concentration Flarm will wake you up with an indication of traffic that
you were previous unaware of.

If the audible alarm goes off, look out of the window and find out why,
quickly! Actually it is best to pause to look at the display for a few
tens of milliseconds to determine which sector to look out at first.

At this stage, the Flarm alarm was either generated by traffic that you
are already aware of and that you regard as "not a threat" (the glance at
the display should confirm that) or by traffic that you were not
previously aware of ... (this is a sobering experience).

Student training is typically an informal discussion on the launch point
in response the question "what is that thing".


A few other comments with regards to Flarm:

- Having flown with one, I would not want to go back to flying without
one. (I believe that most of our members feel the same.)

- You cannot get 100% penetration of the technology within any "fleet" of
gliders. Even if it is "mandatory" in a club or a competition, the units
themselves are not 100% reliable so there is always a chance of coming
across a glider that does not light up the display.

- The Flarm is a minor distraction inside the cockpit - it does not
contribute significantly to "head down" time. At least I find my PDA,
glide computer and transponder (which has a flight level readout and
flashes in response to interrogations) to be bigger distractions.

- Our Flarms all have a logging capability (although most of them are not
regarded as "secure"). They are always installed and always active when
the gliders are flown. They have enough memory for a season's worth of
flying. Thus they provide a useful "black box" function. It is very
useful to be able to go back to the Flarm trace when there are accident
and incident investigations, questions about airspace violations as well
as for reviewing early cross country flights, outlanding decision making
etc. Some of our pilots use Flarm logs to post to OLC.

- Flarm logs also include information of signals received from other
Flarms. In the past Flarm logs from gliders that returned to base have
been used to help S&R locate a missing glider.

- The biggest achievement of Flarm was to package the technology with a
low enough price/license/installation overhead to enable it to be adopted
by nearly all of the aircraft in a specific glider fleet.

- The 2nd biggest achievement is not its ability to warn of the presence
of other traffic, but rather its ability to keep quiet when that other
traffic is not an immediate threat.


A point worth noting. In the past the Flarm protocol/software has been
subject to a number of upgrades. Past versions of the firmware had a
built in "expiry date" beyond which it would not function. New versions
were released shortly before the expiry of the old versions and everybody
had to upgrade simultaneously to the new version. This was a bit of a
logistic challenge. However going forward I believe the protocol has now
stabilized, that it no longer has an expiry date and that further
upgrades will be backwardly compatible. If it is not, this could be a big
issue, particularly now that there are more manufacturers building
licensed compatible devices.


It is good to see that other countries like the UK and the USA are
starting to adopt Flarm. The new devices like Powerflarm look really
attractive. It is just a pity that it has taken so long...


Ian

[John Smith]

T8 wrote:
> Here's another one that was raised by a friend of mine at the field
> yesterday. What do accident statistics show in regions where Flarm
> has been widely deployed?

I'm not aware of a midair where both gliders were equipped with a
(working) FLARM. But luckily, the number of midairs has always been too
low to allow for serious statistics.

That said, I've been flying a FLARM equipped glider in a FLARM
"congested" area for several years now. To me, FLARM was a big
eye-opener. I just wasn't aware how much conflicting traffic I didn't
see before. You know, if you don't see a glider, you will never know
that you didn't see it.

For me, statiswctics is not the whole story. There is a huge difference
between risks that I can handle responsibly and those that I'm just
exposed to without being able to do something about it.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Aug 15, 2:14*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 14, 8:03*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm still trying to track down two flarm questions. Maybe r.a.s.
> > readers know the answers.
>
> > 1. Does the Power-Flarm include a flight recorder? If so are there
> > plans to make it ICG approved? Obviously, the fact that regular flarm
> > also serves as an igc flight recorder is a big plus for pilots. The
> > various websites are silent on this issue, leading me to suspect power
> > flarm does not have any recorder capability. But I can't imagine they
> > would leave that out, or at least a non-igc recorder that can produce
> > an igc file.
>
> > 2. What is the status for the US of the various LX flarm products? The
> > LX website lists all sorts of interesting licensed flarm productshttp://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.html
> > including the "mini box" the "red box", the colibri/flarm, and
> > displays. There are also the full fledged computers with integrated
> > flarm. Are these for sale in the US? Will they be? How are they
> > affected by FCC certification of power flarm and its frequency?
>
> > I've gotten various answers to both questions. Does anybody know?
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> I'm 90% sure that the PowerFlarm distributor for the US told me that
> the unit includes an IGC logger - otherwise you wouldn't be able to
> determine what mode the pilot was using in a contest. The idea would
> be that you would be required to submit the PowerFlarm log. *It does
> raise a question about what happens if the PowerFlarm logger fails to
> produce a good file. *The rules would need to deal with how to handle
> the use of backup logs that don't have whatever Flarm uses to validate
> the mode of operation.
>
> I don't know about IGC approval. It seems like the units are pretty
> new, so they may not even be submitted yet - if approval is part of
> the plan.
>
> 9B

BTW Richard has updated his web site to clarify that the PowerFLARM
will have IGC Flight Recorder up through Diamond see
http://www.craggyaero.com/powerflarm.htm for details.

Flarm is aware that PowerFLARM details of the flight recorder are
missing on the PowerFLARM web site.

Darryl