FLARM Technology for the US Gliding Community

[WE]

There has been a lot of talk over the past several months about FLARM
and PowerFLARM coming to the US. Unfortunately, there has been not
enough information about these systems to support an informed
discussion.

John Cochrane and I both flew with Classic FLARM units in Hungary this
summer at the WGC and found FLARM to be fantastic. We decided that we
wanted to do something to move the discussion along so we embarked on
getting the best information we could and organizing it in one place
on the web. Quickly, we asked Dave Nadler for his help and he joined
in. Read more about our thoughts at www.GliderPilot.org/FlarmOurView.

Finally, we contacted Urs Rothacher, the developer of FLARM and
PowerFLARM, and Lee Kuhlke, the US PowerFLARM distributor to provide
key technical data and to review for accuracy the content of the
site. The three of us have worked for the past month to create what
we believe is an accurate and unbiased representation of the FLARM
technology and new PowerFLARM system designed for the US market.

The information we have compiled can be viewed at www.GliderPilot.org/FLARM.
We invite you to review the information there and join in a new
discussion. We believe the FLARM technology and PowerFLARM system
represent a tremendous capability for collision avoidance and that
with adoption in the US, especially in contest flying, will save
lives.

We invite your comments,
Bill Elliott (WE), John Cochrane (BB), and Dave Nadler (YO)

[Evan Ludeman[_2_]]

On Sep 14, 8:09*am, WE > wrote:
> There has been a lot of talk over the past several months about FLARM
> and PowerFLARM coming to the US. *Unfortunately, there has been not
> enough information about these systems to support an informed
> discussion.
>
> John Cochrane and I both flew with Classic FLARM units in Hungary this
> summer at the WGC and found FLARM to be fantastic. *We decided that we
> wanted to do something to move the discussion along so we embarked on
> getting the best information we could and organizing it in one place
> on the web. *Quickly, we asked Dave Nadler for his help and he joined
> in. *Read more about our thoughts atwww.GliderPilot.org/FlarmOurView.
>
> Finally, we contacted Urs Rothacher, the developer of FLARM and
> PowerFLARM, and Lee Kuhlke, the US PowerFLARM distributor to provide
> key technical data and to review for accuracy the content of the
> site. *The three of us have worked for the past month to create what
> we believe is an accurate and unbiased representation of the FLARM
> technology and new PowerFLARM system designed for the US market.
>
> The information we have compiled can be viewed atwww.GliderPilot.org/FLARM.
> We invite you to review the information there and join in a new
> discussion. *We believe the FLARM technology and PowerFLARM system
> represent a tremendous capability for collision avoidance and that
> with adoption in the US, especially in contest flying, will save
> lives.
>
> We invite your comments,
> Bill Elliott (WE), John Cochrane (BB), and Dave Nadler (YO)

Thanks Bill (et, al).

Couple of problems on your web site... the Parowan video isn't
available on the page where it needs to be and the chart showing
"who's ordered" cannot be edited.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[T8]

On Sep 14, 8:09*am, WE > wrote:
> There has been a lot of talk over the past several months about FLARM
> and PowerFLARM coming to the US. *Unfortunately, there has been not
> enough information about these systems to support an informed
> discussion.
>
> John Cochrane and I both flew with Classic FLARM units in Hungary this
> summer at the WGC and found FLARM to be fantastic. *We decided that we
> wanted to do something to move the discussion along so we embarked on
> getting the best information we could and organizing it in one place
> on the web. *Quickly, we asked Dave Nadler for his help and he joined
> in. *Read more about our thoughts atwww.GliderPilot.org/FlarmOurView.
>
> Finally, we contacted Urs Rothacher, the developer of FLARM and
> PowerFLARM, and Lee Kuhlke, the US PowerFLARM distributor to provide
> key technical data and to review for accuracy the content of the
> site. *The three of us have worked for the past month to create what
> we believe is an accurate and unbiased representation of the FLARM
> technology and new PowerFLARM system designed for the US market.
>
> The information we have compiled can be viewed atwww.GliderPilot.org/FLARM.
> We invite you to review the information there and join in a new
> discussion. *We believe the FLARM technology and PowerFLARM system
> represent a tremendous capability for collision avoidance and that
> with adoption in the US, especially in contest flying, will save
> lives.
>
> We invite your comments,
> Bill Elliott (WE), John Cochrane (BB), and Dave Nadler (YO)

Thanks Bill (et, al).

Couple of problems on your web site... the Parowan video isn't
available on the page where it needs to be and the chart showing
"who's ordered" cannot be edited.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Blake Seese]

On Sep 14, 5:09*am, WE > wrote:
> There has been a lot of talk over the past several months about FLARM
> and PowerFLARM coming to the US. *Unfortunately, there has been not
> enough information about these systems to support an informed
> discussion.
>
> John Cochrane and I both flew with Classic FLARM units in Hungary this
> summer at the WGC and found FLARM to be fantastic. *We decided that we
> wanted to do something to move the discussion along so we embarked on
> getting the best information we could and organizing it in one place
> on the web. *Quickly, we asked Dave Nadler for his help and he joined
> in. *Read more about our thoughts atwww.GliderPilot.org/FlarmOurView.
>
> Finally, we contacted Urs Rothacher, the developer of FLARM and
> PowerFLARM, and Lee Kuhlke, the US PowerFLARM distributor to provide
> key technical data and to review for accuracy the content of the
> site. *The three of us have worked for the past month to create what
> we believe is an accurate and unbiased representation of the FLARM
> technology and new PowerFLARM system designed for the US market.
>
> The information we have compiled can be viewed atwww.GliderPilot.org/FLARM.
> We invite you to review the information there and join in a new
> discussion. *We believe the FLARM technology and PowerFLARM system
> represent a tremendous capability for collision avoidance and that
> with adoption in the US, especially in contest flying, will save
> lives.
>
> We invite your comments,
> Bill Elliott (WE), John Cochrane (BB), and Dave Nadler (YO)

I tried to follow your links, but there was nothing there.

[rhwoody]

On Sep 14, 8:33*am, Blake Seese > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 5:09*am, WE > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There has been a lot of talk over the past several months about FLARM
> > and PowerFLARM coming to the US. *Unfortunately, there has been not
> > enough information about these systems to support an informed
> > discussion.
>
> > John Cochrane and I both flew with Classic FLARM units in Hungary this
> > summer at the WGC and found FLARM to be fantastic. *We decided that we
> > wanted to do something to move the discussion along so we embarked on
> > getting the best information we could and organizing it in one place
> > on the web. *Quickly, we asked Dave Nadler for his help and he joined
> > in. *Read more about our thoughts atwww.GliderPilot.org/FlarmOurView.
>
> > Finally, we contacted Urs Rothacher, the developer of FLARM and
> > PowerFLARM, and Lee Kuhlke, the US PowerFLARM distributor to provide
> > key technical data and to review for accuracy the content of the
> > site. *The three of us have worked for the past month to create what
> > we believe is an accurate and unbiased representation of the FLARM
> > technology and new PowerFLARM system designed for the US market.
>
> > The information we have compiled can be viewed atwww.GliderPilot.org/FLARM.
> > We invite you to review the information there and join in a new
> > discussion. *We believe the FLARM technology and PowerFLARM system
> > represent a tremendous capability for collision avoidance and that
> > with adoption in the US, especially in contest flying, will save
> > lives.
>
> > We invite your comments,
> > Bill Elliott (WE), John Cochrane (BB), and Dave Nadler (YO)
>
> I tried to follow your links, but there was nothing there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have flown with Flarm for the past 4 years at Bitterwasser, Namibia
(Africa) -
it is an excellent collision avoidance system - I fully support the
adoption of
Flarm and Power Flarm in the US - especially in competition where it
should
be mandatory for all competitors - it definitely will save lives -
Ralph "Woody" Woodward

[Darryl Ramm]

> I tried to follow your links, but there was nothing there.

http://www.GliderPilot.org/FLARM

Sigh. (again)

Darryl

[flyingmr2]

I found the correct links here.

http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM

http://www.gliderpilot.org/FlarmOurView


John

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 14, 8:50*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:52*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > I tried to follow your links, but there was nothing there.
>
> >http://www.GliderPilot.org/FLARM
>
> > Sigh. (again)
>
> > Darryl
>
> From a recent discussion at our ASA racing group, I think you are now
> preaching to the choir on the benefits of FLARM.
>
> The problem we have is that pilots in the USA are not going to have
> the availability of an inexpensive unit, such as those used in Europe,
> Australia and Africa. *PowerFLARM appears to be a wonderful unit with
> many more benefits and I can see one in my future, but the cost is
> three to four times that of the regular unit and will have a much
> harder time reaching the same levels of adoption as in other
> countries. *I predict that there will be a lot of push-back if the
> rules committee attempts to mandate the use of a $2,000 unit in
> contests.
>
> Mike

(It wasn't me "preaching", I assume Mike meant the OP but I'll reply
anyhow).

Where does "three to four times" come from?

The advertised price of a Flarm Classic unit in the UK looks like £495
(US$770) or £587 (US$913) with IGC recorder. Neither price including
VAT. (see http://www.lxavionics.co.uk/flarm.htm)

In Australia the advertised price of a miniOzFLarm black box is AU$769
plus likely a display like the Artronic for AU$239. That is a total of
AU$1008 (US$951). We could argue about the possibility of using this
with a PDA only display, but I think you really want the hardwired
display/controller in addition to a PDA. (see http://www.swiftavionics.com.au)

In Germany the advertised price of a Flarm Classic unit (with IGC
recorder) is EUR685 (US$891).
See http://shop.segelflugbedarf24.de/index.php?cat=c2_FLARM--and-ADS-B.html.

The introductory price for PowerFLARM in the USA was US$1495 (with
PCAS, 1090ES and IGC up to three diamonds). The USA list price
mentioned was $1695. I hear that the initial allocation at the
introductory price has sold out.... (maybe time to start asking for an
extension or bulk buy program etc.)

Am I missing something? I'm not disputing the new generation
PowerFLARM is more expensive than older Flarm units available
overseas, but I just want people to be careful making pricing
comparisons (and be clear what features like IGC recorders are in
different products - yes not everybody may want that feature, but lets
just be clear on any comparisons). BTW I've seen some people confuse
the pricing on a Flarm display to that of a full Flarm unit, so again
a good idea to be clear exactly what is in any price comparison.

Darryl

[Paul Remde]

Hi Guys,

Very nicely done! Excellent! What a great resource.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde

"WE" > wrote in message
...
> There has been a lot of talk over the past several months about FLARM
> and PowerFLARM coming to the US. Unfortunately, there has been not
> enough information about these systems to support an informed
> discussion.
>
> John Cochrane and I both flew with Classic FLARM units in Hungary this
> summer at the WGC and found FLARM to be fantastic. We decided that we
> wanted to do something to move the discussion along so we embarked on
> getting the best information we could and organizing it in one place
> on the web. Quickly, we asked Dave Nadler for his help and he joined
> in. Read more about our thoughts at www.GliderPilot.org/FlarmOurView.
>
> Finally, we contacted Urs Rothacher, the developer of FLARM and
> PowerFLARM, and Lee Kuhlke, the US PowerFLARM distributor to provide
> key technical data and to review for accuracy the content of the
> site. The three of us have worked for the past month to create what
> we believe is an accurate and unbiased representation of the FLARM
> technology and new PowerFLARM system designed for the US market.
>
> The information we have compiled can be viewed at
> www.GliderPilot.org/FLARM.
> We invite you to review the information there and join in a new
> discussion. We believe the FLARM technology and PowerFLARM system
> represent a tremendous capability for collision avoidance and that
> with adoption in the US, especially in contest flying, will save
> lives.
>
> We invite your comments,
> Bill Elliott (WE), John Cochrane (BB), and Dave Nadler (YO)

[T8]

On Sep 14, 11:50*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>*I predict that there will be a lot of push-back if the
> rules committee attempts to mandate the use of a $2,000 unit in
> contests.


One vendor has them listed for $1495 on the web site, and this is
listed as a regular price, not the special intro.

I hope mandates do not become necessary. I am quite enthusiastic
about bringing this technology to the US, I predict we'll see
widespread if not universal adoption in the FAI classes at $1500. All
the better if a less expensive version becomes available.

Possibly, this could be put in the hands of contest organizers, much
as ELT requirements are handled now. Some contests need this
technology rather more than others... in my experience pretty much any
contest of more than 50 gliders is going to cough up at least one
"Damn, that was too close!" story, the majority of which fortunately
involve no contact.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[JS]

Thanks WE, BB and YO.
Jim

[WE]

On Sep 14, 11:53*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 8:50*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:52*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > I tried to follow your links, but there was nothing there.
>
> > >http://www.GliderPilot.org/FLARM
>
> > > Sigh. (again)
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > From a recent discussion at our ASA racing group, I think you are now
> > preaching to the choir on the benefits of FLARM.
>
> > The problem we have is that pilots in the USA are not going to have
> > the availability of an inexpensive unit, such as those used in Europe,
> > Australia and Africa. *PowerFLARM appears to be a wonderful unit with
> > many more benefits and I can see one in my future, but the cost is
> > three to four times that of the regular unit and will have a much
> > harder time reaching the same levels of adoption as in other
> > countries. *I predict that there will be a lot of push-back if the
> > rules committee attempts to mandate the use of a $2,000 unit in
> > contests.
>
> > Mike
>
> (It wasn't me "preaching", I assume Mike meant the OP but I'll reply
> anyhow).
>
> Where does "three to four times" come from?
>
> The advertised price of a Flarm Classic unit in the UK looks like £495
> (US$770) or £587 (US$913) with IGC recorder. Neither price including
> VAT. (seehttp://www.lxavionics.co.uk/flarm.htm)
>
> In Australia the advertised price of a miniOzFLarm black box is AU$769
> plus likely a display like the Artronic for AU$239. That is a total of
> AU$1008 (US$951). We could argue about the possibility of using this
> with a PDA only display, but I think you really want the hardwired
> display/controller in addition to a PDA. (seehttp://www.swiftavionics.com..au)
>
> In Germany the advertised price of a Flarm Classic unit (with IGC
> recorder) is EUR685 (US$891).
> Seehttp://shop.segelflugbedarf24.de/index.php?cat=c2_FLARM--and-ADS-B.html.
>
> The introductory price for PowerFLARM in the USA was US$1495 (with
> PCAS, 1090ES and IGC up to three diamonds). The USA list price
> mentioned was $1695. I hear that the initial allocation at the
> introductory price has sold out.... (maybe time to start asking for an
> extension or bulk buy program etc.)
>
> Am I missing something? I'm not disputing the new generation
> PowerFLARM is more expensive than older Flarm units available
> overseas, but I just want people to be careful making pricing
> comparisons (and be clear what features like IGC recorders are in
> different products - yes not everybody may want that feature, but lets
> just be clear on any comparisons). BTW I've seen some people confuse
> the pricing on a Flarm display to that of a full Flarm unit, so again
> a good idea to be clear exactly what is in any price comparison.
>
> Darryl

Yes, you are, FLARM Classic will not be available in the US.

[WE]

On Sep 14, 11:01*am, flyingmr2 > wrote:
> I found the correct links here.
>
> http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM
>
> http://www.gliderpilot.org/FlarmOurView
>
> John

Thanks for posting this, I don't understand why the links in the
original email don't resolve correctly.

[Mike Schumann]

On 9/14/2010 11:00 AM, M North wrote:
> On Sep 14, 11:50 am, Mike the > wrote:
>
>> ... I predict that there will be a lot of push-back if the
>> rules committee attempts to mandate the use of a $2,000 unit in
>> contests.
>
> My understanding is that all FLARM units are compatible with each
> other.
>
> I assume that anyone willing to give up the 1090 MHz features and the
> extended range, and who doesn't care what the FCC thinks, would be
> happy using the classic FLARM in USA.
Regular FLARM units run on a frequency that is not permitted in the US.

--
Mike Schumann

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 15, 7:12*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 9/14/2010 11:00 AM, M North wrote:> On Sep 14, 11:50 am, Mike the > *wrote:
>
> >> ... I predict that there will be a lot of push-back if the
> >> rules committee attempts to mandate the use of a $2,000 unit in
> >> contests.
>
> > My understanding is that all FLARM units are compatible with each
> > other.
>
> > I assume that anyone willing to give up the 1090 MHz features and the
> > extended range, and who doesn't care what the FCC thinks, would be
> > happy using the classic FLARM in USA.
>
> Regular FLARM units run on a frequency that is not permitted in the US.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

That is not true. Flarm devices automatically change frequency
depending on the location. That support is in legacy Flarm units. The
issue as pointed out clearly by others is those units are not FCC
approved and cannot legally be sold/operated in the USA.


Darryl

[M North]

> Regular FLARM units run on a frequency that is not permitted in the US.

I thought that they all operated on 868 MHz, in the SRD band. Does
that band not exist in the US? If the units imported into US use a
different frequency, then the rest of us should leave our FLARM at
home when visiting!

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 15, 8:34*am, M North > wrote:
> > Regular FLARM units run on a frequency that is not permitted in the US.
>
> I thought that they all operated on 868 MHz, in the SRD band. *Does
> that band not exist in the US? *If the units imported into US use a
> different frequency, then the rest of us should leave our FLARM at
> home when visiting!

Flarm does not "all operate[ed] on 868 MHz". This is all handled
automatically by the device.

From the Flarm classic manual...

"GPS-controlled automatec frequency tuning: SRD-F-Band 868.0 to 868.6
MHz
(Europe/Africa), New Zealand 869.25 MHz, Australia around 921 MHz,
America around
915 MHz".

The 915 MHz in the USA is the ISM band. The automatic frequency
selection is just a really elegant feature that Flarm engineered into
their products. But again, its a matter of what is FCC approved to
enable a device to be legally sold and legally used in the USA.

Darryl

[Ramy]

On Sep 15, 7:57*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 7:12*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/14/2010 11:00 AM, M North wrote:> On Sep 14, 11:50 am, Mike the > *wrote:
>
> > >> ... I predict that there will be a lot of push-back if the
> > >> rules committee attempts to mandate the use of a $2,000 unit in
> > >> contests.
>
> > > My understanding is that all FLARM units are compatible with each
> > > other.
>
> > > I assume that anyone willing to give up the 1090 MHz features and the
> > > extended range, and who doesn't care what the FCC thinks, would be
> > > happy using the classic FLARM in USA.
>
> > Regular FLARM units run on a frequency that is not permitted in the US.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann
>
> That is not true. Flarm devices automatically change frequency
> depending on the location. That support is in legacy Flarm units. The
> issue as pointed out clearly by others is those units are not FCC
> approved and cannot legally be sold/operated in the USA.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I sure hope that those who already have the European flarm will still
use it in the US rather than turning it off due to FCC beaurocrats.
We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
approved those units earlier.

Ramy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 15, 11:25*am, Ramy > wrote:
> We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
> approved those units earlier.

That seems to assign some blame to FCC.

Why would FCC be expected to approve an equipment for which no
approval application was made. Why would anyone have made an
approval application for an equipment which was not marketed for use
in USA and prohibited by the manufacture(s) from being used in USA.

For those that think the door will be open to import the older FLARM
units to US and use them without FCC approval, don't forget that the
unit's firmware has an embedded drop dead date. It would be very easy
for the next firmware cycle to inhibit operation for GPS locations in
USA.

Am I the only one that suspects a large part of the US PowerFLARM cost
is going towards a legal fund?

Andy

[Ramy]

On Sep 15, 12:19*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:25*am, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
> > approved those units earlier.
>
> That seems to assign some blame to FCC.
>
> Why would FCC be expected to approve an equipment for which no
> approval application was made. * Why would anyone have made an
> approval application for an equipment which was not marketed for use
> in USA and prohibited by the manufacture(s) from being used in USA.
>
> For those that think the door will be open to import the older FLARM
> units to US and use them without FCC approval, don't forget that the
> unit's firmware has an embedded drop dead date. *It would be very easy
> for the next firmware cycle to inhibit operation for GPS locations in
> USA.
>
> Am I the only one that suspects a large part of the US PowerFLARM cost
> is going towards a legal fund?
>
> Andy

You may be right but my point is that, as often the case, we have the
technology (which should normally be the biggest challenge) but it
almost always hampered by paperwork/FCC/FAA/liablity/(name your
favorite bureaucrat agency here).
This is much less so with consumer devices.
I understand this is to prevent chaos, but if so, how come everyone
can mail order an aviation radio and interfere with ATC if they feal
like?

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell]

On 9/15/2010 12:19 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Sep 15, 11:25 am, > wrote:
>
>> We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
>> approved those units earlier.
>>
> That seems to assign some blame to FCC.
>
> Why would FCC be expected to approve an equipment for which no
> approval application was made. Why would anyone have made an
> approval application for an equipment which was not marketed for use
> in USA and prohibited by the manufacture(s) from being used in USA.
>
> For those that think the door will be open to import the older FLARM
> units to US and use them without FCC approval, don't forget that the
> unit's firmware has an embedded drop dead date. It would be very easy
> for the next firmware cycle to inhibit operation for GPS locations in
> USA.
>
> Am I the only one that suspects a large part of the US PowerFLARM cost
> is going towards a legal fund?
>

Can't answer that, but PowerFlarm has substantially more features than a
Flarm unit. For $1500, you get Flarm ($800), PCAS ($500 for MRX), and
ADS-B-in ($500?), plus stuff you don't get buying those things
separately: a nifty display, a single small package, and glider-friendly
software tying them together, and for $300 less than the individual
items. I don't see large part of the cost left over for a legal fund.

I anticipate getting one next year, but since I already have a
transponder and MRX, I'm in no great need, so I'll let the other pilots
be the early adopters of the (initially) scarce units. Then, I'll have
to think about selling my Becker and getting a Trig when ADS-B out
becomes more interesting.

--
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

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

> We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
> approved those units earlier.

Does FCC actually approve individual devices?

I know that they issue licenses and set standards for transmitters and
operators. And they have rules regarding the spectrum and
interference.

But do they actually test and approve/disapprove imported radio
designs?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 16, 5:13*am, Pat Russell > wrote:
> > We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
> > approved those units earlier.
>
> Does FCC actually approve individual devices?
>
> I know that they issue licenses and set standards for transmitters and
> operators. *And they have rules regarding the spectrum and
> interference.
>
> But do they actually test and approve/disapprove imported radio
> designs?


Depends on the device. In this case definitely yes. The FCC does not
approve the design they approve the whole thing - the actual
implementation and packaging etc. including each change that affects
the RF part. Flarm will be working with one of several independent
test labs to help do this. Having had to put computer systems etc.
though compliance labs they have my sympathy...

Darryl

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 16, 5:13*am, Pat Russell > wrote:
> Does FCC actually approve individual devices?

Depends what you mean by individual devices. In case it was not clear
in the previous reply the final product design requires approval but
each individual device (unique serial number) does not. So the design
gets approved based on an application by the manufacturer and the
purchaser of an individual device does nothing except use it.

Andy

[M North]

Thank you, Andy. This discussion is very helpful indeed.
My final question is this: if a foreign pilot brought her glider to
the US, would the FLARM installed in that glider cooperate in a gaggle
full of PFARMs? I would like to know the answer, regardless of who
would disapprove of such behavior.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 16, 2:49*pm, M North > wrote:
> Thank you, Andy. *This discussion is very helpful indeed.
> My final question is this: *if a foreign pilot brought her glider to
> the US, would the FLARM installed in that glider cooperate in a gaggle
> full of PFARMs? *I would like to know the answer, regardless of who
> would disapprove of such behavior.

You would have to ask the supplier of your FLARM unit. The
documentation I have seen says the units will switch to the USA
allocated frequency and the communication protocols are reported to be
identical.

You should also note that the documentation for current FLARM units
includes a very clear prohibition against use in the USA. One way to
enforce that probibition would be to make the units inoperable in USA
by a firmware update although I have no information that FLARM intends
to do that.

I wonder what visiting pilots at the pre Worlds at Uvalde will be
using.

Andy

[John Smith]

Andy wrote:
> You should also note that the documentation for current FLARM units
> includes a very clear prohibition against use in the USA. One way to
> enforce that probibition would be to make the units inoperable in USA

I guess the FLARM people don't care a lot whether you use the device in
the USA or not. The prohibition is purely a protection against liability
lawsuits. So if a pilot or one of his relatives should be insolent
enough and tries to start a lawsuit, they can simply point to that
prohibition and state that it's not their business.

[Wayne Paul]

"John Smith" > wrote in message ...
> Andy wrote:
>> You should also note that the documentation for current FLARM units
>> includes a very clear prohibition against use in the USA. One way to
>> enforce that probibition would be to make the units inoperable in USA
>
> I guess the FLARM people don't care a lot whether you use the device in
> the USA or not. The prohibition is purely a protection against liability
> lawsuits. So if a pilot or one of his relatives should be insolent
> enough and tries to start a lawsuit, they can simply point to that
> prohibition and state that it's not their business.

Or if US authorized users of RF frequency of the European FLARM report to the FCC that the units interfere with their systems. There are parts of the RF spectrum that are controlled by international treaty and other parts that are allocated by country or region. The frequency allocation between countries was also an issue for the early in the cell phone industry.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 17, 6:28*am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:

> Or if US authorized users of RF frequency of the European FLARM report to the FCC that the units interfere with >their systems. *There are parts of the RF spectrum that are controlled by international treaty and other parts that >are allocated by country or region. *The frequency allocation between countries was also an issue for the early in >the cell phone industry..

If a "European" FLARM is brought to US, and auto frequency selection
has not been defeated, it should be expected to switch to the same
frequency as used for US PowerFLARM.

There would be no point at all in bringing a "European" FLARM to US
unless it did operate on the same frequency.

Andy

[cernauta]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT), Andy >
wrote:

>If a "European" FLARM is brought to US, and auto frequency selection
>has not been defeated, it should be expected to switch to the same
>frequency as used for US PowerFLARM.

Or still, you can select the geographic area, and the associated
frequency, by fiddling in the setup menu (using the "flarmtool" pc
interface).

Aldo

[Eric Greenwell]

On 9/17/2010 8:45 AM, cernauta wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT), >
> wrote:
>
>
>> If a "European" FLARM is brought to US, and auto frequency selection
>> has not been defeated, it should be expected to switch to the same
>> frequency as used for US PowerFLARM.
>>
> Or still, you can select the geographic area, and the associated
> frequency, by fiddling in the setup menu (using the "flarmtool" pc
> interface).
>
Does anyone really know that Flarm actually selects a frequency and
transmits while in the USA? Since they prohibit it's use in the USA, it
seems more logical to shut off the transmitter when in the USA. If it's
legal reasons that are the basis for the prohibition, I would think
shutting it off gives far more protection from lawsuits or the FCC
regulations, when they clearly have the ability to disable it as desired.

--
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

[Eric Greenwell]

On 9/17/2010 11:17 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 9/17/2010 8:45 AM, cernauta wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT), >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If a "European" FLARM is brought to US, and auto frequency selection
>>> has not been defeated, it should be expected to switch to the same
>>> frequency as used for US PowerFLARM.
>> Or still, you can select the geographic area, and the associated
>> frequency, by fiddling in the setup menu (using the "flarmtool" pc
>> interface).
> Does anyone really know that Flarm actually selects a frequency and
> transmits while in the USA? Since they prohibit it's use in the USA,
> it seems more logical to shut off the transmitter when in the USA. If
> it's legal reasons that are the basis for the prohibition, I would
> think shutting it off gives far more protection from lawsuits or the
> FCC regulations, when they clearly have the ability to disable it as
> desired.
Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task
area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the
USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day. The
trick is getting the waiver, not the minor Flarm firmware additions.

--
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

[John Smith]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task
> area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the
> USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day.

I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC but
definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits. Why else
would they prohibit the use of FLARM not only in the USA but worldwide
when there is a US citizen on board?

[Eric Greenwell]

On 9/17/2010 12:02 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Perhaps they could get an FCC waiver to use Flarm in the Worlds task
>> area, and allow Flarm to work in the task area (and nowhere else in the
>> USA) and only during the contest period, and only during the day.
>
> I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC
> but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits.
Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or
is that an assumption?
> Why else would they prohibit the use of FLARM not only in the USA but
> worldwide when there is a US citizen on board?

If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the
problem for PowerFlarm?

For that matter, how does Zaon avoid the same problem for their PCAS units?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

[John Smith]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC
>> but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits.

> Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or
> is that an assumption?

I know it from "second hand direct information", from knowing how
European people in general think about the USA liability insanity, and
last but not least the FLARM people say so on their faq page (only
available in German): www.flarm.com/support/faq/index.html

Besides, do you think they would go through the paperwork to have the
device approved by the FCC equivalents in many countries, but would
recoil at the idea to do it for the USA?

> If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid the problem for PowerFlarm?

No idea. But they are not that small startup company anymore but have
had a couple of years now to sort things out and have maybe found a way
to avoid the risk.

> For that matter, how does Zaon avoid the same problem for their PCAS units?

No idea. Maybe they even don't and just gamble?

[Eric Greenwell]

On 9/17/2010 12:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>> I'm not sure they would consider this, as the problem isn't the FCC
>>> but definitely their fear of those insane US liability lawsuits.
>
>> Do you know this from speaking with a principal in the Flarm company? Or
>> is that an assumption?
>
> I know it from "second hand direct information", from knowing how
> European people in general think about the USA liability insanity, and
> last but not least the FLARM people say so on their faq page (only
> available in German): www.flarm.com/support/faq/index.html
>
> Besides, do you think they would go through the paperwork to have the
> device approved by the FCC equivalents in many countries, but would
> recoil at the idea to do it for the USA?

My guesses: Perhaps the North America market was thought to be too small
and the FCC licensing too expensive; perhaps in the Euro zone, they did
not have to contend with "many countries"; licensing in at least one
country (Australia), was not done by Flarm.

>
>> If "insane US liability lawsuits" are a problem, how will they avoid
>> the problem for PowerFlarm?
>
> No idea. But they are not that small startup company anymore but have
> had a couple of years now to sort things out and have maybe found a
> way to avoid the risk.
>

So, perhaps the problem is not USA and Canada's "insane liability laws",
but Flarm's understanding of them. It would be interesting to know
Flarm's reasoning and how it's changed over the years so that they are
now entering the market here.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

[John Smith]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> It would be interesting to know Flarm's reasoning

They have an e-mail address.

[Andrzej Kobus]

Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.

I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
situation?

There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
correct?

And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.

So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?

What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
adopter of FLARM.

This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
PCAS is not a problem.

I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.

I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.

AK

[Morgan[_2_]]

Facts? I think that's a different forum. RAS actually stands for
Rumors And Speculation.



On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
> of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
> with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.
>
> I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
> situation?
>
> There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
> with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
> correct?
>
> And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
> with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
> unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
> experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.
>
> So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?
>
> What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
> I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
> also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
> do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
> adopter of FLARM.
>
> This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
> close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
> PCAS is not a problem.
>
> I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
> one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
> contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
> not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.
>
> I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.
>
> AK

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
> of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
> with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.
>
> I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
> situation?
>
> There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
> with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
> correct?
>
> And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
> with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
> unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
> experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.
>
> So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?
>
> What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
> I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
> also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
> do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
> adopter of FLARM.
>
> This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
> close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
> PCAS is not a problem.
>
> I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
> one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
> contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
> not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.
>
> I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.
>
> AK

This has already been discussed in threads here. As you point out PCAS
cannot work in crowded gaggles - so you disable the PCAS alarm in
those situation. As I've pointed out before it's not just that it will
be annoying, it is that the Mode C transponders fundamentally wont'
work properly in crowded gaggles. There is no other way "resolve" this
issue, so you turn it off. This is a product designed to work in
contest environments, the developers understand these issues.

Darryl

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sep 17, 8:16*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2:22*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> > There is still no information that I could find on how the PCAS part
> > of the PowerFlarm will behave in a thermal full of gliders equipped
> > with Mod C transponders and PowerFlarms.
>
> > I would like to hear how would this unit be usable in such a
> > situation?
>
> > There is no way signals from Mod C transponders could be correlated
> > with FLARM so the PCAS would just get crazy and the unit unusable,
> > correct?
>
> > And what about a similar situation where gliders are only equipped
> > with Mod C transponders, I guess the same outcome the unit would be
> > unusable due to many signal sources in small area. I already
> > experienced this with Zaon MRX so I know this is the case.
>
> > So, how will it work? Anyone truly knows?
>
> > What I want is a pure FLARM! I don't need the annoyance of a PCAS when
> > I am in a thermal full of gliders equipped with Mod C transponders. I
> > also don't need ADS-B for a while until it will really be usable. Why
> > do I need to be early adopter of the ADS-B when I want to be an early
> > adopter of FLARM.
>
> > This box looks to me was designed for power pilots who don't fly very
> > close to a bunch of other aircraft equipped with transponders then the
> > PCAS is not a problem.
>
> > I am not about to purchase another annoying instrument I already have
> > one PCAS. It is great outside glider congested areas but not in a
> > contest. So unless I hear the PCAS issue is resolved in some way I am
> > not going to buy a unit to find out it is not doing what I need to do.
>
> > I am waiting to be corrected with FACTS.
>
> > AK
>
> This has already been discussed in threads here. As you point out PCAS
> cannot work in crowded gaggles - so you disable the PCAS alarm in
> those situation. As I've pointed out before it's not just that it will
> be annoying, it is that the Mode C transponders fundamentally wont'
> work properly in crowded gaggles. There is no other way "resolve" this
> issue, so you turn it off. This is a product designed to work in
> contest environments, the developers understand these issues.
>
> Darryl

Yes, it was discussed here without any implementation facts! I am
looking for facts and a definite answer rather than "the developers
know".

Do you know this for a fact that I can turn off PCAS functionality in
PowerFlarm without turning off the unit?

In Europe where Mod S is required this is not a problem since you can
program the codes into the unit and correlate with Flarm, but in US
most gliders equipped with transponders are Mod C.

So, anyone who knows this for a fact please bring it up.

[[email protected]]

Compared to a standalone PCAS, PowerFLARM has a few things going for
it:

- The other PowerFLARM equipped aircraft will transmit the fact that
it is transponder equipped in its FLARM signal.
PowerFLARM will then attempt a ‘data fusion’ to reduce nuisance
alarms.
The fusion, off course, works best with Mode S transponders…
Once a match between a transponder and a FLARM signal has been made,
the higly accurate FLARM data is used and nuisance alarms are
minimal.

- The PowerFLARM user interface is sophisticated, yet simple.
Suppressing the audio of the PCAS alert is trivial, so you will still
see on the screen that there are transponder A/C equipped aircraft
nearby but it will not constantly beep.

- PowerFLARM can easily be updated through the SD Card / Serial / USB
port. We have provided FREE updates to all devices ever shipped since
2004, vastly improving their performance and features.
So even if we would not get it right at first; dont despair,
complain (to us, not RAS)...

- We are glider pilots and we will make this work for glider pilots as
otherwise we can never again show up on any gliderport, worldwide...

Urs
FLARM

[Dave Nadler]

On Sep 15, 4:20*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 12:19*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 11:25*am, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > We would probably have at east one pilot alive today if the FCC
> > > approved those units earlier.
>
> > That seems to assign some blame to FCC.
>
> > Why would FCC be expected to approve an equipment for which no
> > approval application was made. * Why would anyone have made an
> > approval application for an equipment which was not marketed for use
> > in USA and prohibited by the manufacture(s) from being used in USA.
>
> > For those that think the door will be open to import the older FLARM
> > units to US and use them without FCC approval, don't forget that the
> > unit's firmware has an embedded drop dead date. *It would be very easy
> > for the next firmware cycle to inhibit operation for GPS locations in
> > USA.
>
> > Am I the only one that suspects a large part of the US PowerFLARM cost
> > is going towards a legal fund?
>
> > Andy
>
> You may be right but my point is that, as often the case, we have the
> technology (which should normally be the biggest challenge) but it
> almost always hampered by paperwork/FCC/FAA/liablity/(name your
> favorite bureaucrat agency here).
> This is much less so with consumer devices.
> I understand this is to prevent chaos, but if so, how come everyone
> can mail order an aviation radio and interfere with ATC if they feal
> like?
>
> Ramy

As usual, reality is a bit more complicated...
In USA, the power levels allowed on the free-for-all
frequencies are higher than other countries.
That means the background noise level on these
frequencies is higher from other devices.
PowerFLARM has a more powerful
radio transmitter than the classic FLARM, and
is thus is more able to punch through the noise.

So, while a classic FLARM might operate here,
in addition to being illegal it won't work as well.
The other guy *might* hear you...

Hope that helps !
You guys should fly more and speculate less !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[Dave Nadler]

On Sep 15, 6:02*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> I anticipate getting one next year, but since I already have a
> transponder and MRX, I'm in no great need, so I'll let the other pilots
> be the early adopters of the (initially) scarce units.

Eric will thus miss out on the introductory price
for orders placed by year-end...

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[Andy[_1_]]

On Sep 19, 8:12*am, Dave Nadler > wrote:

> You guys should fly more and speculate less !
>
> See ya, Dave "YO electric"

There would be no need for "speculation" if there were "specs" ;)

On the one hand we are told US PowerFLARM is the same as "rest of the
world" PowerFLARM except for IGC recorder approval, but now you seem
to be suggesting that US PowerFLARM has different RF specs from the
"rest of the world" PowerFLARM. Maybe the RF TX power is controlled
according to region as determined by GPS position and the RF sections
are identical?

This is the first I have heard about higher RF power output. Up to
now the only information has been that the receiver is more sensitive
than legacy FLARM.

Now I'm going flying - someone has to pull the rope.

Andy (GY)

[Dave Nadler]

On Sep 19, 12:28*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:12*am, Dave Nadler > wrote:
>
> > You guys should fly more and speculate less !
>
> > See ya, Dave "YO electric"
>
> There would be no need for "speculation" if there were "specs" ;)
>
> On the one hand we are told US PowerFLARM is the same as "rest of the
> world" PowerFLARM except for IGC recorder approval, but now you seem
> to be suggesting that US PowerFLARM has different RF specs from the
> "rest of the world" PowerFLARM. *Maybe the RF TX power is controlled
> according to region as determined by GPS position and the RF sections
> are identical?
>
> This is the first I have heard about higher RF power output. *Up to
> now the only information has been that the receiver is more sensitive
> than legacy FLARM.
>
> Now I'm going flying - someone has to pull the rope.
>
> Andy (GY)

As I wrote:
PowerFLARM has a more powerful transmitter
compared to classic FLARM.
Regardless of what country it is sold in.
The more powerful transmitter is needed in USA.

Location-specific behavior is an entirely separate matter:
To meet local requirements, in Europe the transmit power
will be lower than USA, controlled by software (no
hardware difference).

I will add a couple of FAQ entries later...

Glad you've gone flying and stopped speculating ;-)
Best Regards, Dave

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sep 19, 7:09*am, " > wrote:
> Compared to a standalone PCAS, PowerFLARM has a few things going for
> it:
>
> - The other PowerFLARM equipped aircraft will transmit the fact that
> it is transponder equipped in its FLARM signal.
> * PowerFLARM will then attempt a ‘data fusion’ to reduce nuisance
> alarms.
> * The fusion, off course, works best with Mode S transponders…
> * Once a match between a transponder and a FLARM signal has been made,
> * the higly accurate FLARM data is used and nuisance alarms are
> minimal.
>
> - The PowerFLARM user interface is sophisticated, yet simple.
> Suppressing the audio of the PCAS alert is trivial, so you will still
> see on the screen that there are transponder A/C equipped aircraft
> nearby but it will not constantly beep.
>
> - PowerFLARM can easily be updated through the SD Card / Serial / USB
> port. We have provided FREE updates to all devices ever shipped since
> 2004, vastly improving their performance and features.
> * So even if we would not get it right at first; dont despair,
> complain (to us, not RAS)...
>
> - We are glider pilots and we will make this work for glider pilots as
> otherwise we can never again show up on any gliderport, worldwide...
>
> Urs
> FLARM

Ability to switch off the noise is a good start. I hope the same will
be true for voice synthesizer (in respect to PCAS) when it becomes
available. If that is the case you got one more customer.

[Eric Greenwell]

On 9/19/2010 8:13 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sep 15, 6:02 pm, Eric > wrote:
>
>> I anticipate getting one next year, but since I already have a
>> transponder and MRX, I'm in no great need, so I'll let the other pilots
>> be the early adopters of the (initially) scarce units.
>>
> Eric will thus miss out on the introductory price
> for orders placed by year-end...
>

I do have a ping set in my calendar for late December ... ;-)

--
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

[Dave Nadler]

I've added a couple of FAQ entries and
edited the comparison table.
Hopefully this becomes a bit clearer...
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM
http://www.gliderpilot.org/FlarmFAQ
http://www.gliderpilot.org/FLARM-Comparisons